Talk:The Buddha

Thicket of parens in lead sentence

I agree with what I think User:Thylacine24 was going for in this edit to the lead sentence, trying to reduce the total number of parens in that convoluted sentence. I agree we should try to simplify this to make it more readable, but I reverted that attempt because it ended up leaving "better known as The Buddha" inside a parenthetical expression, as if it were just a detail, like a Pali alternative spelling, when in reality, it is central to the article. The main point of that sentence, scrubbed of excess detail, is this:

Siddhartha Gautama... better known as The Buddha... was a wandering ascetic

So the question is, how do we keep that sentence reasonably readable, while including such additional information to hand that is relevant? Partly that has been implemented so far by explanatory notes, and I think that's a fine solution, and maybe we want to go further with that. Not necessarily with more notes, but maybe fewer, with more detail, or maybe even bullet items listing alternate names or spellings. I think we can handle one occurrence each of the words Gautama, Siddartha, and [the] Buddha in the lead sentence, and everything else should be pushed to explanatory notes, or possibly even the second paragraph of the lead could be entirely devoted to alternate names, leaving the first sentence as:

• Siddhartha Gautama, better known as The Buddha, Gautama Buddha, and other names, was a wandering ascetic and religious teacher of South Asia who lived during the 6th or 5th century BCE.

Even just changing the explanatory notes from 'Note 9' to 'n 9' is a slight improvement visually, and imho, changing it to lower-alpha, would be even better. Also, I don't think Shakyamuni needs to be listed at all in the lead sentence, and can either be left to a second paragraph all about additional names, or placed in a note, as it is used much less often than the others. (See Talk:The Buddha/Tertiary sources.) Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Um, sorry.--Thylacine24 (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Thylacine24, nothing to apologize for; your version is defensible, and others may prefer your version, so it might end up carrying the day. You have the same right to present your views as anybody else. I think you did the article a service by making that edit and sparking the conversation about it. By all means jump in, if you feel like it. Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

'[The Buddha], [B]etter known as... Gautama Buddha' also is not what you want to convey, isn't it, given the recent title-change? These are the consequences of hsing an epithet instead of a personal name as an article title... And Shakyamuni is a relevant name in the Buddhist literature. I'd propose to get rid of the Pali names, and write "Siddharta Gautama, also known as Gautama Buddha and Shakyamuni among other names, commonly called/referred to as the Buddha'. NB: note the following from our article:

from the middle of the 3rd century BCE, several Edicts of Ashoka (reigned c. 269–232 BCE) mention the Buddha and Buddhism. Particularly, Ashoka's Lumbini pillar inscription commemorates the Emperor's pilgrimage to Lumbini as the Buddha's birthplace, calling him the Buddha Shakyamuni (Brahmi script: 𑀩𑀼𑀥 𑀲𑀓𑁆𑀬𑀫𑀼𑀦𑀻 Bu-dha Sa-kya-mu-nī, "Buddha, Sage of the Shakyas").

'Buddha' as designation for a specific class of exalted beings; Shakyamuni as the designation for this specific Buddha. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 01:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Joshua, maybe you're right; I was hurrying to get something out there quickly, and probably didn't pay enough attention. I'll be (mostly) away for a week, but will catch up after that if the situation hasn't resolved itself already. But what do you think about moving some of the parentheticals into notes, and shortening the^{[Note 3]} to^{[n 3]} to make them take less horizontal space and facilitate reading the main thrust of the sentence? Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Instead of more notes, I think we should maybe settle on birth name, article title, and maybe a third name but no more for the lede, and move the rest down into the article proper where they can be fleshed out and discussed in all their nuances, rather than trying to squeeze them all into the lede sentence. The current wording suggests that "Gautama Buddha and [Buddha] Shakyamuni" are variations of Siddartha Gautama, rather than variations of "the Buddha". "Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha, was..." seems perfectly fine as a lede. - Aoidh (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes to "move it down". That would definitely help, imho. And by "down", I'm okay with either another paragraph, or explanatory notes. Or also the body of the article (which is what I interpret as "article proper"?). Mathglot (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry yes, what I meant was the body of the article; The Buddha#Names and titles is a natural place for that content that could use more prose as opposed to more bullet points. But if we have to have a second sentence in the lede itself (just not the lede sentence) I'd be fine with that too, but the current lede is way too long and complicated with its 4 names and 5 explanatory notes within the first sentence. - Aoidh (talk) 06:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I already removed the parentheticals - but added new ones, [Buddha] Shakyamani. "Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha, was..." is fine with me too. We could consolidate the notes into one note, and use letters for the notes.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for the tweaking and streamlining of the intro. Combined with the new WP:COMMONNAME for the article, this all seems so much clearer and natural... Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Page move review

Interested parties are welcome to comment on the recent page move at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 October#The Buddha. --Yoonadue (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The morning after

So the Anglosphere had its way.

By this I don't mean any editors, but the viewpoints that were cited and promoted in order to rechristen a major religious figure in the language most accessible to the regions and traditions of faraway English-speaking worlds. But you would think that the morning after the article itself might show signs of clarity, lucidity, and coherence associated with the traditions of the Anglosphere. But you would be thinking wrong. For the relationship seems to be one of an inverse proportionality. I.e. the more that the talk page mavens dicker on the talk page, the worse the page becomes in communicating anything to anyone.

So please tell me what language—in the language traditions that began with the neurological mutation in Africa that enabled bipedal hominids to communicate—is the lead written in? For it seems to be nothing but a list of hooks to other articles each hook vying with the other for better positioning within phrases, clauses and sentences whose organizing principle is, "Grammar, style, and lucidity be damned." We have a text which is not only at variance with the organizing principles of communication, at least as envisioned by Boileau: What one truly understands clearly articulates itself. The words to say it come easily., but could also be seen to be disrespectful to the traditions of Buddhism, and religious traditions in general.

I am therefore adding a cleanup tag. I had broached this topic earlier once, even rewritten the lead, but it has gone back to a level of turgidity that is incompatible with the tolerance of natural language. Please rewrite the lead so that it reads like a coherent English language text without the reader having to click on the glut of WP:EASTEREGG links. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

There are also matters of simple logical incoherence which caused me to add "in English language sources" such as : "most commonly referred to as the Buddha, was a wandering ascetic and religious teacher who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE. He was the founder of Buddhism and is revered by Buddhists as a Buddha." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

So, what's he called in Chinese and Japanese? Frankly, I don't know. But I do know that several key BUddhist terms are deemed by scholars as best to be left untranslated (unfortunately, no example comes to my mind now). But "the Buddha/a Buddha" is a nice catch; I've merged the duplicity. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmm ... I don't really agree with the necessity of marring the article with a cleanup tag over this fairly minor issue, but yes, reduced piping would be better. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the "in English language sources" qualifier is necessary, because (1) the idea that this commonality is exclusive to the English language has not been demonstrated, and (2) this is the English Wikipedia, the wording is presumed English, and if a qualifier is needed it can be explained in the name section rather than the first sentence of the lede. It's inappropriate in the lede given that it is not a summary of the article itself. Can you give an example of another article (especially something like a GA or FA, where it's been under the microscope) where this kind of unnecessary "this is the name in English language sources" is given? - Aoidh (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

For want of obvious examples in other major languages, it's le Bouddha in French, El Buddha in Spanish, Y Bwdha in Welsh - so it's a least a European language thing. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Even that level of meta-analysis of the sources isn't something that (as far as I am aware) sources themselves have noted. If "the Buddha" is uniquely an English-language or even a Western-language usage, where are the sources supporting that conclusion? Reviewing a portion of sources and coming to that conclusion ourselves and inserting that claim in the article's prose as if it is a fact is WP:OR, especially to make that kind of sweeping claim in the very first sentence of the lede, which is supposed to be a very concise summary of what the article is, which is then further expanded upon. - Aoidh (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Names of the Buddha on other Wikipedias

The major languages? Here are the WP page names in some:

• Chinese: 释迦牟尼 = Shì jiā móu ní = Shakyamuni
• Hindi: गौतम बुद्ध = gautam buddh
• Español: Buda Gautama
• Français: Bouddha
• Urdu: گوتم بدھ = gotam budh
• Turkish: Gotama Buda
• Thai: พระโคตมพุทธเจ้า = Phra kho tm phuthṭh cêā = priest khotama phuththa ...
• Sinhala (Sri Lanka): ගෞතම බුදුන් = gautama budun
• Arabic: غوتاما بوذا = ghotama bud/zha
• Bengali: গৌতম বুদ্ধ = gotam boodh
• Scots: Gautama Buddha
• Japanese: 釈迦 Shaku Jia = Shakyamuni
• German: Siddhartha Gautama
• Italian:Gautama Buddha
• Dutch: Gautama Boeddha
• Sanskrit: Gautambuddha
• Portuguese: Sidarta Gautama
• The speakers above thus far, are more than half the population of the world. No evidence for "the buddha"

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

How other Wikipedia projects title pages in their articles has absolutely no bearing on this one, especially if that's the basis for the addition of the "in English language sources" wording. - Aoidh (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

F&f: WP:AT is policy, and states:

On the English Wikipedia, article titles are written using the English language.

What was the purpose of listing those foreign language names? Unless I'm missing something, they have no relevance to this discussion, which I thought you raised about the clarity/need for rewrite of the lead. Mathglot (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm all in favor of cleaning up a lead where it is warranted, but I admit to not understanding the tag content (since removed), which read:

|reason=Please rewrite the lead so as to make it a coherent and grammatical English language text without a glut of [[WP:EASTEREGG|opaque]] Wikilinks

On the contrary; like Pataliputra, I find the lead much clearer and more natural (regardless of article title) than it previously was, for most of which I credit Joshua Jonathan.

Above you mentioned missing "signs of clarity, lucidity, and coherence", but can you be more specific, and propose language which is better? I'd support your tag if there were something concrete behind it, but I just don't see it. For the moment, I support removal of the tag until we can identify a specific area that is so poor that it needs a "rewrite" because it is somehow not "coherent" or "grammatical". I just don't see what you are referring to; specifics, please.

Also, I don't see the point of adding "in English language sources"; this is English Wikipedia. The Sanskrit or Pali name could be included parenthetically per MOS:LEADLANG, but I doubt that would increase clarity or understanding for 99.9999% of readers, and in any case, could be covered more appropriately and more in depth in the first body section on § Etymology, names and titles, as indeed it already is. Mathglot (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Please tell me what sources are these, as the world's other major languages or Buddhist languages don't use this formulation at all on their Wikipedia, only the talk page mavens of the English Wikipedia have chosen to insult Gautama Buddha in such fashion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I did not say that was the reason, but obviously they have all reasoned in some fashion based on the sources in their respective languages. In none is there the insular grandiosity of the Anglosphere, the intellectual laziness. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

This comment addresses none of what was asked, and how articles are titled on other Wikipedia projects is irrelevant. Why is this template needed? I don't believe it is, since this current wording was the result of a talk page discussion in an attempt to improve the article. What wording is problematic? What wording do you propose? - Aoidh (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Would you like me to sample the other language sources? And what if I replicate the results? Will you revert back to the name the Historical Buddha is known by everywhere else, which in the English Wikipedia was Gautama Buddha for 15 years? Please put your money where your mouth is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Shall we argue about English syntax, coherence, and cohesion? Sentence by sentence? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The article is not going to play host to your WP:OR, and I am neither required to nor interested in disproving your unsubstantiated claims. We are far past the issue of the title, I am asking why you placed the tag, and what specifically is the issue? - Aoidh (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

F&f wrote,

Shall we argue about English syntax, coherence, and cohesion? Sentence by sentence?

If you believe that the lead is so bad that it is ungrammatical and incoherent, then, yes, we should discuss syntax, coherence, and cohesion; sentence by sentence if need be. Isn't that why you started this discussion in the first place? Or was it merely to generally complain about its current state without offering anything concrete that you claim needs attention? I see no actual movement in this discussion toward improving the article, or even concrete suggestions on how one might do so. As that is the principal reason for having a Talk page, I'd be tempted to list this discussion at Wikipedia:Closure requests, and get an uninvolved editor to assess whether this discussion should be closed as clearly going nowhere. Otoh, if you'll reread your own opening comment that started all this, and offer positive suggestions, I'm willing to discuss if you are. Mathglot (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• Let's start with sentence 1. Please tell me for starters how the Sanskrit noun श्रमण​: is a wandering ascetic.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to rewording that to something else, but wording Śramaṇa as "wandering ascetic" is not original research by any means. - Aoidh (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Nor am I. But if you would kindly reframe your discourse style, so that instead of simply railing about what utter crap the current article (lead/paragraph/sentence/clause/word) is, please instead propose something better, so that it can be discussed. If all you want to do is point out flaws, and not improve anything, then this is indeed going nowhere. So, echoing you: "Let's start with sentence 1," but instead of following up with what crap it is now, can we hear your suggestion for improving it? Otherwise, what are we doing here? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The prized doozy

• As a result of the frenetic back and forth, we now have: The Buddha thereafter wandered through the lower Indo-Gangetic Plain, teaching and building a monastic order.

• Please think about how silly this is. Middle school students know better. I have better things to do. All the best in reducing this article to shambles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• In case you missed it, the Indo-Gangetic plain refers to the combined alluvial plain of the Indus and Ganges river systems, it is the plain formed by the silt deposited by these Himalayan rivers and their tributaries into the trough formed by the subduction of the Indian tectonic plate under the Eurasian. The Indus and the Ganges empty into different bodies of water. Gautama Buddha was nowhere near the Indus. Please look at a map. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps follow the advice of the extended confirmed protection templates and make your suggestions in a "change X to Y" format. We might get somewhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Please ask your nearest middle school student to propose an improvement, since you seem either unable or unwilling to do so. The "better things to do" above sounds like refusal to engage to me; I'm going to request closure. Mathglot (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Amazing what the level of arrogance there is here. They are all Wikilawyering with the main author of the FA India; Ganges; Himalayas; the article Lion capital of Ashoka, the first artefactual evidence of Buddhism; and the leads of Sanskrit and Indus River. They don't even know what the Indo-Gangetic plain is. They are now calling it the lower Ganges plain, but it was the fringes of the small urban settlements of the newly deforested middle Ganges plain. It was a small area. Most of the middle Ganges valley was a forest. The are becoming huffy at my intervention, requesting closures, confusing rules-mongering on talk pages with a knowledge of the subject matter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: you should take a look where Gangetic Plain redirects to... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I know where it redirects to. But I am suggesting that people here do not understand the geography enough to write about the wanderings of the Buddha. It was a very small region. It could not have been otherwise. The middle Ganges plain in the mid-first millennium BCE had only recently been deforested, that too commonly only in the regions adjacent to the flood plains of the river or its tributaries. At this point, as I've stated before, I'm leaning toward rounding up the latest sources, both tertiary and secondary and rewriting the lead, watching precision and due weight. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

F&f, you added the phrase "lower" diff; Iskandar 323 "depiped" the link diff, changing it to "Indo-Gangetic plain"; I changed it to Gangetic Plain diff in response to you; "Gangetic plain" links to "Indo-Gangetic plain." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Which, as we know redirects to Indo-Gangetic Plain. But that article I think doesn't even mention the separate concept of the plain Gangetic Plain, which I would have thought is actually the more common term among the two, surely in Indian usage, where they aren't too concerned about the mainly Pakistani Indus plain, but also in global English sources. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Ganges basin

Jb: I just remembered there is a page. It is called Ganges Basin and it has Pfly's fabulous map from the Ganges page. If you follow the Gandak up from Patna, then the Buddha's birthplace Lumbini is just inside Nepal; the site of his enlightenment is below Patna, about twice below the latitude of Varanasi; then he went to Sarnath which is today a suburb of Varanasi. He died in Kushinagar which his halfway up the Gandak from Patna. I don't think he traveled much beyond the area encompassed by these towns. Or at least there is no hard evidence that he did. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

And there is even a page, I have now discovered, File:Buddhist pilgrimage sites in India.svg which has 8 sites, but I'm not sure about the blue ones. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Ccing also Mathglot. I don't know how accurate the pilgrimage site is, especially the blue dots Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Lumbini

Bodh Gaya

Sarnath

Rajgir

Sravasti

Sankassa

Vaishali

Kusinara

class=notpageimage|

The Eight Great Places in Buddhism (Four Great Places are plotted in red.)

There's also this one. All the Eight Great Places in Buddhism are as well-attested as each other, I think; most have Ashoka pillars. There's also Kapilavastu (ancient city), where the two possible sites (one in Nepal, one in India, natch) would I imagine both be covered by the same dot. Contrary to the common perception, the evidence is that after his Enlightenment, the Buddha spent a good deal of time in or just outside important cities like Sankassa and Rajgir, not wandering in the jungle as he did before. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think he was at Sravasthi, though there is plenty artwork of his miracles there, but all dating to many centuries later. The miracles are at the level of primative ones such as the Buddha elevating himself in the air and spewing fire and water, or creating a copy of himself and departing to preach to his mother Maya in heaven. That sort of evidence, the magical imaginings of cult still un-Buddhist in principles, is problematic when you are attempting to chart the journeys of a historical figure of a reform religion. I remember Lars Fogelin (Archaeological history of Indian Buddhism, OUP, 2015) saying somewhere that there is no archeological evidence of pre-Mauryan Buddhism in Sravasthi or Kausambi (as there is in Lumbini or even Kausali). There is no archaeological evidence of early Buddhist asceticism in India as there is in other Buddhist lands (such as Sri Lanka ca 3rd century BCE). But stories abound of a disciple at Sravasthi who was given the freedom to become an ascetic by the Buddha, etc. etc. At some point, I remember him Fogelin saying, continual negative evidence begins to mean something. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

So the core areas (Lumbini, Kapilvastu, Gaya, Sarnath, Vaishali, and Kushinagar and the smaller urban settlements they might have encompassed), Yes.

But Sankissa/Sankassa etc. No one seems to know where that was.

Buddhist sources had pegged Sravasthi's population at 6 million; that is three times the population of Delhi today. Exaggerations abounded once the Buddha was gone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Closure request

I've made a request for closure of this discussion here. As there is a closure backlog, and normally formal closure is reserved for Rfc, Afd, RM, and so on, it's likely this won't be acted on soon, if at all. Also, if there's a change of heart and a demonstrated desire to engage, I'll cancel the request. Nevertheless, as things stand now, any further effort in this discussion is a waste of editor time, in my opinion. Let's move on, and improve the article as needed in other ways. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I honestly don't think a formal closure is needed, since it's not hurting anything being opened and there's no lack of consensus or anything needing closure. - Aoidh (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Not opposed to letting it die a natural death. The request was more a way of avoiding additional wasted effort. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Update: closure request withdrawn, by Mathglot (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Effort in aid of what? Producing content of undue weight and synthesis written in incoherent faltering English? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

By the way I have no interest in changing the name of the article. The point of my intervention is that content has become much more unencyclopedic during the heat and light of the name change. I will rewrite the lead in one fell swoop when I have all the latest sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that you discuss such a "fell swoop" at the talkpage before implementing it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that you don't rewrite the lead in one fell swoop without discussion here first. WP:CONSENSUS is policy, and the major route to consensus where content may be at issue is through discussion at the Talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course I will on the main page per WP:BOLD and WP:DUE. I have seen the level of knowledge you all have. We'll see how you revert my edits, with what knowledge and what sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Someone making the kind of pointed edits and basic grammar mistakes that you have been making should not be so quick to criticize the edits of others. That you have to rely on attacking the characteristics of others betrays a comment that is otherwise without merit; such an attitude is a crutch to lean on when your comments cannot otherwise stand on their own, and what do you have to show for it? Not a single editor has once been swayed by your appeals to a self-asserted authority, and unsurprisingly no one has been swayed by your criticisms of them. In fact, consensus after consensus has been against you. No one cares what level of knowledge you personally think you or others have, if you can't show your work, it means nothing. If your comments had evidence to back up the claims rather than this "trust me guys I'm smarter than you" attitude, and you presented them without attacking others, maybe things would go your way? Just something to consider, because what you've been doing to this point has not worked, and if it continues I don't expect that will change any time soon. Like it or not, Wikipedia is collaborative; that you think you're right is not sufficient. - Aoidh (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I have interest in rewriting the lead and nothing else. That is because this is a vital article which is Wikilinked in the lead of the FA India, the flagship article for India-related content.

And when I rewrite the lead in poorly written articles, I write it as a template of sourcing with which to rewrite the rest of the article; it is obviously not a summary of inferior main body. We don't want Wikipedia's readers clicking out to shabby content. Has anyone here written the leads of South Asia-related articles with the range of Indus Valley Civilisation, Lion Capital of Ashoka, India, Sanskrit, Moghul Empire, the FA Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), Great Bengal famine of 1770, Timeline of major famines in India during British rule, Indian rebellion of 1857, Partition of India, Dominion of India, Raksha Bandhan, the FA Darjeeling, Mahatma Gandhi, Bhagat Singh, Subhas Chandra Bose, Shalwar kameez, Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, spanning 4,500 years of South Asian history? When I am ready, I will add an "inuse" tag and in the course of a day or two rewrite the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Your comments here betray the claim that I have interest in rewriting the lead and nothing else; your ongoing comments about other editors have nothing to do with rewriting the lede. Be aware that if your edits are of the same quality as previous ones that they will be reverted, so how you proceed with that is entirely up to you. Also, every time you point to other articles you have worked on, you may as well just say "please look at my past work rather than the merits of what I'm saying and doing now, because I don't want you looking at what doesn't stand up to scrutiny". It's at best a distraction from what matters, and is an appeal to an authority that does not exist. - Aoidh (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

When you have sunk arrogance in work, you may presume to teach me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Good luck then. - Aoidh (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean belie the claim. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Only if you mean "English-language sources". You continue to snipe from unsteady ground. - Aoidh (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot 2020 Delhi riots, and I'm sure quite a few others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; if you think that the article is not good, start with the contents of the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

JJ, you beat me to it; I was going to make the same remark. The only thing I'd add, is to make the links to MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY explicit. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

If you all know the rules, please try to undo the edits at 2020 Delhi riots or Mughal Empire. Those had admin supervision. Or do so at Subhas Chandra Bose or Bhagat Singh, which still do, or Indian rebellion of 1857 or Sanskrit, or Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus even short leads such as Caste had administrative supervision. In none of them is my lead a summary of the poorly sourced and written article content. They've survived for years. They've been used by the OED, which modeled its definition of the British Raj on ours. Given the general POV-promotion in South Asia topics (which have already brought WP:ARBIPA), people have often requested me to edit the leads of controversial pages with admin supervision. I've been doing this for years going back to user:Nichalp admin and arb who was the driving force behind early SA-related featured content on WP. Forget the lead, in instances, I've even crafted the first two sentences of the leads of a group of articles. Witness the format in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir or Aksai Chin. All with admin supervision. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I've added {{section sizes}} to the header section at the top. If there's going to be an effort to adjust the lead, we might as well have the data we need about the relative content size of the body sections, so that the lead can take its cues from that distribution. Mathglot (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. A disproportionally large part is devoted to his 'traditional biography', that is, sacred fiction c.q. mythology. This might as well be split-off to a stand-alone article. Another large part is devoted to his teachings; this, of course, repeats contents from other pages. That leaves little about an historical person: 'he lived in the 5th century, taught a way to nirvana c.q. vimutti, and founded a monastic order'. What's missing is the perception/reception of 'the Buddha' in the later Buddhist tradition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

At 71kB, the readable prose size is not at a particularly obnoxious size at this point, certainly not for a major religious figure, so splitting is optional, but not essential. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: thank you for that, I did not know that template existed and it would have come in handy over the years, so I've learned something today. It's too bad it can't also show the size of the prose rather than just the total bytes which includes refs and formatting, but it's a lot better than nothing. - Aoidh (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Great; if it stimulates discussion about how to improve the article body, and/or the lead, that would be terrific. Will follow brainstorming about possible split-offs or other arrangements with interest (possibly in a new section?). As far as suggestions for prose bytes, that might be doable in a third column; try a proposal with {{Request edit}} at the Template talk page; I'd be happy to endorse if you ping me from there. Mathglot (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between talk page verbal gymnastics and the creation of encyclopedic content. Big difference. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

And if I find there is too much OR in the article, I will bring it up at WP:AE. It is a South Asia-wide problem on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree, introducing WP:OR into the article would not be an improvement, though fortunately that's something we can all keep an eye out for. - Aoidh (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed graphic showing range of Buddha's wanderings

I had an idea for a graphic that I would find personally useful myself at the article, and I wonder what others think. Assuming that List of places where Gautama Buddha stayed is accurate, or that we could find more or less the range of Buddha's wanderings during his life, a map centered on these locations and pinpointing or labeling the principal locations might be interesting and informative for our readers. Clearly birth, death, Bodh Gaya, and a few others would rate among the principal locations. I've had very good experiences with the map mavens at the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop on a variety of topics, and if we can come up with a description of an illustration or map that would be useful in this article, the folks at the Graphics Lab could create it for us. (As an example of something they created upon request, see for example File:Oradour-sur-Glane massacre.jpg.) Any thoughts about an image or illustration that would help readers visualize and understand the geographic range of the Buddha's perigrinations? Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It would be a sterling example of the OR to which I am referring. We are talking about India's first historical figure, or more accurately the first historical figure in a traditionally ahistorical culture. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The tenuousness of anything reliable can be gauged by the British recreation of Buddhist history in the early years of the 20th century. See my Lion capital of Ashoka#History. It was recreation of the first recreation c.a. 250 BCE, some 200 years after Gautama Buddha's death. Until the turn of the 20th-century, evidence of the Buddha's sojourns as a renunciate on the fringes of new urban settlements, was pretty much non-existent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

From the article:

According to Schumann, the Buddha's wanderings ranged from "Kosambi on the Yamuna (25 km south-west of Allahabad )", to Campa (40 km east of Bhagalpur)" and from "Kapilavatthu (95 km north-west of Gorakhpur) to Uruvela (south of Gaya)." This covers an area of 600 by 300 km. His sangha enjoyed the patronage of the kings of Kosala and Magadha and he thus spent a lot of time in their respective capitals, Savatthi and Rajagaha.

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll come back in a couple of week's time and assess where things are at. Obviously, I'll be respectful of preexisting reliable and due content. And I'll be happy to present the edits at the talk page as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate this comment, thank you very much. If your proposed changes are as thought out and well written as India's lede, I'm sure the end result will be an improved article, which I have no doubt all of us are after. - Aoidh (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Unless you have magical powers, it's impossible to label something "a sterling example of... OR" when it doesn't exist yet. Rather than condemning the idea a priori, why not join in and discuss what might be a useful addition to the article? Let's remember that WP:Verifiability does not require that something is provably true beyond the shadow of a doubt (otherwise we couldn't have an article about Achilles) just that the content we include is a faithful summary of the preponderance of reliable sources about a subject. A great deal of the information in this article cannot be authenticated as true, down to the years or even century of his existence, but that does not mean the entire article is OR; as long as we follow the sources, it is not OR. A map that would cover the places most commonly referred to in reliable sources about the Buddha would be helpful imho to readers trying to understand where the events of his life took place. The caption could even be footnoted, if that would assuage your concerns.Mathglot (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

So do you have any Buddha-related content to offer here, or will you be acting officiously busy polishing the bells and the whistles of content that does not exist? How silly is this? Relentless talk page sophistry; no knowledge displayed thus far of the Buddha. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind this, so long as it is presented as "by tradition" rather than as fact, and is conservative and well-sourced. The list at Buddhist pilgrimage sites in India#Places_associated_with_the_life_of_Buddha probably accurately reflects local traditions but is probably much too long. I don't think scholars are inclined to believe in the visits to Haryana and Andhra for example. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I've replied to a part of this post somewhere else, Jb. I think a brief mention of "by tradition" wanderings is fine for the main body. But the lead should have only the main four pilgrimage sites and a brief general mention of the northern- (or north- and central) mid-Ganges Basin. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I endorse Mathglot's suggestion a graphic be created about the wanderings of this subject. This is a sensible idea to help visualize and contextualize information about a contentious subject. "By tradition" is a useful viewpoint (although distinctively marking locations with various ranges of importance/authenticity should be an easy thing for cartographers to accommodate, even if multiple maps are required), and if such is drafted for discussion, it might be wise to establish consensus in some venue (perhaps here) before 1) submitting the request and 2) publishing a final version 1.0. I endorse F&f's caution about creating our own problem, OR-wise. Such a map would certainly help understand the chronology, which I'll concede is difficult to follow for someone not readily familiar with physical or political geography of the area both at the time in question and in the present day. BusterD (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that some valuable suggestions, including a proposed map with map pins, have been proposed in response to points raised in this discussion, but for some reason were posted to section § The prized doozy above. (Moving those comments here might be a good solution.) Mathglot (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Sramana

I still prefer to use the word sramana in the first sentence, with a wiki-link, as this is in essence what the Buddha was. As for the translation, we could also use "wandering mendicant," but I'm not sure if "mendicant" is such a well-known word for the average reader. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Nor is wandering. Nor yet ascetic. The Buddha was not an ascetic, but a renunciate, as is well known. The former performed their death rites before abandoning family and caste and thereafter living in isolation; the latter abandoned family and caste but did not perform their death rites as they took on new obligations to the community or sangha, living in the margins of urban settlements where charities were aplenty and donations for monasteries feasible. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I definitely think that if we're going to use the word śramaṇa in the lede that it should be wikilinked, no matter how its further elaborated upon, per MOS:UL. - Aoidh (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Ha, nice! I just wanted to add that "renunciate," as used by you above, would also be fine. Just like "middle" was a good correction. You're referring to Romila Thapar. Reginald A. Ray (1999), Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations, Oxford University Press, p.65-67, also explains this distinction, but argues that the Buddha (first) was an ascetic, or "forest renunciate," while for the later sangha "town-and-village renunciation" wasnormative. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I think he is an historical figure only after Sarnath. The enlightenment bit which many post-polytheistic religious thinkers had in different forms (e.g. prophet Muhammad has his revelation in the cave at Hira (gharr-e-hira in Farsi and Urdu; not sure about the name in Arabic) is in the realm of legendary histories. In encyclopedia articles, in my view, the socio-cultural histories of such figures should have prominence.

As a general principle of collaboration people should aim at heuristic arguments rather than presenting sources, for even when they are not precise, they show maturity of understanding and digested knowledge. Also, it is best not to waste too much time on illustrations. They are always secondary; they are not a replacement for prose that might be problematic in the first place. Anyway, I have to run. Will check again in a couple of week's time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to make a plea that we not include Sramana in the first sentence. Per the MOS guideline MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE:

The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English.

The term sramana clearly doesn't qualify as "plain English", and a non-specialist, such as your average university student will have no prior exposure to the term. If we must include it, it should be parenthetical, following the roughly equivalent English expression, or be in an explanatory note, but I'd prefer to postpone use of the Sanskrit until the second paragraph, where it already appears. Mathglot (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The word renunciate as a noun (or adjective) is rare in English, as Wiktionary correctly points out. (I could not find it in my 2-volume Webster's Unabridged, or in NOAD; online, neither M-W nor AHD have it.) The only place it is not rare, is in discussion of Hindu, Buddhist, or other religious philosophy, where by far the majority of usage is found, so anyone not already familiar with the topic is unlikely ever to have encountered the word before. I think it could be okay in the body (especially if wikilinked) but in the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH or especially in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE it will obscure much more than it illuminates. Mathglot (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It is in line, though, with Great Renunciation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Is he most known for being a renunciate though? Why not use a phrase already in the article's body, and say "was a South Asian teacher who founded Buddhism." If we have to call it religious teacher or something I'd be fine with that, but I think if you asked someone to be super concise about what he was known for, they'd say (1) enlightenment and (2) his teachings. The Buddha and his teachings are two of the three jewels, and it would reflect the lede of the Buddhism article, and there are certainly sources that describe him as such. - Aoidh (talk) 08:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, good argument. But please not "spiritual"; that's a modern western euphemism! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The lead should be constructed backwards from the last paragraph. The lead sentence should be the last. You are all wasting time on a sentence or two that will end up being revised after the rest of the lead has been written. The lead sentence is the most distilled summary, and thus the hardest to pin down at this stage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

A similar word is renunciant. Obviously, the OED is the final arbiter.

Webster's Unabridged has a token line (see at the end); and Wiktionary is crowd sourced.

The OED Third Revised Edition (2010, last updated 2022) has both renunciate (n and verb) and renunciant (n and adj) and the attested examples. They are not by any means limited to Hinduism or Buddhism.

renunciate (n):

A person who renunciates or gives up something; esp. a religious person who has renounced a secular way of life. Cf. renunciant n.

1899 G. Jha' tr. Chha'ndogya Upanishad & Sri Sankara's Comm. ii. viii. Comm., in Upanishads IV. 355 Paramahansa—Renunciates, who have renounced all desire for the external world.

1971 Philos. East & West 21 285 McKenzie then points out that when the several orders of friars..arose from the thirteenth century on, the work of religious renunciates spread into the ministry, teaching, and scholarship.

1977 N.Y. Times Mag. 4 Dec. 43/2 ‘I had a Mercedes Benz, a Triumph 500, a Cessna 172 and an MG,’ he told me, with the inverse pride of the renunciate.

1993 Gnosis Winter 49/2 For a long time I was a renunciate, which was pushing away ‘these’ for ‘those’.

2007 Yoga Mag. Oct. 35/1 There has never been any need to be a hermit or ascetic, to live life as a renunciate, to practice clever contorted asans or even to grow dreadlocks!

renunciant n and adj:

A. n.

A person who renounces something; esp. one who renounces ordinary life for spiritual purposes or (Law) who renounces his or her citizenship.

1745 Suppl. to Reply in Vindic. Kindred Mr. T. v. 33 The Renunciation of an Inheritance, under the Condition that it came to the Renunciant, must be deprived of all Effect, by the Renunciant's Profession.

1827 T. Carlyle tr. J. W. von Goethe Wilhelm Meister's Trav. in German Romance IV. 33 (title) Wilhelm Meister's travels; or the renunciants [Ger. die Entsagenden].

1843 Times 1 Dec. 4/2 It is, indeed, in spirit a free translation of a certain technical disclaimer well known to the venerable renunciants themselves, ‘Nolo episcopari’ &c.

1848 T. Arnold Let. 2 Jan. (1966) 216 Even now there is a little band of Renunciants scattered over the world.

1931 E. Wilson Axel's Castle viii. 257 All were pessimists, renunciants, resignationists, ‘tired of the sad hospital’ which earth seemed to them.

1946 Far Eastern Surv. 15 109/2 Floods of petitions from renunciants who have sought to cancel their renunciations of citizenship.

1973 R. Ellmann Golden Codgers 110 Each of them is a renunciant, who gives up contentment for the sake of his art.

1997 J. Bowker World Relig. 77/2 The Hindu ideal of four stages of life, or ashramas, which are student, householder or family person, forest-dweller, and renunciant.

Here's Websters Unabridged. It doesn't have renunciate, only renunciant:

re·nun·ci·ant

noun \ rə̇ˈnən(t)sēənt \

inflected form(s): plural -s

one who renounces (as the world)

Origin of RENUNCIANT

Latin renuntiant-, renuntians, present participle of renuntiare to renounce — more at renounce Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know about Sramana. My suspicion is that the Hindu-POV promoters among historians of religions of India tend to use of the word and posit the widespread existence of that group of ascetics and renunciants in mid-first-millennium BCE India. I believe that viewpoint was a reaction to the British discovery of Sarnath in 1905 and the widespread awe in which Buddhism came to be held as a result. Most bluntly, the "sramana" usage is a Hindu (and party Jain) reaction to India's first religious reform movement (Buddhism) and the first historical figure (the Buddha after Sarnath) being upgraded in value and a way to bring Buddhism down a notch (by have all three Buddhism, Jainism, and Upanishadic Hinduism trace their roots to the Sramana). I vote against its use in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

And I mean in any form, overtly or in Easter egg. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

By Hindu-POV promoters I don't mean Hindu-nationalist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Mathglot to some extent: renunciant is probably more common that renunciate as nouns which is how we are using it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: that's a very interesting view, on the use of the word "sramana" by Hindu-POV promoters. Usually, such promoters portray Buddhism as an off-shoot of Hinduism. Could you elaborate on this possibility, that is, is there any source which could back-up this view? And I don't mean that in a polemical way; I'd like to know more on such a possibility. In the same line of thought, maybe you could add a few lines to Sarnath on those archaeological excavations, and "the widespread awe in which Buddhism came to be held as a result"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean the more sophisticated nationalist historians or art historians, not the outright reductionists. I think even Coomaraswamy might have been of that ilk. Will look. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks; looking forward to it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The word "sramana" (samanna) was already used by the early Buddhists: Samaññaphala Sutta. I don't get the meaning of "reform religion"; it reminds of the out-fashioned notion that the Buddha 'reformed' 'Hinduism' (which didn't exist at that time) or Brahmanism. The Buddha used terminology from the Brahmins to convey his message, but gave it his own meaning; see the publications of Johannes Bronkhorst and Richard Gombrich. Sramanas have a prominent role in the suttas; they are the peer-group, so to speak, of the Buddha, who is portrayed in the suttas as critizising the views of other sramanas.
On a further note: maha sramana is one of the epithets of the Buddha; it was already known by 19th century British explorers. See Janice Leoshko, Sacred Traces: British Explorations of Buddhism in South Asia, p.39. See also this publication from 1856, referring to " "Maha Sramanah" at the "Sarnath slab." And Donald Lopez Jr., The Scientific Buddha: His Short and Happy Life, Yale University Press, states at p.24: "Those names and epithets were few; he tended to be known as either Buddha or Sakyamuni in China, Korea, Japan, and Tibet, and as either Gotama Buddha or Samana Gotama (“the ascetic Gotama”) in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia." So, the use of the term "sramana" is as old as Buddhism itself, and deeply rooted and accepted in the Buddhist tradition. And the translation "ascetic" is used by on of the top scholars of Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You are engaging in the same undigested dropping of names and sources without qualitative arguments that I've warned you against. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

How was it not a reform movement? Did the Buddha accept caste? There are discourses of him and disciples rejecting heredity as a determinant of social standing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"Undigested" is an unnecessary, offensive qualification. You've been asked many times to refrain from such qualifications; it's not helpfull at all in improving the article. Instead, come up with sources which substantiate your line of reasoning. As long as you don't, it's no more than your personal opinion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The main point is that in a lead you cannot present links that are not obvious ones. The term sramanas whether or not it existed in the Buddha's time, is applied today to forms of rejection of the prevalent ritual practice which had encouraged family life in favor of abandonment of family, forest dwelling, and internalized practice. The sramanas were mostly kshatriyas. The 29-year-old Siddhartha Gautama abandoned his sleeping wife and newborn in the dead of night and wandered off into the forest to become a seeker. That act of cruelty cannot be simply papered over with "renounced lay life." It has to be described precisely per the tradition. This was not a man who did not enter conjugal life, per later Buddhist renunciants, but someone who abandoned individuals, very likely vulnerable ones, who had no choice in the matter. I am not advocating original research, only rejecting the use of cliched terms to mask biographies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

summary style is just as needed for talk pages. When talk page communication becomes a form of engaging in list making, true communication is being obscured. This form of obsurantism can be equally offensive to those who make the effort to summarize. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you; that's a usefull reply. NB: I agree with your assessment of Siddharta's home-leaving (though this is not a factual account, of course, but a 'mythological'/'pedagogic' account): cruel indeed. There are suttas which address the anquish of young men having gone forth, but deeply missing their family... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-legendary person

I've merged the sections on his 'biography' to one section under the header of "Semi-legenedary person," as the "traditional biographies" are hardly historical biographies, but 'sacred fiction'. As Wynne states: "Buddhist scholars [...] have mostly given up trying to understand the historical person." Yet, those accounts are also not totally ahistoric or legendary, as they refer to verifiable historical places, persons and areas. Hence the term "semi-legendary person," to mark the difference with the "Historical person," but also to couple the two sections by using partly different, partly the same terms. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

If you do, can we change the heading, please? There's a difference between a semi-legendary biography, and a semi-legendary person. Achilles might be referred to as a semi-legendary person, but the Buddha is a historical person with a semi-legendary biographical tradition, not at all the same thing. I think it's important to maintain that distinction, and a heading like "Semi-legendary person" might lead naive readers to conclude that maybe the question of the Buddha's existence is on the same level as that of Achilles, which would be a disservice to the reader. Mathglot (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Tyvm. Mathglot (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence

F&f's proposal

I see that you are going back and forth on the lead sentence. You have now settled on a least common denominator, like the first line of a Haiku, which says nothing. May I suggest that you not get hung up on whether or not the lead sentence is true to this source or that, that you focus on the historical figure, not the one of tradition or art, and aim for something that actually communicates something. You have already wasted an inordinate amount of community time, just because one spectacularly insistent editor went on several sniping expeditions by dickering over inconsequentials. May I propose something along the lines of:

Siddhartha Gautama or Gautama Buddha, commonly the Buddha, was a historical figure in South Asia in the mid-first millennium BCE who founded a religious movement aiming to overcome suffering by privileging detached awareness insight, precepts for conduct recognizing all sentient beings, and a monastic tradition disavowing heredity, that upon evolving and spreading to large parts of Asia has come to be called Buddhism.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for proposing this at the talkpage; I understand the gist of what you're trying to communicate. Unfortunately, "privileging insight" is a later development... His main focus was on dhyana/samadhi, detached awareness. Insight is one of two mental qualities 'fulfilled' with the 'development of mind'. This 'privileging of insight' is thr topic of a scholarly debate that's been going on for a couple of decades. See Keren Arbel, Early Buddhist Meditation, for an overview. Also, "suffering" is just one of several possible translations of dukkha; it would need a specification. Apart from that, this sentence is written in a style that will not be easily accessible for the average reader. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, by privileging detached awareness. How do you know about the average reader? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You mean the average reader will understand the breathtaking mumbo-jumbo as in Leading a life of begging, asceticism, and meditation, he attained enlightenment at Bodh Gaya in what is now India, discovering a path to Nirvana, that is, freedom from ignorance, craving, rebirth and suffering. The Buddha thereafter wandered through the middle Gangetic Plain, teaching a Middle Way between sensual indulgence and severe asceticism, and building a monastic order. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Where are the tertiary sources that state that suffering is not apt, per WP:TERTIARY and its pertinence in undue weight Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Point taken ("mumbo jumbo"). Hard to follow for the average reader is subjective, of course. But that's my impression. I understand what you're writing (and I like the nuance of "founded a religious movement ... come to be called Buddhism), but I have to read it carefully to understand it, while I'm quite aquainted with Buddhism.

Swap awareness and precepts, in line with four truths and other lists, and find a term more nuanced than "suffering," and I'll be happy to see the response of other editors. I'll look for an alternative too, and show you some sources.

Regarding "detached awareness," see Thanissaro Bhikkhu, One Tool Among Many: "When they depict the Buddha telling his disciples to go meditate, they never quote him as saying "go do vipassana," but always "go do jhana."" The emphasis on insight is typical for the Theravada-tradition, relying on Buddhaghosa, whose understanding of dhyana deviates from the sutta-accounts.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is BBC's take for the GCSE students: (i.e. GCSE is the qualification taken by 15 and 16 year olds to mark their graduation from the Key Stage 4 phase of secondary education in England, Northern Ireland and Wales.)

Central to the Buddha’s teachings is the aim of overcoming suffering.

I am suggesting that we move away from specialist sources for the lead. We cannot judge due weight, only follow tertiary sources that do (for better or worse). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

See dukkha; dukkha is typically one of those words best left untranslated. Straightforward "suffering" implies one will never suffer anymore: no pain, no sickness, et cetera. It's more subtle, like mental anquish, caused by misdirected intentions. Again, read Dukkha#Buddhism, including note 1, for further explanation; your English is better than mine, and I trust you can find a formulation which is both accurate and short. Or, just use " suffering (dukkha)" - but that's kind of back to square one, isn't it, with special8st language in the first sentence?... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Please write the first few lead sentences without wikilinks but with a few qualifications as above, so I can understand what needs to be said. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Btw, most people understand what suffering is, that it is not the physical symptoms necessarily, but the mental perception of physical symptoms even when a physical illness is involved. e.g. Camus: To live with your passions is to live with your sufferings. They are the counterpoise, the corrective, the balance, and the price. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I will, but later; cats and family need dinner. You're on vacation? If so, have a good time (otherwise, also have a good time of course). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot's proposal

I don't agree that the current first sentence (rev. 1120315384) says nothing, and I appreciate the effort of trying to find the right wording, but the relatively large amount of churn in the lead lately may be too much, and I agree that the first sentence could be improved. The current rev reads like this:

Siddhartha Gautama (5th cent. BCE), most commonly referred to as the Buddha, was a South Asian renunciate who founded Buddhism.

Talking it out here first, and then installing an agreed-upon version after consensus is achieved is probably better for the article and for our readers than constant change to the live article. On the plus side, MOS:FIRST says:

The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English

and the current version attempts to answer the who / when / where aspects. I have a problem with the word renunciate (or variants of it) due to the "plain English" exhortation, which I've addressed previously above. I think you're on the right track with your who/where/when (and maybe what/how, but that could be left to a later sentence). It seems like most of the disagreement is revolving around the "what" ('sramana'/wandering ascetic/renunciate), although the "where" (currently "South Asian") is too vague, and could be improved, too. Attacking the where first (because I suspect it may be easier): what about something like,

...from the Ganges Basin in [what is now] northern India [near the Nepal border]...

Also, as we attempt to find wording for the what (which seems more contentious, at least on this Talk page), let's not forget we have recourse to the /Tertiary sources page, which could be mined for possible wording options. A few phrases I see there, include these:

Excerpts of descriptions from /Tertiary sources

prince of a small kingdom spanning northern India and Nepal.... founder of Buddhism founder or re-founder of the Buddhist tradition son of a local ruler of a kingdom on the western slopes of the Himalaya founder of Buddhism, the religion and philosophical system that produced a great culture throughout much of southern and eastern Asia one of the epithets of a teacher who flourished in northern India sometime between the 6th and 4th century before the Common Era the founder of the Buddhist faith an Indian philosopher, religious teacher, and the historical founder of Buddhism Indian spiritual leader and founder of Buddhism

The most common element by far, is "founder of Buddhism", or words to that effect, which is a strong endorsement for those words already in our version of the first sentence, so whatever other changes we consider, I think it's essential that that phrase be kept (and I haven't heard anyone say anything to the contrary, I'm just making explicit what perhaps until now has been understood without comment). As far as characterizing what he was, we have terms like religious teacher, spiritual leader, and so on, and perhaps some sort of wording like that would be helpful.

Trying to put this all together into something concrete, what about something like:

Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha, was a spiritual leader from northern India who wandered roamed the Ganges Basin in the 5th century BCE preaching a philosophy of renunciation of earthly desires, and is recognized as the founder of Buddhism.

To me, this satisfies the "plain English" requirement, as well as the who/when/where, and a bit of the "what". Or, if we wanted to emphasize more what it is he gave up, we could say,

Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha, was a spiritual leader from northern India born to luxury, who gave up wealth and family to wander roam the Ganges Basin in the 5th century BCE preaching a philosophy of renunciation of earthly desires, and is recognized as the founder of Buddhism.

If I were going to read just one sentence that told me who, when, where, and what he was, that sentence is pretty close to a self-contained description. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC) changed 'wandered' to 'roamed', which includes both the "without purpose or direction" sense of 'wander', as well as the purposeful sense of 'traveled'. Mathglot (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

P.S., while I'm not opposed to including the reference footnotes or explanatory notes in the MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE as the current revision has, I think that it's equally acceptable to leave them all out. All of this is adequately covered in the body of the article with appropriate sourcing, which, per MOS:CITELEAD does not need to be repeated here, unless it's considered contentious (or is a quotation; not applicable here). Leaving them out will further simplify the sentence, and appear more welcoming to readers, and, hopefully, draw them further into the WP:LEAD, and then into the body of the article. Mathglot (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot, your first proposal is fine with me, except for "spitual leader"; "spiritual" nowadays has the association of well-being, self-development, etc., which is not what his teachings were about. I'd prefer "religious teacher." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I read this discussion and I too support the first proposal by Mathglot along with Joshua Jonathan's proposed correction, "religious teacher". --Yoonadue (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point, and agree. I think "religious teacher" is fine, and probably better, for the reasons you both indicate. Let's wait for further input (or objections) before implementing, as I think once we all agree, we can achieve a lead that will be stable for a while. Mathglot (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The first suggestion above amended with 'religious teacher' seems like a good option to me too - aside from being supported, it expands on the what and where relative to the current first sentence while also not getting too wordy. It meets the criteria of being relatively plain English, informative and more or less straight to the point. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

By the way, on the postscript (about dropping refs & notes), how do you feel about this? If you don't feel there's some overriding reason to keep them, I'd like to try dropping them (or, if there's some unique information that is not in the body, then just moving the refs/notes to the appropriate spot in the body text). Thoughts on this? Mathglot (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

MOS:CITELEAD suggests adding citations in the lead where the information is controversial, which is true for very little of this content. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Birth date could be controversial. And nepalese will object to "northern India," but in common parler " northern India" is understandable. And Nepal is mentioned in the second alinea. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The birth date is not part of the proposals above, and we needn't mention the birth place in the first sentence, so we can worry about that aspect later. Neither Jesus nor Muhammad mentions the birthplace in the first sentence, for example. Muhammad doesn't mention it until paragraph two of the lead, and Jesus not until the second major section of the article body. Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

F&f's response

Neither the first proposal by Mathglot nor the second is anywhere near what is accurate nor what is the encyclopedic style in plain English. I trust Joshua Jonathan in this matter. They have a long record of contributing to ancient South Asia topics. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I also do not know what "tertiary" sources someone above has anonymously cited. WP:TERTIARY specifically mentions widely used undergraduate textbooks in the topic area (in this instance ancient South Asian history) that have been vetted for due weight. Only they are allowed to summarize secondary sources. Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund's A History of India, 6th edition, Routledge 2014, is such a text book. David Ludden's India and South Asia, 2nd edition, or Peter Robb's History of India, 2nd edition are such books. For geographical grounding, Michael Fisher's An Environmental History of India, CUP, 2018, and for demographic grounding Tim Dyson's A Population History of India, OUP, 2019, might be good books. For archaeological grounding, Lars Fogelin's Introduction to the archaeology of Buddhism, OUP, 2015, is a good book. Romila Thapar's A History of India is useful but probably not the best book as it is somewhat dated, though still written by a major historian of ancient India. The Princeton History of Buddhism is too detailed; it is not appropriate for the balanced statements in a lead. I am happy to recommend other text books. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

As South Asia's first historical figure, the chronicling of whose life was a major early feature of recorded South Asian history, the Buddha more properly belongs to assessments of history textbooks, than those of religion or art. In such an article, i.e. a vital WP article about the Buddha's life, the latter group have only a supplementary role to play in the balanced language of the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The Wiki-article makes abundantly clear that close to knowing nothing can be known about the 'historical' person of the Buddha. The sources for his 'biography' are Buddhist texts, and these are not historical chronicles, but religious text. That's also why the lead says "According to Buddhist tradition." That he was a muni from the Shakyas, who wandered the middle Ganges basin (or whose early community was present in the places mentioned in the sutras) and inaugurated a monastic order, and whose teachings are preserved (in an elaborated form) in the Nikayas, seem to be save statements. Almost anything else is in the realm of sacred fiction, not history. Hack, even the enlightenment narrative is questionable, on very good textual grounds... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

It does not make any difference. WP policy is clear. It is the introductory textbooks in the relevant topics that have the first dibs in vital areas. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

If the history text books use "according to Buddhist tradition" reliably and repeatedly, fine. But not if they don't. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

But you can't yourself summarize secondary sources, which you seem to be doing. It is a sure-fire way of introducing WP:UNDUE into a vital article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSPRIMARY:

Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.

Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

"Summarizing secondary sources ourselves" is what Wikipedia editors do, in all 6.5 million articles. It is how Wikipedia works. There are some policies and guidelines around the edges for specific concerns, but if there is just one rule you have to memorize in order to edit here, it's: "go find reliable secondary sources and summarize them, and write that in the article". Everything else is window dressing. So, JJ, if you find "yourself summariz[ing] secondary sources", then keep on doing it. It's the only reason we're here, as editors. Mathglot (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course, in order to make reliable statements; and there not just secondary sources, but if possible even WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

But in deciding WP:DUE, it is WP:TERTIARY that is important. Wikipedia policy is clear:

Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.

It saves us from WP:FALSEBALANCE Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

And high-level secondary sources (i.e. broad-scale, low-resolution) such as a review of the secondary literature in a journal article, or an introductory chapter in a more specialized monograph might also be appropriate. See WP:BALANCE:

Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

But it is very important that we not summarize the net balance of secondary sources ourselves. We can only paraphrase the tertiary summaries of the balance in secondary sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

It is very important that we do summarize the net balance of secondary sources ourselves. There is no greater purpose for a Wikipedia editor than that. If you are unable to summarize secondary sources as an editor, then you are not a net positive to the project, and you should retire and go find another pastime. Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at Kulke an Rothermund; they are not what I call "reliable" on this topic. "Reform movement" is an outdated notion; the Buddhist scriptures do not "throw a flood of light on the Buddha"; the first split probably did not appear at the second council, but later, during or maybe even after the reign of Ashoka. It does not look like a "broad summary," nor like they used "many" sources. Anyway, regarding "evaluat[ing] due weight," we need a balance between (scarce) historical fact, semi-legendary biography, and a short summary of his teachings, as this is a substantial element of the article. Mathglot's first proposal gives a neat summary of the historical aspects, for which there will be little disagreement among the various sources; the present second alinea, which can be further tweaked or shortened, gives a summary of the semi-legendary biographies and the teachings; together they present a fair balance between history, legend, and teaching. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion or mine is not important. WP policy is clear. We don't matter.

In other words, if the predominance of tertiary historical sources call it a reform movement, our hands our tied. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I've added sources with quotes. To these you might want to add:

• Peter Robb's History of India,
• Lars Fogelin's Architectural History of Indian Buddhism, Oxford, 2015.
• The couple of sentences on the legacy of the Buddha in art (in the lead) should be sourced to a well-worn textbook on art, as for example found in Johnbod's Life of the Buddha in art.

The proposed edits should be sourced in a judicious manner to a combination of these sources without employing any one unduely. Otherwise, you will be creating false balance. I have to go now. But please remember again: balance on WP is not the consensus of individual editors, but those of tertiary sources summarizing the balance of secondary ones. The failure to understand this has created a wide swath of OR, Synthesis, and Imbalance on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

"balance on WP is not the consensus of individual editors" wrong. You are supposed to gain consensus by engaging with editors but ensure there is no policy violation.

Sources that are promoting outdated and rejected theories on the subject cannot be treated as WP:RS for this subject. --Yoonadue (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Please post at the talk page of WP:TERTIARY and attempt to change the consensus over policy. Please do the same at WP:BALANCE and WP:FALSEBALANCE.

The books I have listed are the books used in the FA India. There is no reason that a class B and sometimes class C, article such as Gautama Buddha (mainly for the reasons that it is riven with original research) should have different standards than Wikipedia's oldest country FA, now 18 years old.

Mathglot has mounted an admirable effort at Talk:The Buddha/Tertiary sources, but they have listed encyclopedias, companions, and dictionaries, not the tertiary sources

(i.e. introductory textbooks published by major academic publishers that have been vetted for balance) that play a role in achieving balance. I will soon be adding the Google Scholar citations for the books I have listed. Kulke and Rothermunde for example have been cited a staggering 876 times in the scholarly literature including by scholars such as Sheldon Pollock, Romila Thapar and Johannes Bronkhorst just in the first ten listed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

F&f's widely used scholarly text-books for the lead

Please do not edit

• 1 Coningham, Robin; Young, Ruth (2015), The Archaeology of South Asia: From the Indus to Asoka, c. 6500 BCE–200 CE, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-84697-4 Google scholar citation index 90.

Coningham and Young, Archaeology of South Asia

Buddhism is thought by many to have emerged in the same century as Jainism ; certainly within the latter part of the fi rst millennium BCE Buddhist philosophy offers a belief in the impermanence of the human self, social egalitarianism and a desire to be free of suffering and want. Like Hinduism, it ascribes successive re-birth cycles, the spiritual ideal of ascetic, and also many gods, demons and spirits alongside central Buddhist doctrine Siddhartha Gautama, a royal prince, was born at Lumbiniin what is now Nepalbut the date of his birth has been uncertain as there are different regional chronologies for his life, both long and shorter. In Sri Lankaand South-east Asia his life has been dated to between 624 and 544 BCE; Indian and some Western scholars date his life between 566 and 486 BCE using Greek sources, or alternatively between 563 and 483 BCE; Japanese scholars use Chinese and Tibetan texts and date his life to between 448 and 368 BCE (Amore and Ching 1996 : 221). Recent archaeological evidence from the Maya Devi Temple at Lumbini in modern Nepal has demonstrated the presence of a structure sequence at the shrine from the sixth century BCE onwards, favouring the longer chronology (Coningham et al. 2013 ). As a young man Siddhartha Gautama was taken outside the protected atmosphere of his childhood palace at Kapilavastuand saw three sights: a sick man, an old and suff ering man, and a dead man. He then saw a fourth sight – a renunciant whose calmness and peacefulness showed the way to overcome suffering. After many years as a wandering ascetic, Siddhartha Gautama finally achieved enlightenment or nirvana (thus he became a Buddha or enlightened one) under the Bodhi tree ( Ficus religiosa ) at Bodh Gaya in modern India. He continued to wander and preach for the rest of his life, and when he died at the age of eighty, he entered the state of parinirvana , in which the necessity for rebirth was gone, there is no more suffering, and perfect happiness is achieved (Amore and Ching 1996 : 230). In Chapters 11 and 12 , we will explore the impact of Buddhism on the Early Historic Traditionof South Asia and its patronage by the early rulers and merchants – including the Mauryans. Difficulties in assigning a single religious or ideological identity in archaeological contexts can be illustrated by reference to some of the material culture of religion in South Asia. For example, the architectural entity of the stupa , now closely identified with Buddhism , was used by both Jains and Buddhists in the Early Historic periods. Likewise, tree shrines are both Hindu and Buddhist in nature and even Lumbini , the birthplace of the Buddha, is a place of pilgrimage for Buddhists as well as Hindus. There are many other local examples, and this sharing or blending is important to recognise when trying to assign religious identity, or even trace origins of particular religions through material culture.

• 2 Thapar, Romila (2004), Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300, University of Californian Press, ISBN 0-520-24225-4 Google scholar citation index: 574

Romila Thapar's Early India, University of California Press, 2004

Of the two near contemporaries, Mahavira and Gautama Buddha, the latter is the more famous since he founded a religion that was to prevail in Asia. The Buddha (or the Enlightened One), as he was called, belonged to the Shakya clan, and his father was the kshatriya raja of the Shakya gana-sangha. The legend of the Buddha's life has curious similarities with the legendary episodes in Christ's life such as the idea of the immaculate conception, and the temptation by the Devil. He was born in the sixth century BC and lived the life of a young aristocrat, but with increasing dissatisfaction after he came into contact with the sick, the suffering and the dead. Finally, he left his family and his home one night and went away to become an ascetic. After an austere period of ascetic practice he decided that this was not the way to achieve freedom from rebirth. He then resolved to discover the path towards liberation through meditation and, eventually, on the forty-ninth day of his meditation, is said to have received enlightenment and understood the cause of suffering in this world. He gave his first discourse at the Deer Park at Sarnath, in the vicinity of Varanasi, where he gathered his first five disciples. This has been called the 'Discourse on the Turning of the Wheel of Law', which was the nucleus of the Buddha's teaching. It incorporated the Four Noble Truths: the world is full of suffering; suffering is caused by human desires; the renunciation of desire is the path to nirvana or liberation from rebirth; and this can be achieved through the Eightfold Path. The latter consisted of eight principles of action, leading to a balanced, moderate life: right views, resolves, speech, conduct, livelihood, effort, recollection, and meditation, the combination of which was described as the Middle Way. To understand this discourse did not call for complicated metaphysical thinking, nor did it require complex rituals. It required a commitment to ethical behaviour, a central feature of which was that it was not based on the privileges and disabilities of caste identity but on a concern for the welfare of humanity. Such an approach suggests a degree of sensitivity to the social mores becoming current in urban living. The rational undertone of the argument was characteristic of the Buddhist emphasis on causality and logic as the basis of analysis, particularly in a system where little is left either to divine intervention or else to the kind of metaphysics that the Buddha described as splitting hairs. The Buddha did not see his teaching as a divine revelation, but rather as an attempt to reveal the truths that were apparent to him and required to be stated. In underlining elements of logic and rationality, the Buddha was reflecting some of the philosophical interests of his day. Freedom from the cycle of rebirth led to nirvana, interpreted either as bliss through enlightenment, or extinction. Thus the doctrine of karma and samsara, linking action and rebirth, was essential to the Buddhist system even if the Buddha denied the existence of the atman or soul. What continued was consciousness and this was modulated by actions. The denial of the soul gave a different edge to the Buddhist doctrine of action and rebirth. Implicit in the Four Noble Truths is the concept of karma, causally connected to desire and suffering. The Buddha's teaching was partially a response to the discourse of the early Upanishads, agreeing with some ideas and disagreeing with others. The disagreements were not insubstantial. But the teaching was a departure from that of the Vedic corpus and also a response to the historical changes of the time, among which were the emergence of the state and the growth of urban centres, posing questions that could not be answered by existing ideologies. ... Buddhist and Jaina sects and some of other persuasions had orders of monks (bhikkhu - literally, mendicants) and nuns (bhikkhuni). As a general category they were referred to as sbramanas or samanas - those who labour towards freedom from rebirth. This led to a distinction between what has been called Brahamanism and Shramanism, the two parallel streams of religious articulation that prevailed for many centuries. Monks renounced social obligations to take on an alternative life when they joined the Order. They lived as equal members of the Order, denying caste distinctions. But they lived in monasteries near villages and towns so that they could draw on the support of the lay community, namely, those who were Buddhists or Jainas but were not initiated into renunciatory groups. Lay followers were referred to as upasaka and upasika. Renunciation also gave the monks greater freedom so that they could concentrate on their own nirvana, as well as attending to the well-being of the community. Renunciation was not necessarily identical with asceticism and a distinction between them might be useful. The ascetic ideally lived in isolation, discarding all social obligations and performing his death-rites before leaving home. The renouncer discarded the social obligations required through family and caste ties, but entered an alternative society - that of the Sangha, where new obligations were assumed relating to the life of renouncers. With the increase in numbers of the lay community, the monks were called upon to perform life-cycle rituals linked to birth, puberty, marriage and death. This may well have been the beginning of a change, introducing a larger body of rituals than was originally intended.

• 3 Robb, P. (2011), A History of India, Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 978-0-230-34549-2 Google scholar citation index: 179

Peter Robb on the Buddha

As they evolved, the Vedic ideas divided into or were superseded by two main streams —coming, that is, from origins within and beyond the Vedic priesthoods. One (the yogic way) emphasized the importance of desire, and hence the need for renunciation. Another emphasized the unity of creation and hence the proper performance of earthly duties. By such means, both developments transformed the ‘law of the fishes’ from a metaphor of order into one of chaos. The yogic impulse is well represented by Jainism and Buddhism. Jainism is an atheistic religion and the first known attempt to create a single doctrine from the rich Indic traditions. It includes the idea that life (jiva), as opposed to inanimate matter and to all worldly actions, is caught in an endless cycle of reincarnation. Through complete self-abnegation and profound contemplation, man can be liberated into an eternal, uncreated infinity beyond the cosmos. Jainism was associated with great teachers, especially Vadhamana, known as Mahavira (great hero), who probably lived in the sixth century BCE, and organized and instructed disciples so that his teachings survived. He, like his much earlier predecessor, Parshva, was said to have practised great austerities, renounced the world, gained true omniscience, and hence immortality. Buddhism is a subtle and elaborate version of similar ideas of rebirth and austerity. It was developed by Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha (enlightened one), also born in the sixth century BCE. Buddhism spawned a truly vast literature, starting with canonical texts, the Tripitaka (Three Baskets), that contain rules, narratives and commentaries. At the heart of their doctrine is the Noble Eightfold Path: including right thinking and goals, moral conduct, and a proper degree of renunciation and self-discipline (a Middle Way between extremes of abnegation and indulgence). The Buddha gained enlightenment through intense meditation, a contemplation without form, an utter but conscious emptying of the mind — ultimately breaking the cycle of rebirth by transcending the individual, becoming non-self (anatta), and perceiving nirvana, a state without creation or death. Though convinced of the transitory nature of things, the followers of the Buddha nevertheless developed orders of nuns and monks (the Sangha), proselytized for their beliefs (on the Buddha’s instructions), and built monasteries and stupas, with their characteristic rounded shape, containing Buddhist relics. The monks in these institutions were dependent upon the alms and bequests of lay followers. Then, as these lay people also sought to approach a higher state of existence, there arose cults of personal devotion (bhakti) to the Buddha and his successors (the Buddhas-to-be or Boddhisattvas) — one answer perhaps to the Vedic refrain ‘What god shall we adore with our oblation?’ (Rig Veda X. 121). Lay involvement gave rise in turn to the wider, ‘compassionate’ or Mahayana Buddhism (Greater Vehicle) as opposed to the stricter, monastic Hinayana Buddhism (Lesser Vehicle). This divide was also marked by doctrinal and philosophical differences. The second emphasis, upon ritual sacrifice and dharma rather than renunciation and contemplation, was found in the developments of the Brahmanist religion which coexisted and competed with the growth of Buddhism. It developed early, partly in response to the challenge of renunciation. In finding ways of living in the world, Vedic ideas were expanded into vast commentaries. The Brahmanas elaborate and explain myths and rituals. The Aranyakas or forest books, possibly so-called because they were produced by hermits, reflect on the rituals and their symbolic meanings. Finally, the Upanishads contain both philosophical exposition and teachings in the form of dialogues and parables, offering a variety of explanations of creation, and rules of conduct and of contemplation. Over some five hundred years before the Common Era, the Vedic texts thus became a religious canon, a distinction being made between their authority (shruti) and their exposition or explanation (smriti). Actual sacrifice became mor or less obsolete.

• 4 Fogelin, Lars (2015). An Archaeological History of Indian Buddhism. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1999-4821-5. Google Scholar citation index 50.

Lars Fogelin, Archaeological History of Indian Buddhism, Oxford, 2015

The Buddha was born to the chief of one of these Early Historic Period (i.e. between 600 BCE and 300 BCE) republics (the Shakyas) in what is now southern Nepal. More recently, several scholars have argued that these early republics and kingdoms can be subsumed within a broader rubric of city-states (see Chakrabarti 1995, 2001; Erdosy 1995; Kenoyer 1997). In this view, small states centered at individual cities were in constant communication and conflict with one another. Periodically one city-state might gain advantage over others, but territorial expansion was just as often followed by withdrawal. Particularly in the plains, cities began to build elaborate defensive walls. Merchants, traders, craftspeople, and religious specialists augmented the bulk of the population, who remained agriculturalists. Vedic rituals from earlier periods continued to be practiced, but during the Early Historic Period, a wide variety of religious traditions emerged to challenge the orthodoxy of Brahmanism that continued the practice of Vedic rituals. Textual sources that report on the Early Historic Period mention numerous wandering ascetics propounding a bewildering variety of religious views. Over time, some of these wandering ascetics began to attract followers and settle in small monasteries throughout the India. Of these sects, Jainism and Buddhism became major religions that persist to this day. Originating in the sixth century bce, they share many common doctrinal and ritual elements. Both saw the world in which we live as an illusion, both sought to end the cycle of rebirth, and both saw the cessation of rebirth as achievable through meditation and ritual acts. Both also downplayed the importance of caste in their teachings. Thapar (2002) has suggested that this allowed Jains and Buddhists to engage in trade more easily than Brahmans, who were forced to follow strict caste prohibitions. The result was that both Buddhism and Jainism thrived in the developing cities of the Gangetic Plain and spread rapidly from city to city from the fifth through third centuries bce. In sum, the picture that emerges of religious practice in the beginning of the Early Historic Period is of multiple overlapping religious sects, all competing for the support of the laity. Of these, Brahmanism, Jainism, and Buddhism have survived to this day in some form. Other sects (e.g., Ajivikas and Charvakas) have not (Basham 1967; Thapar 2002). While this book focuses on Buddhism, Buddhism was only one of many religious traditions in simultaneous practice throughout India. Given the similarities in the doctrinal beliefs and ritual practices of these different religions, it is often difficult to separate the material remains of different religions.

• 5 Gilbert, Marc Jason (2017). South Asia in World History. The New Oxford World History series. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-517653-7. Google scholar citation index 11

Marc Jason Gilbert, South Asia in World History, Oxford, 2017, on the Buddha

Siddhartha Gautama (563-483 BCE), a prince of the Shakya clan’s state to the north of Vaishali, also advocated these principles. Like Mahavira, he addressed the same spiritual issues as the philosophers of the forest and spent time as one of them. Also like Mahavira, he found unacceptable the idea that the social order of the living should be based on the presumed spiritual merit acquired in a past life. He eventually developed a vehicle of salvation along a middle path between the worldly rituals of the Brahmins and the extreme rejection of the material world advocated in the Upanishads and by Mahavira. The teachings of Siddhartha, who later was known as a bodhi (possessor of wisdom) or Buddha (Enlightened One), came to form the basis of Buddhism, a religion destined to influence many cultures within and beyond Asia. At the age of twenty-nine, Prince Siddhartha saw stark examples of the common fate of all humanity: old age, sickness, and death. What struck Siddhartha most about these encounters was how, despite the universality of these experiences, no human being was ever prepared for them. He then realized that all human grief, confusion, frustration, and pain were born of ignorance that everything in the material world was in constant flux and decay. In the midst of these thoughts, he encountered a wandering ascetic who may have been a follower of Upanishadic or Jain thought and whose calm demeanor suggested a way out through self-denial. Shortly thereafter, Siddhartha abandoned his royal life and joined an ashram. He quickly excelled in the practice of self-denial to the point of being able to fast unto death without pain. However, this achievement brought him no peace, as it offered no insight into the operation of the spiritual world. He ended his fasting and began mediating until he achieved nirvana, a state of consciousness beyond any form of attachment to the self, where he gained the understanding he sought. He then began preaching a dharma that could bring the wheel of rebirth to a halt in as little as one life. The Buddha’s followers codified his teachings, often expressed as the Four Noble Truths. Three of the Noble Truths are conditions or states of knowledge born of Siddhartha’s earliest spiritual encounters. All emotional connections and material things deemed worth possessing, such as loved ones, health, and wealth, are in a constant state of anicca (transition or decay); this uncertain hold over what seems to matter most in life produces frustration that grows inexorably into dhukka (a condition of suffering), and only through vidya (insight, from the root “to see”) into the truly transient nature of all things can avidya (blindness, or ignorance of the true nature of existence) be dispelled. Once aware that the world of desire offers nothing permanent and thus nothing worth possessing, the conscious mind awakens to nirvana—not a place, as all thoughts of places arise from a desire for permanence, but a state of consciousness wherein all desire for the self has ceased to exist. The fourth Noble Truth is the name given to the Buddha’s offering of an Eightfold Path by which a seeker of nirvana practices non-attachment through mental focus, proper action, expressing one’s purpose, relations with other individuals, relations with the larger community, daily life, examining one’s actions, and contemplating one’s existence. ... (there is a great deal more there)

• 6 Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-882905-8 Google Scholar citation index 47

Tim Dyson, A Population History of India, Oxford, 2019, on the Ganges Basin

Perhaps the first point to make is that the discovery of different types of ancient pottery tentatively suggests that—at least to a degree—something of a ‘pincer movement’ may have applied in the settlement of the Ganges basin. In particular, one series of pottery ‘finds’ is indicative of a north-west to south-east movement of people along the foothills of the Himalayas, while another fainter series of ‘finds’ has a broadly similar trajectory along the hills at the basin’s southern edge. Both series come together in what is now Bihar (the location of Pataliputra). Pataliputra). The suggestion that there may have been movements of people around the edges of the Ganges basin also has echoes in early Buddhist and Hindu texts. And, more generally, such a scenario is broadly analogous to the way in which river valleys are sometimes thought to have been settled in other parts of the world. The Ganges basin was vast and densely forested. Much of its riverine core consisted of swamps and marshes. Therefore, it was probably inevitable that, to some extent, it was colonized from the periphery as well as from parts of its core.56 As new tracts of forest were cleared and cultivated, so the population could expand. In turn, this meant that there were more ‘hands’ available to clear yet more forest. Population increase would have been needed for the drainage and exploitation of the wet soils of the basin’s bottomlands. However, once available, these soils were both fertile and potentially they could be irrigated. Consequently, with two-harvest farming the basin’s central lands were able to support larger and denser populations—which, in turn, facilitated the establishment of towns and the development of small kingdoms. In short, whether from the periphery or the core, population growth and the cultivation of new land reinforced each other in the settlement of the Ganges basin—a process that, in places, continued into fairly recent times.

• 7 Stein, B. (2012), Arnold, D. (ed.), A History of India (2nd ed.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN 978-1-4051-9509-6 Google Scholar Citation index 535

Burton Stein and David Arnold, A History of India, Oxford-Wiley, 2012

THE HISTORICAL BUDDHA The teachings of the Buddha are the best known development of Upanishadic concepts. The historic title, ‘the Buddha’, derives from the meaning of that word: enlightened or awakened. Siddhartha, which was his personal name, is now thought to have been born, in the fifth century bce, a prince of the Sakya clan (which had also adopted the name Gautama). He was said to have renounced his family and the prospect of ruling a gana-sangha community of the Himalayan foothills in order to seek truths to share with his people and those in the kingdoms of Koshala and Magadha.Wandering the forests as an ascetic and mendicant, he pondered the reasons for the pervasive sorrow of the world. Although he found rigorous austerities unfruitful, protracted medi tation was finally rewarded when enlightenment came after he sat under a pipal tree (Ficus religiosa), near the town of Gaya in Magadha for forty-nine days. Suddenly he began to grasp the full implications of the common obser vation that sorrow and disappointment spring from desire. After seven more weeks of meditation, he left the Tree ofWisdom and travelled to Kashi, where he commenced teaching in a place called the Deer Park of Sarnath.The tradi tion of his followers recalls this ‘Sermon of the Turning of the Wheel’, with its ‘Four Noble Truths’ and ‘Noble Eightfold Path’. The Buddha’s sermons concerned the sources and relief of sorrow, which he held arises from birth, from age, from disease, from death and from life’s disap pointments. Most of all, it arises from desire, from the thirst for delight, passion and pleasure; quenching this thirst, this desire, is the sole way to conquer sorrow, and can be achieved by following a middle way between gratification and the denial of pleasure through the pain and hardship of harsh asceticism. The middle way was an eightfold path consisting of rightness in views, resolve, speech, conduct, livelihood, efforts, memories and meditation. Buddhist moderation was framed against existing religious practices. Bud dhists excoriated the brahmanical sacrifices because they involved the slaugh ter of animals and because of the large fees paid by men of property and commerce who were gaining importance in the newly founded towns of Koshala, Magadha and other Gangetic principalities. Other sects that criti cized brahmans, such as Jainas and Ajivikas, were condemned by Buddhists for their extreme ascetic practices. Moderation won adherents among the wealthiest class of merchants, among modest householders and among the poorest and most despised. The last included shudras (agriculturists, herdsmen and artisans) and slaves, as the term dasasudda suggests. By the time of the Buddha, ‘dasa’ had come to designate persons without legal standing or rights who could be held in bondage on account of their debts, their birth to parents in bondage or capture during wars. Even lower in status than the dasas were those now called candala, the sight of whom was regarded as polluting. Shudras and candalas were mentioned sympathetically in some the earliest Buddhist jatakas, which may have heightened the appeal of Buddhism for those classes. The jatakas paint a picture of the society of the middle of the first millen nium bce in the central Gangetic valley, a social order significantly changed from the earlier ‘Aryan’ society of the western Ganges. It was a more complex and urbanized formation, with little of the older gana-sangha collective iden tity. Such a society was fertile ground for the new ideologies, in the form of Buddhist doctrines and those ofJaina and Ajivika sects, all of which were alike in their emphasis on ethics and pure conduct rather than the propitiation of capricious gods. The gods of the brahmanical sacrificial cult were not rejected so much as ignored by Buddhists and their contemporaries in heterodoxy. All these, however, posited the importance of particular great men – usually the found ing teachers – and all spoke as brahmanical sectarians did of karma and samsara, though each put a different meaning upon how such doctrines worked. While Buddhists and Jainas believed that the condition of each indi vidual existence was determined by behaviour in previous incarnations, they supposed it could be altered by actions in the current life. The Ajivikas, however, insisted on a rigorously deterministic view of the universe, with regard to which only severe asceticism was a possible ameliorator.

• 8 Kulke, H.; Rothermund, D. (2016), A History of India, 6th, Routledge, ISBN 978-1-138-96114-2 Google scholar citation index 877

Kulke and Rothermund, History of India, Routledge, 2016

This new Gangetic civilisation found its spiritual expression in a reform movement which was a reaction to the Brahmin–Kshatriya alliance of the Late Vedic age. This reform movement is mainly identified with the teaching of Gautama Buddha who is regarded as the first historic figure of Indian history. ... As early Buddhist literature, in particular the Jataka stories of the Buddha’s previous lives, depict an already flourishing urban society in north India, archaeological evidence also seems to indicate that the Buddha lived in the fifth rather than in the sixth century when urbanisation in the Ganges valley was still in its incipient stage. ... (Buddhist thought) is characterised by a transition from the magic thought of the Vedas and the mystical speculations of the Upanishads to a new type of rationality. This rationality is also in evidence in the famous grammar of the great Indian linguist, Panini. His grammar, India’s first scientific treatise, was produced in this period. Buddha’s teachings were later on fused once more with mystical speculation and even with magic thought in Tantric Buddhism, but his original quest for rationally enlightened experience is clearly documented by this explanation of the four noble truths, and of the ‘eight-fold path’ of salvation from the burden of human suffering. He had practised penance and experienced the futility of mystical speculation before he arrived at his insight into the causes of human suffering and the way to remove them. The eightfold path of right conduct (in vision, thought, speech, action, giving, striving, vigilance and concentration) which leads to a cessation of the thirst for life and thus stops the cycle of rebirths appears to be a matter of practical instruction rather than the outcome of mystical speculation. The voluminous Buddhist scriptures throw a flood of light on the life and times of Gautama Buddha. He was born as the son of a Sakhya prince in a region which now belongs to Nepal. He left his family at the age of 29 and spent many years as a wandering ascetic until he experienced his enlightenment at Bodh Gaya. He then preached his first sermon at Sarnath near Varanasi and toured many parts of what is now Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh, spreading his teachings and gaining more and more followers. He met the high and mighty of his time – among them King Bimbisara of Magadha.

• 9 Ludden, D. (2014), India and South Asia: A Short History (2nd, revised ed.), Oneworld Publications, ISBN 978-1-85168-936-1 Google scholar citation index 102

David Ludden, India and South Asia

Jain and Buddhist philosophies, monks, and patrons opposed the social stratification prescribed by Brahmanism, and the spiritual authority of the Brahmans and Vedic rites. Both schools of thought and spiritual discipline arose east of Prayaga, around Magadha, where Mahavira (born circa 550) and Gautama Buddha (born circa 480) originally preached. It is reasonable to surmise that both represent restless spiritual aspirations among new elites who challenged Vedic ideas about social rank. Merchants relegated to lower varna ranks were clearly influential patrons for Buddhist and Jain monks, who propagated the spiritual power of learning, piety, merit, discipline, and ethical values and rejected the idea that complete spiritual purity is attainable only by Brahmans. Jain and Buddhist paths to liberation are open to everyone. ... Agro-pastoral warrior lineages living in the western dry regions had superior access to most of the length of ancient trade routes, and their various janapadas had embraced Aryan culture as far east as Prayaga (Allahabad). Magadha lay further east on the outer fringe of Aryan cultural influence, and it was here, in the east, that the Buddha composed an alternative ethical system, opposed to Aryan Brahmanism. ... By Ashoka’s time, the teachings of Gautama Buddha and Mahavira had defined distinctive strains of cultural activity that we know under the names of Buddhism and Jainism; they shared many elements with Aryan Brahmanism but opposed its sacred division of caste society and established another set of values for rulers, including universal ethical norms that made salvation a moral quest. Rulers could support this righteous vision by becoming great alms-givers for learned monks who preached harmonious moral order and showed the way to enlightenment with their piety and learning. Buddhist righteousness (dhamma) became a moral compass for Ashoka’s empire. Ashoka used vast winnings from war to support Buddhist monks, ritual centres (stupas), preachers, and schools. Instead of conquering the kingdoms south of Kalinga, Ashoka brought them under his spiritual patronage, supporting Buddhist kings in Sri Lanka and Buddhist centres in Andhra, Karnataka, and the Tamil country. Jain missions also prospered in Ashoka’s imperial domain.

• 10 Fisher, Michael H. (2018), An Environmental History of India: From Earliest Times to the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, doi:10.1017/9781316276044, ISBN 978-1-107-11162-2, LCCN 2018021693, S2CID 134229667 Google scholar citation index 25

Michael Fisher,Environmental History of India, CUP, 2018

From the sixth century BCE onward, India’s shifting social, cultural, political, and economic environments produced various models of and for the universe. The two most prominent new movements coalesced as Jainism and Buddhism. These new religions had roughly contemporary founders as role models: Mahavira Jain (variously dated 600/540–527/468 BCE) and Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha (c. 560 – c. 480 BCE). Both were born Kshatriya men, raised surrounded by pleasures, who abandoned family, wealth, and sensuality by withdrawal of the senses and thus attained release from the cycle of rebirth, redeath, and rebirth. Mahavira devoted himself to the path of extreme asceticism to burn off the material residue of action (karma). Gautama, in contrast, renounced asceticism and preached the Middle Way of selfless giving. Both men left behind monastic orders (sangha): men and women who sought to escape earthy existence into absolute transcendence and peace (nirvana).While Jainism and Buddhism differed in their metaphysics (about the nature of the self, for instance) both regarded human and animal bodies as just varying levels of birth, ranging from imperceptible motes through animals and humans to deities. For instance, in the Buddhist Jatakas (accounts of the Buddha’s previous lives), he was born as variously elephant, tiger, monkey, rabbit, tree god, and in a variety of human roles (but always as a male, perhaps suggesting the gender attitudes of the compilers). As the Buddha, he achieved nirvana under the Bodhi fig tree in Bodhgaya (Bihar); pilgrims still reverently identify this tree with his enlightenment.These two religious movements advocated similar social structures for humans, with individual achievement of total nonviolence and compassion toward all living creatures as the basis of status. They thus critiqued Brahminic sacrifice of animals via fire to the gods and birth into a varna. ... In the Buddhist social model, people are ranked according to dana (from the same Indo-European root-word as “donation” in English) – that is, how much they give, in the broadest sense, including repudiating violence on anything in the environment. Monks and nuns give up everything, donating their lives to following the nonviolent path of dhamma (the popular Pali-language form of Sanskrit’s dharma). So, they rank the highest. But laypeople can also follow the Middle Way, to the extent that they are able. Consequently, any individual who practices nonviolence and dana could rise socially and morally.Much of the initial support for Jainism and Buddhism initially came from groups and individual men and women who found the Brahminic order unpersuasive, particularly since it ranked them low and seemed so identified with violence. This included upwardly mobile merchants who could live without themselves killing and also donate much wealth. Additionally, some Shudras and other non-Kshatriyas who had fought their way to kingship sought to harness the economic and political power of these thriving merchants. To advance their personal and imperial goals, Mauryan Emperor Chandragupta famously turned to Jainism while his grandson Emperor Ashoka turned to Buddhism.

Please don't edit this section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fowler&fowler (talk • contribs) 22:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should rewrite the lead based on any of them, as this is contrary to WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. I think we should use the sources to update the body of the article (if they are not already there), and then *after that* write the lead as a summary of the body, as it should be per WP:LEAD. This is not controversial material, and at that point, no citations would be necessary in the lead when summarizing the body content. Please do not go straight to the lead with any of this, unless it represents a summary of material already in the body. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

As I have already indicated, I have written a large number of leads in precisely such fashion supervised by administrators or maintained by them thereafter. Among them are Indus Valley Civilisation, Sanskrit, India, Mahatma Gandhi, Mughal Empire, Caste, 2020 Delhi riots, Indian rebellion of 1857, Subhas Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, British Raj, ... Some have been copied verbatim by academics and one closely paraphrased by the Oxford English Dictionary. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion continued

Thank you for your effort on presenting those sources, and extensive quotes from them; it's an interesting read. What I take from them:

• Gautama (the Buddha) was a "wandering ascetic" (straight quote) and a shramana;
• he, and the culture he belonged to, was based in the Ganges-basin;
• his teachings, as those of others from this region, opposed/rejected/ignored the social/religious worldview from the western Ganges-basin, that is, the Vedic-Brahmanical worldview;
• the Buddha's social views, with their rejection of caste, fitted the trade-society of the middle Ganges-basin, better than the social stratification of the rural society of the Vedic heartland;
• those new teachings were appropriated by the Mauryan emperors to extend their political power (compare Ludden's comment with Chakravarti (Sanskrit term), which concerns both the Buddha and Ashoka!)
• what these sources describe about his (religious) teachings is interwoven with his religious 'biography', which should be handled with care; this is the domain of scholars of Buddhism.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at the excerpts. There are now a full ten books. All have been published in the last 20 years, and some are quite recent. I have numbered them. It would be great if you and others could write a lead without wikilinks but with each sentence sourced to one or more of these numbers (1–10), without relying unduly on any one source. Thanks Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I love Thapar; she's the most thoughtfull. Maybe I'll first try to add some info to the "Historical context" section from your sources; they give a much-needed social-geographical context. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Sounds great! Yes, she's very thoughtful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

No, we should write the body based on reliable, independent, secondary sources, as WP:Verifiability calls for. Then, we should write the lead as a summary of what we've written in the body, as WP:LEAD calls for. And we *should* use wikilinks where appropriate per MOS:LINK because links are "an important feature of Wikipedia". I have no idea where this notion of not using links in the lead comes from, but it's completely contrary to basic principles of how Wikipedia works. Mathglot (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Another interesting book: Xinru Liu (2022), Early Buddhist Society: The World of Gautama Buddha, State University of New York Press. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot, please go back and read what JJ and I are talking about. You are wasting time preaching Wiki banalities to people who have been writing serious articles on South Asian history on Wikipedia for a very long time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence Rfc coming; please add your preferred wording option for the Rfc question

Arbitrary header #1

The lead sentence has been thrashing for a while now with various attempts at improving it, without settling on a stable, consensus version. This has been going on altogether too long, and this isn't good for a vital article like this one. It looks to me like the suggestions in § Lead sentence above got some support, but with notable exceptions, and it seems highly unlikely that discussion will resolve soon, given the views expressed. Accordingly, I plan to open an Rfc fairly soon to seek additional support from the community in an attempt to break the logjam and settle on a consensus version. I will word it neutrally, as required, and I want to make sure that all views are considered.

At a minimum, the Rfc will include two options, namely

• 1. the current version as of now (rev. 1121137933‎ of 18:18, 10 November 2022):

Option 1 ("current")
Siddhartha Gautama (5th cent. BCE), most commonly referred to as the Buddha, was a South Asian renunciate who founded Buddhism. Note: a !vote for variants of the above which include wikilinking either or both of "renunciate" or "South Asian", or including or dropping footnotes shall be considered a vote for Option 1.

• 2. the proposal from section § Mathglot's proposal above, with the words 'spiritual leader' replaced by 'religious teacher', as suggested in that discussion:

Option 2

Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha, was a religious teacher from northern India who wandered the Ganges Basin in the 5th century BCE preaching a philosophy of renunciation of earthly desires, and is recognized as the founder of Buddhism. Note: a !vote for variants of the above which uses wording like, "from the northern India/Nepal area" instead of just "northern India", or which includes additional wikilinks or footnotes shall be considered a vote for Option 2.

I hope that recent discussants @Joshua Jonathan, Fowler&fowler, Yoonadue, Iskandar323, Aoidh, Johnbod, and BusterD: (did I miss any? Please ping below!) can have a look at this, and ensure that the proposed list of Rfc options includes a version that you would be happy to address in a forthcoming Rfc (whether supporting, or opposing). In particular, F&f strongly suggested above that they wouldn't be happy with that option, so I hope to hear an alternative formulation from them to add to the options list. A list of three options to start with would be ideal; if it gets too long, it becomes harder to reach consensus, and also, once the Rfc launches, the community may come up with an option or two that we haven't considered before, and add it to the list.

Note: this section is not an attempt to achieve consensus on the first sentence, so you don't have to argue why your option is the best one or give any reason for it at all; it is strictly an attempt to assemble a list of the best alternative wording options for the lead sentence that expresses the concerns of participating editors here, so that we can present it to the larger community for discussion in Rfc format with several options to choose from based on our previous discussions, and hopefully, reach some sort of consensus out of that process.

I plan to start the Rfc in about a week; longer if you need more time (please indicate), or sooner if it's clear we have all the feedback needed. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

To have an RfC on a lead sentence which is the double distilled summary of the article content, when the rest of the lead has not been written is a cockamamie idea. It is impossible to frame the first sentence when the emphasis of topics in the lead has not been decided. That is the reason that both proposed versions are inaccurate and poorly written. An RfC will give a false imprimatur to one sentence. It is a bogus idea. So please do not propose it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I will oppose any RfC, and if you try to push it, I will make sure it does not fly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan is extremely knowledgeable about the general topic. I feel they should be given a chance to present a lead without wikilinks based on the sources I have collected. We can then smooth their version.

It is the best option. No RfC is needed. Otherwise, more clueless people will file in, more talk page mavens will propound, and of all people the Buddha will become subject to a most un-Buddhist hijacking. It has happened twice already. A third would be very shameful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

If you push the lead sentence RfC I will request administrative help under WP:ARBIPA rules and have an administrator supervised RfC, letting the administrator decide what is most appropriate. This has been done several times in South Asia topics. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

An RFC "is a process for requesting outside input concerning... article content. RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages." No one person owns this article, and it is clear that this has been going around in circles for too long now, and an RFC is one of the recognized ways at Wikipedia of addressing intractable content disputes like this. I would prefer that you offer a wording suggestion that meets with your approval to add to list of RFC options, but the RFC will go forward in either case.

In response to your "cockamamie idea", while the lead is a summary of the body, the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE is not. Rather, it is a definition that "should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where... in plain English." We don't need to know how the rest of the lead shakes out, in order to write a single defining sentence, about who, when, where, and what the Buddha was and did.

I'm not going to respond to your other comments, which in no way meet the stated purpose of a Talk page: "Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject". I hope you change your mind, and decide to participate. You are very knowledgeable about the subject, I value your contributions to a wide range of South Asian topics, and your contributions would be sorely missed by many, me included, if you decide not to participate. Mathglot (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I know what an RfC is. When the lead sentences rise to the level of the high-school history textbook used by millions of kids in India (see pages 90 to 104 here), we can have it. Right now, neither version is close. They are not even at the grade 8 level, you can check.

An RfC does not create knowledge, only chooses between different versions of knowledge. But they have to be knowledge in the first place. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Since you gave it your imprimatur, I was hoping to find wording at that link which could be used as a defining sentence about the Buddha and qualify as something that might meet with your approval, and then include it as an Rfc option. Unfortunately, although the term 'Buddha' occurs 39 times, there's nothing appropriate that I could find there. The closest was this (p. 95–96):

"It also describes places associated with the Buddha’s life – where he was born (Lumbini), where he attained enlightenment (Bodh Gaya), where he gave his first sermon (Sarnath) and where he attained nibbana (Kusinagara)."

but that doesn't really qualify. Can you link another page that might have something? Or just use your own words, based on your domain knowledge. And btw, I have nothing against a lead sentence written at an 8th-grade level; I think it could make an excellent choice, if we found the right one. Mathglot (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

A lead sentence is a summary of the lead. Why don't we write the lead first at the level of the lucidity and sophistication of the high school textbook but without the lead sentence? Summarizing that text into one sentence will then be easy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Because the lead sentence is *not* a summary of the lead; see WP:LEADSENTENCE. You're confusing that, I believe, with the WP:LEAD, which is a summary of the article body. Mathglot (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It is still what is most notable in the lead. How will you figure that out when you don't have a lead? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

A lead is not necessary to have a LEADSENTENCE. You can have an entire, valid, notable, sufficiently cited article in mainspace consisting of only a lead sentence and WP:THREE references. Mathglot (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Have you written anything on Buddhism? Or are you just a talk page maven? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

If you have, then please tell me what. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's focus on addressing what is being said, rather than commenting on the perceived attributes of the person saying it. Even if what you were getting at is true, it's irrelevant and does not diminish the point that they're making. On Wikipedia there is no requirement that a person be an expert in a field in order to comment on a talk page, nor does a person's editing history in a given topic area carry any consideration in a discussion. The answer to your question does not matter. - Aoidh (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I don't like either sentence. I think option 2 is better but our article on religious leader (a redirect to clergy) does not fit. "Spiritual teacher" is better. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Spiritual leader was actually my first effort (see here). We could certainly include your suggestion as an option (but see this comment). Would you change anything else in #2, or are you happy with the rest of it? Depending on how other suggestions shake out, your suggestion could either be "Option 2a" (if you're okay with that, since they're otherwise very similar), or "Option 3" if there's not a lot of options with completely different wording. Mathglot (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

So, Mathglot, you have written: Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha, was a religious teacher from northern India who wandered the Ganges Basin in the 5th century BCE preaching a philosophy of renunciation of earthly desires, and is recognized as the founder of Buddhism.

Do you want wander in the transitive sense? If so what do you understand by it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Standard English transitive usage: e.g, M-W, AHD, dict.com, and so on. Mathglot (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: 'Wander' is perfectly standard, recognizable English, and it does not solely and literally mean 'traverse' as you extracted from a single example in a single dictionary definition (OED) below. Clearly the sense here is 'to roam/rove', as should be obvious. Critiquing the least relevant definition is uncompelling strawman argumentation. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The OED is the final arbiter of British English (in which this article has been written). In Webster's Unabridged, the final arbiter of American English, it is roam over, a single secondary meaning and example (wander woodlands) following 8 versions of the intransitive with longer examples. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

A single example? Here is a sampling:

1798   R. Bloomfield Winter in Farmer's Boy 390   Seedtime and Harvest let me see again; Wander the leaf-strewn wood, the frozen plain.

1892   W. B. Yeats Countess Kathleen (1912) v. 108   I gaze upon them as the swallow gazes Upon the nest under the eave, before She wander the loud waters.

1970   Globe & Mail (Toronto) 26 Sept. 29/5 (advt.)    When you are wandering the attractive shops..you can pause for luncheon.

1976   Times Higher Educ. Suppl. 12 Nov. 9/2   Born into a London Jewish family in October, 1936, he remembers the excitement of wandering the bomb sites of postwar London.

1981   E. Ward Baltic Emerald x. 71   First you wander this place for me, find Suite A.

It is either general use, "wander the loud waters," or delimited use, "wandering the bomb sites of post war London." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the general use, meaning roving or roaming, i.e.: walking about - still do not see what the problem. Still makes absolute sense to me. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #2

Preliminary thoughts (and I will try to resist getting sucked into this): a) I think "renunciate" is too obscure a word for the first sentence, plus his life has several different levels of "renunciation"; b) I don't like "wandered" because (as I mention above) it only really applies (according to the accounts) to the relatively short middle period between the Great Departure and the Enlightenment. His later travels seem often to have had clear destinations, and indeed a degree of regularity. Johnbod (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I note for example that Kulke and Rothermund above say he "wandered" in that mid-period, then "toured" after Enlightenment. Johnbod (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

My preference would still be something like "Gautama Buddha or Shakyamuni Buddhi (5th c. BCE), most commonly known as The Buddha, was a shramana (wandering renunciate) from whose teachings developed Buddhism." To be twisted a little bit further, and from whose teachings developed Buddhism, because, from what I understand about it, the early sangha was a 'community of like-minded wanderers', who found inspiration in the Buddha. I figure that wanderers were impressed by him, asked him qurstions which he answered, remembered his answers (which were not the fill-blown "sermons" we find in the suttas), and at some point 'regulated' admittance into their band of brothers, which could also been done by a small gathering of such 'good friends'. But, that's my take, and while there may be sources which describe this as such, I don't have them (yet). It's probably too nuanced.

But I like Mathglot's first proposal too, as I've already stated (except for the phrase "spiritual teacher"; New Age shops, incense, and everlasting well-being...). A RfC is a perfectly fine instrument to come to a decision on this matter. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

PS: @JohnBod: good points about "wanderer." It all bowls down to: how to translate "sramana"? Mendicant? "Ascetic and religious teacher"? "Itinerant religious teacher"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod:, I totally agree about "renunciate" (especially as a noun; this word was discussed above at § Sramana), if I had my druthers, I'd drop it; but since F&f proposed it as a noun (see @10:06, 3 Nov.) I was bending over backwards a bit trying to meet him halfway by including it in its verb form in my proposal (as: renunciation of earthly desires) hoping he would accept that as a compromise.

Wrt your proposal just above: I find from whose teachings developed Buddhism a bit awkward; would from whose teachings Buddhism developed be an equal proposition that would adhere to your view of things? I think that wording would likely garner more !votes, *if* it's faithful to what you wish to express. If that's not okay with you, we'll go with your version. Whichever the case, I think we can add your version as Option 3, if there's no objection. Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

"Founded Buddhism" is more to the point. With regard to "earthly desires," that's correct, but not complete: complete is 'let go of desire and aversion'. Non-abiding, perfect equanimity, etc. And: there remain 'heavenly desires'? Once we start digging into the exact meaning of words, more and more nuances are revealed... As I stated above, it all boils down to the question: how to translate "sramana," which sums it all up, if you don't want to use that word in the first sentence? ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

JJ, Can't advise how to translate it, but based on /Lead paragraphs data, here's what I found for the "what" and the "where", according to lead sentences of the past:

• What:
  • ascetic (śramaṇa) and sage: 2016, 17
  • ascetic and a religious teacher: 2022 May
  • ascetic and spiritual teacher: 2022 Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct
  • ascetic, a religious leader and teacher: 2021 Dec, 2022 Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr
  • monk (śramaṇa), mendicant, and sage: 2018
  • monk (śramaṇa),mendicant, sage, philosopher, teacher and religious leader: 2019
  • philosopher, mendicant, meditator, spiritual teacher, and religious leader : 2020
  • renunciate: 2022 Nov 4, Nov 11
  • sage: 2013, 14, 15
  • spiritual leader: 2004
  • spiritual teacher: 2003, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12
  • śramaṇa: 2021 Nov
  • wandering ascetic and religious teacher: 2022 Nov 1
• Where:
  • ancient India: 2007 8, 10, 2020, 21, 2022 Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, Sep, Oct,
  • ancient Indian subcontinent: 2006,
  • Indian subcontinent: 2005, 11, 12,
  • Nepal and South Asia: 2022 Jun,
  • north eastern region of the Indian subcontinent 2009
  • South Asia: 2022 May, Jul, Aug, Nov 1, Nov 4, Nov 11

As far as his principal role, virtually every version said either that he was the "founder of Buddhism", or cast it in the passive, describing him as the person "on whose teachings Buddhism was founded". HTH, Mathglot (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the "what," summarized: sramana (ascetic, monk, sage, mendicant, philosopher) and religious/spiritual teacher (sage, philosopher). "Monk" is too western, and has the association of living in a monastery; "mendicant" summarizes both sramana and teacher, but may not be 'plain English'; ascetic is not exactly correct, but not incorrect either, and may be the best choice, when accompaniex with a short note (do I hear grunts of despair and disapproval?) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

As a native speaker of English, to me mendicant and ascetic are approximately equivalent on the difficulty scale, although I find mendicant slightly less difficult. But since both mendicant and ascetic each have a Wikipedia article, simply linking the term would be a good solution, and I don't know that you'd need a separate explanatory note to explain what those articles already do in detail. That said, I'm not opposed to a note, especially if the point of the note is to link the English term to śramaṇa, so no grunts of despair, a note is fine. Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

>>>As a native speaker of English, to me mendicant and ascetic are approximately equivalent on the difficulty scale, although I find mendicant slightly less difficult. ... Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC

OED: The final arbiter of British English in which the article ahs been written:

• OED "It" This word belongs in Frequency Band 8. Band 8 contains words which occur more than 1000 times per million words in typical modern English usage. This includes the most common English words, such as determiners (the, a, an, this, that), pronouns (I, you, he, she, him, he, that, which, what, who)
• OED "run" (v): This word belongs in Frequency Band 7. Band 7 contains words which occur between 100 and 1000 times per million words in typical modern English usage. This includes the main semantic words which form the substance of ordinary, everyday speech and writing. Nouns include basic terms for people (e.g. man, woman, person, boy, girl), body parts (e.g. hand, eye, head, foot, blood)
• OED "ascetic": This word belongs in Frequency Band 5. Band 5 contains words which occur between 1 and 10 times per million words in typical modern English usage. These tend to be restricted to literate vocabulary associated with educated discourse, although such words may still be familiar within the context of that discourse. The shift away from the everyday language found in bands 8-6 is apparent in nouns (e.g. surveillance, assimilation, tumult, paraphrase,
• OED "mendicant": This word belongs in Frequency Band 4. Band 4 contains words which occur between 0.1 and 1.0 times per million words in typical modern English usage. Such words are marked by much greater specificity and a wider range of register, regionality, and subject domain than those found in bands 8-5. However, most words remain recognizable to English-speakers, and are likely be used unproblematically in fiction or journalism. Examples include overhang, life support, , embouchure, insectivore

American English:

• It: Word Rank: 9th

Grade Level (Approximate): Elementary or Middle School

Fog Reading Ease Complex Word: No

Dale-Chall Reading Ease Difficult Word: Noword analyzer

• Run: Word Rank: 396th

Grade Level (Approximate): Elementary or Middle Schoolword analyzer

Fog Reading Ease Complex Word: No

Dale-Chall Reading Ease Difficult Word: No

• Ascetic: Word Rank: 7038th

Grade Level (Approximate): Elementary or Middle Schoolword analyzer

• Mendicant: Word Rank: 10146th

Grade Level (Approximate): Junior High Schoolword analyzer Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, I think we'll never get to both correct and complete in the lead sentence of a major figure from the late Iron Age, and we'll just have to trade off some completeness for "good enough to start with", and hope they continue reading the lead, where we can get into a bit of detail, and the body, where we get into some of the nuances. Mathglot (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

>>>Also, I think we'll never get to both correct and complete in the lead sentence of a major figure from the late Iron Age,

For a minor figure, we will? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: With respect to wandered: I've modified my wording above to use roamed instead. The verb to roam has a dual meaning (per m-w.com, et al.), which includes both the purposeless or directionless sense of wander, as well as the purposeful sense of traveled, and could be ideal here. Mathglot (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, & I think its better, but it stikes me as something mostly done by animals, I must say. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I checked books and scholar, and your intuition holds up; there are more references to animals (maybe 3 or 4 to 1) than to people. But still, there are some about people, like Krisha Roamed the Forest. When it describes human activity, it seems to work better in ancient or prehistorical contexts (e.g., here). Do you think roam is too tainted by connotations about animals to use in this context? Perhaps there is something even better. Mathglot (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you feel compelled to pursue fruitless threads? Do you know how many poems I have memorized from childhood with wander applied to all sorts of things? Quite a few:

• a little child: The storm came up before its time, She wander'd up and down; And many a hill did Lucy climb, But never reached the town. (Wordsworth)
• the moon: Save that from yonder ivy-mantled tow'r, The moping owl does to the moon complain, Of such, as wand'ring near her secret bow'r, Molest her ancient solitary reign. (Thomas Gray)
• a cow: She wandered lowing here and there, And yet she cannot stray, All in the pleasant open air, The pleasant light of day. (RL Stevenson). (I can keep going for hours)

At some point such relentless arrogations begin to look tiresome. I recommend that you not inform us anything about the English language. My point is that texts are not written by looking up words in dictionaries. Many words can be used. It all depends on how the word is used and in what context. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

And roaming can be used as well, but in context. You could say, for example, "Several years of itinerant roaming following his first sermon at Sarnath." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

And wandering can be used as well, e.g. "Wandering from town to town, proselytizing to ever newer audiences, the Buddha picked up followers." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Blast from the past

Maybe it would help us find the best competing wording options to present in an Rfc, if we could easily recall some of the versions the lead sentence has taken in the past. Here is a selection of them spanning the more than twenty years since the article was created in 2001 (the same year Wikipedia began) through the present day, in the context of their lead paragraphs:

2001

rev. 338333453 of 19:58, 1 November 2001: the original version of the article:

Founder of Buddhism who lived approximately 563-483 BCE. The Buddha was born Siddhartha Gautama (Sanskrit form, or Siddhatta Gotama, Prakrit form). He is also commonly known as Sakyamuni (The sage of the Sakya clan) and the Tathagata (untranslatable: roughly, "The thus-come one" or "The thus-gone one", and emphasizing the nature of a Buddha to go about in the world without "adding" or "subtracting" anything from his experience.)

2002

rev. 397378 of 07:38, 1 November 2002

Founder of Buddhism who lived approximately 563-483 BCE. The Buddha was born Siddhartha Gautama (Sanskrit form, or Siddhatta Gotama, Prakrit form). He is also commonly known as Shakyamuni (or Sakyamuni) (The sage of the Shakya/Sakya clan) and the Tathagata (untranslatable: roughly, "The thus-come one" or "The thus-gone one", and emphasizing the nature of a Buddha to go about in the world without "adding" or "subtracting" anything from his experience.)

2003

rev. 1776902 of 12:33, 24 October 2003

Gautama Buddha was an Indian spiritual leader who lived between approximately 563 BC and 483 BC. Born Siddhartha Gautama (Sanskrit, Siddhattha Gotama Pali -- the "wish-fulfiller"), he later became the Buddha (lit. Enlightened One). He is also commonly known as Shakyamuni or Sakyamuni (lit. "The sage of the Shakya clan") and as the Tathagata (lit. thus-gone one), emphasizing the nature of a Buddha to go about in the world without adding or subtracting anything from his experience.) Gautama was a contemporary of Mahavira.

2004

rev. 7124124 of 10:21, 5 November 2004‎

Gautama Buddha was an Indian spiritual leader who lived between approximately 563 BC and 483 BC. Born Siddhārtha Gautama (Sanskrit; सिद्धार्थ गौतम in Devanagari script; Siddhattha Gotama Pali – descendent of Gotama whose aims are achieved/who is efficacious in achieving aims), he later became the Buddha (lit. Enlightened One or Awakened one). He is also commonly known as Shakyamuni or Sakyamuni (lit. "The sage of the Shakya clan") and as the Tathagata (lit. which may mean "thus-come-one" or "thus-gone-one"). Gautama was a contemporary of Mahavira.

2005

rev. 27229902 of 06:01, 3 November 2005‎

Gautama Buddha was a spiritual teacher believed to have lived between approximately 563 BCE and 483 BCE on the Indian subcontinent, in the Gangetic Plains area of modern Nepal and northern India. Born as Siddhartha Gautama (Sanskrit: "descendant of Gautama whose aims are achieved / who achieves aims effectively") he became "the Buddha" after embarking on a quest for spiritual meaning. He is universally recognised by Buddhists as the Supreme Buddha (literally Enlightened One or Awakened One) of our age. He is also commonly known as Shakyamuni or Sakyamuni ("sage of the Shakya clan") and as the Tathagata ("thus-come-one").

2006

rev. 85095273 of 19:42, 1 November 2006‎

Siddhārtha Gautama (Pāli सिद्धार्थ गौतम: Gotama Buddha) was a spiritual teacher from the ancient Indian subcontinent and the historical founder of Buddhism. He is universally recognised by Buddhists as the Supreme Buddha of our age. The time of his birth and death are not certain; most modern historians date his lifetime from 563 BCE to 483 BCE, though some alternative research may suggest a date about a century later than this. [1] (cached copies only)

2007

rev. 168786354 of 19:09, 2 November 2007

Siddhārtha Gautama (Sanskrit; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher from Ancient India and the founder of Buddhism. He is generally recognized by Buddhists as the Supreme Buddha (Sammāsambuddha) of our age. The time of his birth and death are uncertain: a majority of 20th-century historians date his lifetime from circa 563 BCE to 483 BCE, but some more recent scholars have suggested dates around 410 or 400 BCE for his death. Some suggest even later dates. These alternative chronologies, however, have not yet been accepted by all other historians.

2008

rev. 249492640 of 21:26, 3 November 2008‎

Siddhārtha Gautama (Sanskrit; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher from ancient India and the founder of Buddhism. He is generally recognized by Buddhists as the Supreme Buddha (Sammāsambuddha) of our age. The time of his birth and death are uncertain: most early 20th-century historians date his lifetime from c. 563 BC to 483 BC; more recently, however, at a specialist symposium on this question, the majority of those scholars who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side of 400 BC for the Buddha's death, with others supporting earlier or later dates.

2009

rev. 323901577 of 15:19, 4 November 2009

Siddhārtha Gautama (Sanskrit: सिद्धार्थ गौतम; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher in the north eastern region of the Indian subcontinent who founded Buddhism. In most Buddhist traditions, he is regarded as the Supreme Buddha (Sammāsambuddha) of our age, "Buddha" meaning "awakened one." The time of his birth and death are uncertain: most early 20th-century historians dated his lifetime as c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE; more recently, however, at a specialist symposium on this question, the majority of those scholars who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side of 400 BCE for the Buddha's death, with others supporting earlier or later dates.

2010

rev. 394326301 of 05:25, 2 November 2010

Siddhārtha Gautama (Sanskrit: सिद्धार्थ गौतम; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher from ancient India who founded Buddhism. In most Buddhist traditions, he is regarded as the Supreme Buddha (P. sammāsambuddha, S. samyaksaṃbuddha) of our age, "Buddha" meaning "awakened one" or "the enlightened one." The time of his birth and death are uncertain: most early 20th-century historians dated his lifetime as c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE, but more recent opinion dates his death to between to between 486 and 483 BCE or, according to some, between 411 and 400 BCE.

2011

rev. 459965520 of 13:25, 10 November 2011‎

Siddhārtha Gautama (Sanskrit: सिद्धार्थ गौतम; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher from the Indian subcontinent, on whose teachings Buddhism was founded. In most Buddhist traditions, he is regarded as the Supreme Buddha (P. sammāsambuddha, S. samyaksaṃbuddha) of our age, "Buddha" meaning "awakened one" or "the enlightened one." The time of his birth and death are uncertain: most early 20th-century historians dated his lifetime as c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE, but more recent opinion dates his death to between 486 and 483 BCE or, according to some, between 411 and 400 BCE. Based on some archeological findings and inscriptions, Buddha was born in Lumbini, modern Nepal which is a UNESCO world heritage site. Other archeological findings postulate that Buddha was born at Kapilavastu at Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, India or Kapileswara, Orissa, India. He later taught throughout regions of eastern India such as Magadha and Kośala.

2012

rev. 520923382 of 17:19, 1 November 2012‎

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

2013

rev. 579895596 of 17:58, 2 November 2013‎

Gautama Buddha, also known as Siddhārtha Gautama, Shakyamuni,, or simply the Buddha, was a sage on whose teachings Buddhism was founded. A native of the ancient Shakya republic in the Himalayan foothills, Gautama Buddha taught primarily in northeastern India.

2014

rev. 632100114 of 04:21, 2 November 2014

Gautama Buddha, also known as Siddhārtha Gautama, Shakyamuni, or simply the Buddha, was a sage on whose teachings Buddhism was founded. He is believed to have lived and taught mostly in eastern India sometime between the sixth and fourth centuries BCE.

2015

rev. 688641856 of 05:08, 2 November 2015

Gautama Buddha, also known as Siddhārtha Gautama, Shakyamuni, or simply the Buddha, was a sage on whose teachings Buddhism was founded. He is believed to have lived and taught mostly in northeastern India sometime between the sixth and fourth centuries BCE.

2016

rev. 747269899 of 12:41, 1 November 2016‎

Gautama Buddha, also known as Siddhārtha Gautama, Shakyamuni Buddha, or simply the Buddha, after the title of Buddha, was an ascetic (śramaṇa) and sage, on whose teachings Buddhism was founded. He is believed to have lived and taught mostly in the eastern part of Ancient India sometime between the sixth and fourth centuries BCE.

2017

rev. 80846487 of 00:59, 3 November 2017

Gautama Buddha (c. 563 BCE/480 BCE – c. 483 BCE/400 BCE), also known as Siddhārtha Gautama [sid̪ːʱɑːrt̪ʰə gəut̪əmə], Shakyamuni Buddha [ɕɑːkjəmun̪i bud̪ːʱə], or simply the Buddha, after the title of Buddha, was an ascetic (śramaṇa) and sage, on whose teachings Buddhism was founded. He is believed to have lived and taught mostly in the eastern part of ancient India sometime between the sixth and fourth centuries BCE.

2018

rev. 868847612 of 20:54, 14 November 2018

Gautama Buddha (c. 563/480 – c. 483/400 BCE), also known as Siddhārtha Gautama, Shakyamuni (i.e. "Sage of the Shakyas") Buddha, or simply the Buddha, after the title of Buddha, was a monk (śramaṇa), mendicant, and sage, on whose teachings Buddhism was founded. He is believed to have lived and taught mostly in the northeastern part of ancient India sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE.

2019

rev. 923977489 of 00:06, 1 November 2019

Siddhārtha Gautama (Sanskrit: सिद्धार्थ गौतम Siddhārtha Gautama, c. 563/480 – c. 483/400 BCE) or Siddhattha Gotama in Pali, also called the Gautama Buddha, the Shakyamuni Buddha ("Buddha, Sage of the Shakyas") or simply the Buddha, after the title of Buddha, was a monk (śramaṇa), mendicant, sage, philosopher, teacher and religious leader on whose teachings Buddhism was founded. He is believed to have lived and taught mostly in the northeastern part of ancient India sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE.

2020

rev. 986726750 of 17:07, 2 November 2020

The Buddha (also known as Siddhartha Gotama or Siddhārtha Gautama) was a philosopher, mendicant, meditator, spiritual teacher, and religious leader who lived in Ancient India (c. 5th to 4th century BCE). He is revered as the founder of the world religion of Buddhism, and worshiped by most Buddhist schools as the Enlightened One who has transcended Karma and escaped the cycle of birth and rebirth. He taught for around 45 years and built a large following, both monastic and lay. His teaching is based on his insight into duḥkha (typically translated as "suffering") and the end of dukkha – the state called Nibbāna or Nirvana.

2021

rev. 105321279 of 15:50, 2 November 2021

Gautama Buddha, popularly known as the Buddha or Lord Buddha (also known as Siddhattha Gotama or Siddhārtha Gautama or Buddha Shakyamuni), was a Śramaṇa who lived in ancient India (c. 6th to 5th century BCE or c. 5th to 4th century BCE). He is regarded as the founder of the world religion of Buddhism, and revered by most Buddhist schools as a savior, the Enlightened One who rediscovered an ancient path to release clinging and craving and escape the cycle of birth and rebirth. He taught for around 45 years and built a large following, both monastic and lay. His teaching is based on his insight into the arising of duḥkha (the unsatisfactoriness of clinging to impermanent states and things) and the ending of duhkha—the state called Nibbāna or Nirvana (extinguishing of the three fires).

December 2021

rev. 1058788982 of 16:41, 5 December 2021

Gautama Buddha, popularly known as the Buddha or Lord Buddha (also known as Siddhattha Gotama or Siddhārtha Gautama or Buddha Shakyamuni), was an ascetic, a religious leader and teacher who lived in ancient India (c. 6th to 5th century BCE or c. 5th to 4th century BCE). He is regarded as the founder of the world religion of Buddhism, and revered by Buddhists as an enlightened being, who rediscovered an ancient path to freedom from ignorance, craving and the cycle of rebirth and suffering. He taught for around 45 years and built a large following, both monastic and lay. His teaching is based on his insight into the arising of suffering or dissatisfaction and its ending—the state called Nirvana (lit. vanishing or extinguishing).

2022

January 2022

rev. 1063515852 of 13:42, 3 January 2022

Gautama Buddha, popularly known as the Buddha (also known as Siddhattha Gotama or Siddhārtha Gautama or Shakyamuni), was an ascetic, a religious leader and teacher who lived in ancient India (c. 6th to 5th century BCE or c. 5th to 4th century BCE). He is regarded as the founder of the world religion of Buddhism, and revered by Buddhists as an enlightened being, who rediscovered an ancient path to freedom from ignorance, craving and the cycle of rebirth and suffering. He taught for around 45 years and built a large following, both monastic and lay. His teaching is based on his insight into the arising of suffering or dissatisfaction and its ending—the state called Nirvana (lit. vanishing or extinguishing).

February 2022

rev. 1069313418 of 17:32, 1 February 2022

Gautama Buddha, popularly known as the Buddha (also known as Siddhattha Gotama or Siddhārtha Gautama or Shakyamuni), was an ascetic, a religious leader and teacher who lived in ancient India (c. 6th to 5th century BCE or c. 5th to 4th century BCE). He is regarded as the founder of the world religion of Buddhism, and revered by Buddhists as an enlightened being, who rediscovered an ancient path to freedom from ignorance, craving and the cycle of rebirth and suffering. He taught for around 45 years and built a large following, both monastic and lay. His teaching is based on his insight into the arising of suffering or dissatisfaction and its ending—the state called Nirvana (lit. vanishing or extinguishing).

March 2022

rev. 1075825222 of 22:04, 7 March 2022

Gautama Buddha, popularly known as the Buddha (also known as Siddhattha Gotama or Siddhārtha Gautama or Shakyamuni), was an ascetic, a religious leader and teacher who lived in ancient India (c. 6th to 5th century BCE or c. 5th to 4th century BCE). He is regarded as the founder of the world religion of Buddhism, and revered by Buddhists as an enlightened being, who rediscovered an ancient path to freedom from ignorance, craving and the cycle of rebirth and suffering. He taught for around 45 years and built a large following, both monastic and lay. His teaching is based on his insight into the arising of suffering or dissatisfaction and its ending—the state called Nirvana (lit. vanishing or extinguishing).

April 2022

rev. 1080640166 of 14:00, 2 April 2022

Gautama Buddha, popularly known as the Buddha (also known as Siddhattha Gotama or Siddhārtha Gautama or Shakyamuni), was an ascetic, a religious leader and teacher who lived in ancient India (c. 6th to 5th century BCE or c. 5th to 4th century BCE). He is regarded as the founder of the world religion of Buddhism, and revered by Buddhists as an enlightened being, who rediscovered an ancient path to freedom from ignorance, craving and the cycle of rebirth and suffering. He taught for around 45 years and built a large following, both monastic and lay. His teaching is based on his insight into the arising of suffering or dissatisfaction and its ending—the state called Nirvana (lit. vanishing or extinguishing).

May 2022

rev. 1085599530 of 11:22, 1 May 2022

Gautama Buddha or (Pali) Gotama Buddha (also the Historical Buddha; Siddhārtha Gautama or (Pali) Siddhattha Gotama; Shakyamuni or (Pali) Sakkamuni; and (the) Buddha) was an ascetic and a religious teacher of South Asia who lived in the latter half of the first millennium BCE. He is the founder of Buddhism and revered by Buddhists as an enlightened being whose teachings sought a path to freedom from ignorance, craving, rebirth and suffering. Born in Lumbini in what is today Nepal in the clan of Shakya, he spent the majority of his adult life in what is today India, attaining enlightment in Bodhgaya, preaching his first sermon on the Four Noble Truths in Sarnath, where also the Buddhist sangha or community came to life, and attaining death in the form of Nirvana in Kushinagar.

June 2022

rev. 109164639 of 14:18, 5 June 2022

Gautama Buddha (a.k.a. Siddhārtha Gautama or (Pali) Siddhattha Gotama; Shakyamuni or (Pali) Sakkamuni; and The Buddha) was an ascetic and spiritual teacher of Nepal and South Asia who lived during the latter half of the first millennium BCE. He was the founder of Buddhism and is revered by Buddhists as an awakened being whose teachings present and explain a path to freedom from ignorance, craving, rebirth and suffering.

July 2022

rev. 1096010076 of 18:27, 1 July 2022‎

Gautama Buddha (also Siddhārtha Gautama, Siddhattha Gotama; Shakyamuni, Sakkamuni; and The Buddha) was an ascetic and spiritual teacher of South Asia who lived during the latter half of the first millennium BCE. He was the founder of Buddhism and is revered by Buddhists as a fully enlightened being who taught a path to Nirvana (lit. vanishing or extinguishing), freedom from ignorance, craving, rebirth and suffering.

August 2022

rev. 1101785508 of 20:20, 1 August 2022‎

Gautama Buddha (also Siddhārtha Gautama, Siddhattha Gotama; Shakyamuni, Sakkamuni; and The Buddha) was an ascetic and spiritual teacher of South Asia who lived during the latter half of the first millennium BCE. He was the founder of Buddhism and is revered by Buddhists as a fully enlightened being who taught a path to Nirvana (lit. vanishing or extinguishing), freedom from ignorance, craving, rebirth and suffering.

September 2022

rev. 1109364513 of 12:22, 9 September 2022

Gautama Buddha (also Siddhārtha Gautama, Siddhattha Gotama; Shakyamuni, Sakkamuni; and The Buddha) was an ascetic and spiritual teacher of ancient India who lived during the 6th or 5th century BCE. He was the founder of Buddhism and is revered by Buddhists as a fully enlightened being who taught a path to Nirvana (lit. vanishing or extinguishing), freedom from ignorance, craving, rebirth and suffering.

October 2022

rev. 1113838976 of 13:48, 3 October 2022

Gautama Buddha (also Siddhārtha Gautama, Siddhattha Gotama; Shakyamuni, Sakkamuni; and The Buddha) was an ascetic and spiritual teacher of ancient India who lived during the 6th or 5th century BCE. He was the founder of Buddhism and is revered by Buddhists as a fully enlightened being who taught a path to Nirvana (lit. vanishing or extinguishing), freedom from ignorance, craving, rebirth and suffering.

November 2022

November 1

rev. 1119440373 of 16:14, 1 November 2022

Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha in English language sources, was a wandering ascetic and religious teacher who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE. He was the founder of Buddhism and is revered by Buddhists as a fully awakened being who taught a path to Nirvana, that is, freedom from ignorance, craving, rebirth and suffering.

November 2

rev. 1119521101 of 00:56, 2 November 2022

Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha was a wandering ascetic and religious teacher who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE and founded Buddhism.

November 3

rev. 1119742563 of 04:52, 3 November 2022

Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha was a wandering ascetic and religious teacher who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE and founded Buddhism.

November 4

rev. 1120038095‎ of 19:25, 4 November 2022

Siddhartha Gautama (5th cent. BCE), most commonly referred to as the Buddha, was a South Asian renunciate who founded Buddhism.

November 11

rev. 1121225048‎ of 05:26, 11 November 2022

Siddhartha Gautama (5th cent. BCE), most commonly referred to as the Buddha, was a South Asian renunciate who founded Buddhism.

November 14

rev. 1121665239 of 13:40, 13 November 2022

Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha was a wandering ascetic and religious teacher who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE and founded Buddhism.

November 25

rev. 1123817372 of 21:30, 25 November 2022

Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha was a wandering ascetic and religious teacher who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE and founded Buddhism.

Go to full page.

Notes and refs
Notes Notes Notes Refs References References

It's interesting to just browse the page (full page here), and watch how the lead paragraph has ebbed and flowed over the years, with certain perennial themes recurring again and again and again; if only we could find a way to break that cycle and escape that endless recurrence... Anyone? Mathglot (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a nice gadget! I have another proposal: we let the tides roll on forever and ever, and keep changing the lead. It's quite amusing, I think! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the lede will ever be "finished" to everyone's satisfaction. I suspect impermanence will have its way even here (in fact I'm sure of it), but we can try to move it in an improved direction in the meantime. It's interesting to see the changes over time though. I very much do not like the lede in 2006 where it implies that Gotama Buddha is simply the Pali version of the name Siddhārtha Gautama; however the lede ends up I think it's important to avoid potentially misleading wording like that. - Aoidh (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@JJ: Buddha would not approve. Your next life will be a snake. Mathglot (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Aoidh: indeed; it's a wiki. But I think if we can find some consensus, it may stabilize things for a while, which will at least allow editors to apply their talents on improving other parts of it, or other articles. Mathglot (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah editing and changes are to be expected, but with this article in particular the lede sentence itself seems particularly fluid. With the exception of minor formatting and language additions, the lede of Jesus for example has been stable since mid-2018, and even before that the lede wasn't that different. Granted that's a FA that's been hashed out, but many articles have very stable lede sentences even if the rest of the content is in flux. I think getting a good consensus for the lede sentence is important for that same reason; though it certainly won't set the lede in stone it'll give stability to the lede and the rest of the article can then follow suit. - Aoidh (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem. The lead sentence will become etched in stone, its validity asserted by hoi polloi voting in an RfC. When the people with knowledge complete the lead, the lead sentence will look ludicrous, but hard to budge. As you will have seen in the link I provided above, the language of the one proposed by Mathglot does not rise (in sophistication, grammar, or lucidity) to the level of the history textbook used by millions of high school kids in India. They will find it ludicrous. Please read those pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

That's why I said, "I'll just rewrite the lead." I can very likely do it much better than most, given the evidence thus far. A lead sentence cannot be written before the lead, and it can't be written by a committee of people with little knowledge of the subject, which is what in effect an RfC is. Alternatively, both @Joshua Jonathan: and @Johnbod: should rewrite the lead, including the lead sentence. There was an earlier talk page consensus for them to do this (from May or June 2022). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

If other proposals are ludicrous and you can do it better than most, then that is all the more reason for you to use your knowledge about the topic and contribute your best wording for the lead sentence now, so it can be included in the options before !voting begins. Then your version may carry the day, and the effect of consensus will keep your improved version stable for some time, perhaps years, as in the case of Jesus. But if you don't offer anything, then it can't be considered, and that would be a lost opportunity and a shame. If the consensus version becomes "etched in stone", shouldn't it be your version? Please come up with the best lead sentence you can so we can include it in the options. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I can make the proposal up in a New York minute. But Joshua Jonathan has spent a considerable time writing the article, they are knowledgeable. They should be given the first dibs, the right of first refusal, and only if no consensus is reached on their version should other proposals be made.

You have contributed nothing to the article. Your editing history shows little or no contributions to South Asian, indeed Asian, topics. Where do you fit in? If three people have to make proposals, it should be Joshua Jonathan, JimRenge, and Patliputra, who have spent considerable time on the article, and Johnbod who has worked on a related article, and not drive-bys such as you or Iskander of 323 BCE.

Let's have an RfC with those three. You are completely irrelevant to the process. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

And if you think I don't have ideas of my own, here is one: Siddhartha Gautama or Gautama Buddha, commonly the Buddha and the founder of Buddhism, was a historical figure in South Asia in the mid-first millennium BCE who aimed to overcome suffering by privileging awareness over ritual, preached precepts of conduct that recognized all sentient beings, and spread his ideas through a monastic tradition that disvowed heredity. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

But I refuse to propose anything until @Joshua Jonathan:, @JimRenge:, @पाटलिपुत्र: the main authors of this page and

@Johnbod:, the author of Life of the Buddha in art, have made proposals, or better yet, have together come up with something. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you; that looks like a good proposal to me. I'll be sure to include that as Option 3 (or 4, depending how the numbering goes). Mathglot (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

No, please do not. I have said only Joshua Jonathan, JimRenge, Patliputra and Johnbod should made proposals. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

If you add it, disregarding my precondition, I will take it out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Besides, I can't write the lead sentence unless I have written the lead first, and I have only collected the references yet. I have not even had to time to read them, let alone digest them, combine them judiciously and turn them into a balanced precis. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you are very well meaning and conscientious, but have become fixated on a process. Why does an RfC have to be conducted in a week's time?

The article is 15 years old. Why can't we wait a month? What great disservice will be done to knowledge? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Abecedare and Titodutta: is it true that if I make a proposal on a talk page but do not want it to be included in an RfC, another editor can use it nevertheless and mangle it? I am pinging you Tito, as when an academic had copied my famine articles, you had said we had some rights. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Fowler&fowler, yes, the content is posted under the CC-SA-3.0 and GFDL license, Mathglot is half-right, that anyone can use/reuse the content. However this part is incorrect that you have no copyright on the words you add here. You definitely have some rights still, as the content is shared under CC-SA, and not CC0. So CC-SA terms of attribution etc still applicable.
To me this is a question of courtesy, than licensing. If an author does not want their argument to be included, what's the reason to forcefully include it unless there is a very convincing reason to do so. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Before you consider removing any content added by another user at an Rfc, take a look at the words right above the "Publish" button you clicked when you saved your last post (and every post). It says:

By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.

In other words, you have no copyright on the words you add here, and if they are appropriate for an Rfc, anyone can freely reuse them. If re-used and you wish not to be credited or mentioned, I will honor that request. Mathglot (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I like this wording, but would prefer "5th century BCE" to "mid-first millennium BCE". And "aimed to overcome suffering by privileging awareness over ritual" may need unpacking/work. Please don't try to railroad me to produce a draft of my own! I've hardly edited this article, & don't want to be used to discourage others from doing so, or proposing things. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Thanks for that. I tried to unpack that part, but the only way I get there doubled its length to this:

"to avoid the painfulness of human existence caused by transitory desire by following a Middle Path that dispels the ignorance that leads to desire"

but that's quite a mouthful, and for a first sentence, probably would leave a reader more confused than when they started. My feeling is that maybe it's just too subtle and complex an idea for the first sentence? I tried the opposite approach, shortening the phrase considerably (with inevitable loss of detail, but hopefully a corresponding increase in clarity) and came up with this (altered portions underlined):

Siddhartha Gautama or Gautama Buddha, commonly the Buddha and the founder of Buddhism, was a historical figure in South Asia in the 5th century BCE who sought a Middle Path to overcome human suffering, preached precepts of conduct that recognized all sentient beings, and spread his ideas through a monastic tradition that disavowed heredity.

A few other things:

• "historical figure" seems overspecified; unless we say he was fictional, he was real. Maybe, was a prince?
• heredity seems wrong (that's genetics); what I think was meant here is hereditary, or inherited title or position, but I don't see an article we can link for that, as hereditary rule is a redirect which leads to "Hereditary monarchy", and not sure if that applies here or not.
• preached precepts is unfortunately alliterative, and distracting. How 'bout: preached a doctrine of, or changing it the other way to: taught precepts of?

How does the revised version with the shorter, "unpacked" bit work for you, and any thoughts on the bullets? Mathglot (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Johnbod: As you had asked, here is one unpacking: Siddhartha Gautama or Gautama Buddha, commonly the Buddha and the founder of Buddhism, was a historical figure in South Asia in the fifth-century BCE who viewed the cause of human suffering to lie in desire; proposed a corrective in detachment; set forth rules of moral conduct based in sentience, and proselytized through a monastic order that rejected status based in heredity Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Biography and teachings can be saved for the second alinea. "Historical person" is meaningless (the source from it comes speaks of "first historical person of India"; that's something different, but not explained in the body of the article. He didn't set out to seek a middle path, but discovered a middle path (according to tradition). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Refining and including:

Siddhartha Gautama or Gautama Buddha, commonly the Buddha and the founder of Buddhism, was a prince in South Asia in the 5th century BCE who discovered a Middle Path to overcome human suffering, preached precepts of conduct that recognized recognition of all sentient beings, and spread his ideas through a monastic tradition that disavowed hereditary NOUN (hereditary what? position?)

Need a noun for hereditary _____. ('Alinea' is Frans en Nederlands; ik denk dat je bedoelde, 'paragraph'. ) Mathglot (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I am out, @Joshua Jonathan:, after Mathglot's post about signing my rights away. Mathglot's version is not idiomatic English; it is no regional variety of English I am aware of and I've written History of English grammars; it is not remotely at the level of the high school book read by millions of Indian students. It is full of bizarre, turgid, constructions. That they also know very little about South Asia produces further doozies such as a prince in South Asia. Good luck to you JJ. @Mathglot: please do not post on my talk page, nor send me email. I will be silencing all pings from you besides. This is a public notice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Noted. As you are likely already aware, prince is used in dozens of tertiary sources, and the term South Asia remains intact from your original wording above. As for your comments about my prose, my abilities, or my good faith, you were previously warned about this on your Talk page. The fact that your parting shot here sounds like another thinly veiled attack and includes an interdiction on responding to it there (where it ought to be addressed, and not here) is really poor form. Mathglot (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

"I did not say anything about your abilities. Your submitted text is not written in idiomatic English nor in the language of South Asian historiography. A prince in South Asia is as meaningless as a prince on the Indo-Australian tectonic plate, for it seems to assume these categories have existed independently of time. The city-states of the period were caste-based chieftaincies, barely oligarchies. There were no monarchies.

A historical figure is very relevant as the Buddha is the first historical figure of South Asia. Recorded South Asian history began with chronicles of the Buddha's life. The "authors" of contemporaneous Hindu epics of that period, on the other hand, were legendary.

You have now also written an ungrammatical sentence, "discovered a Middle Path to overcome human suffering," not once but twice. The object of discover is a noun phrase "a Middle path to overcome human suffering" That itself has a head "path," a premodifier "middle" and a complement which is a prepositional phrase. But prepositional phrases are simple in structure, when they occur as a complement, they are always preposition + -ing participle. So you can say, "discovered a middle path to/for overcoming human suffering," but not "overcome."

You saw that the admin I asked about your mangling my prose say it is a matter of courtesy. You have chosen to be discourteous, relentlessly discourteous. Johnbod made a comment to me. How did you presume to answer and then also offer misguided criticism, without waiting for me to clarify something I wrote on the spur of the moment? You have repeatedly argued with me about things (whether of South Asian history or English grammar) in which your constructions have fallen short. When I say, "You cannot say wandered the Ganges basin," of someone who for a few years crisscrossed a small portion of it, you assert your right to throw improbable examples at me. So, what exactly is going on? I haven't engaged in any personal attacks. You have engaged in relentless discourtesy. You need to do some soul searching. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Further refinement based on @12:01, 12 Nov.:

Siddhartha Gautama or Gautama Buddha, commonly the Buddha and the founder of Buddhism, was a historical figure in South Asia in the fifth-century BCE who viewed the cause of human suffering to lie in desire; proposed a corrective in detachment; set forth rules of moral conduct based in sentience, and proselytized through a monastic order that rejected status based in heredity.

Two brief points: I commented previously on my reservations about the word heredity in this context, but I've kept it as is for now. Also, your wikilink piped to Tanha goes to a disambig page; I assume you meant taṇhā instead, and I've replaced it with that. Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: OK. I did not realize heredity went to genetics. Thank you for correcting taṇhā.

How about:

Siddhartha Gautama or Gautama Buddha, commonly the Buddha and the founder of Buddhism, was a historical figure in South Asia in the fifth-century BCE who viewed the cause of human suffering to lie in desire; proposed a corrective in detachment; based rules for moral conduct in sentience; and spread his message through a monastic order that rejected caste.

@Johnbod: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

It's very terse, but sums up the basic points. Some comments:

• "historical figure" - should be "the first historical figure"; ""historical figure" is nondescript, as there are so many hisstoeical figures;
• "suffering" is an inadequate and outdated translation; as explained elsewhere it's more something like "standing unstable, unsatisfactoriness." in your sentence, it could be "unease";
• "sentience" - ahimsa would be more to the point; it's not clear to me what you mean here with "sentience";
• "rejected caste" - could be incorporated in the present lead.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

You have already proposed one version which is a part of the RfC. I have proposed mine. Please don't keep muddying the waters. My version is linked to dukkha. You have early today made large-scale edits to dukkha, which I have just reverted.diff What is going on JJ? Relentless gray-zone editing, changing links that are being used in the discussion here, ... Is nothing sacrosanct? Please don't incorporate anything here into anything elsewhere; otherwise what is the point of an RfC? Your suggestion about adding "first" is a good one and I can look into incorporating it, but you shouldn't take bits from here and add them somewhere else. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

arbitrary break #3 - dukkha

This break added 18:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC); the first comment below is a reply to the 13:08, 13 Nov. comment in the previous section; this break represents roughly the point where the conversation shifted to discussion of dukkha.

I can incorporate some changes. Suffering is still the commonly used word; sentience is explained in the link.

Siddhartha Gautama or Gautama Buddha, commonly the Buddha and the founder of Buddhism, was the first historical figure of South Asia, ca. fifth-century BCE, who viewed the cause of human suffering to lie in desire; proposed a corrective in detachment; based rules for moral conduct in sentience; and instituted a monastic order that rejected caste.

My preference though it not to use "first" as we will inevitably get into a tussle with the Mahavira page editors who might claim that M. was the first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

"Suffering" is not the preferred tanslation in scholarly treatments, as explained by multiple authors. I see your point about "first"; how about "one of the first"? "Historical person" is still nondescript. NB: it would be relevant to explain "[first] historical person" in the body of the article, but apart from Kulke & Rothermund I could find only one other source which explains this; have you got more? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

One of the first is a good suggestion. Will "anguish" work instead of "suffering?" The others such as unsteadiness etc are not lead-worthy, in my opinion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

To the extent this is a serial sentence there are some limitations of meter. Early might be better than one of the earliest. Also rejection of caste might be problematic in terms of what really happened. This might be more precise

Siddhartha Gautama or Gautama Buddha, commonly the Buddha and the founder of Buddhism, was an early historical figure of South Asia, ca. fifth-century BCE, who viewed the cause of human anguish to lie in desire; proposed a corrective in detachment; based rules for moral conduct in sentience; and began a monastic order in which status was independent of caste.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

"Suffering" is a common translation of dukkha, but not the one that covers it's meaning in this Buddhist context. I think that "anguish" is not exactly to the point; it may be a form of dukkha (I gather), but it's not exactly that. Please read Monier-Wiliams etymology; it reminds me even of 'wobbliness', but also of 'being pushed by the wind[s of desire]', 'not standing firm', 'being driven [by feelings and passions one is unaware of]'. It is a complicated term; that's also what so many authors have explained: there's no exact matching word in English. Compare the Greek philosophers, striving to apatheia: not being driven by the storms of the animal instincts. In Dutch, I could refer you to a number of poems, for example Het huwelijk; but in English, I lack the vocubulary. Again, please read Monier-Williams, and Beckwits; it's their explanation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you talking about the etymology of the Sanskrit word दुख​:? If so, there are more modern dictionaries than Monier-Williams of a century ago. I'll see what I can do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

दुःख I meant. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

See the dukkha-article for the Sanskrit. Of course there are more modern dictionaries, but that's not the point; the point is the alternative etymology given by Monier-Williams, Anayola, and Beckwith. Try to be open-minded, contemplate it, and use images and associations. Dukkha is suffering from the grip of passions, the lack of self-control that makes one a slave. Like a ship without a stir, going in all directions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I do know some Sanskrit. (One year standing now, and still ramping up. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC))

The modern meaning is: 1 Sorrow, grief, unhappiness, distress, pain, agony See Apte's dictionary for the noun.

It is the same word in Hindi, but spelled differently. McGregor's Oxford Hindi-English dictionary 1999, has: दुःख, duḥkh, noun, masculine = दुख, dukh, masculine = sorrow, grief, distress, dejection.

I will look at Monier Williams next, but old sources are generally problematic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

>>>Dukkha is suffering from the grip of passions, the lack of self-control that makes one a slave. Like a ship without a stir, going in all directions.

I don't think that is the common meaning in Sanskrit. I'll have to dig into my memory, but I'm sure I can come up with a few shlokas with duhkha in it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Here's one from the Gita:

सुखदु:खे समे कृत्वा लाभालाभौ जयाजयौ |

ततो युद्धाय युज्यस्व नैवं पापमवाप्स्यसि ||

सुख/sukha(happiness) दु:खे/duhkhe(distress) समे/samay(same) कृत्वा/kritva (task) लाभा/laabha (gain) लाभौ/laabhau (loss)

जया/jyaa (victory) जयौ/jyau (defeat) ततो/tatau (after) युद्धाय/yudhyaay (battle) युज्यस्व/yujasva (?) नैवं/naivam = na + aivam (not ever) पापम/paapam (sin) वाप्स्यसि/vaapsyasi (?)||

I can't figure out all the words, but the import is: Those who battle to make happiness and distress, gain and loss, victory and defeat the same task (?) will never commit sin. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

That is ca. 400 BCE to 200 CE. Here is another from ca. 1600 CE, Tulsidas's Awadhi language Ramcharitmanas, which has a handful of Sanskrit prayers in it.

जरा जन्म दुःखौघ तातप्यमानं, प्रभोपाहि आपन्नामामीश शम्भो

= जरा/jaraa (old age) जन्म/janm (birth) दुःखौघ/duhkhau (pain/distress) तातप्यमानं/taatapyamaanam (burning), प्रभो/prabho (lord) पाहि/paahi (?) आपन्नामामीश/aapannamsheesh = aapan + namaamim + sheesh (I bow down) शम्भो/shambhau (Shiva)

Burning with the distress of birth and old age, I bow down to my lord Shiva

Unless, there is some special meaning in Pali, the word in Sanskrit is mostly sorrow or distress. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

It has limited use in Urdu, but similar meaning. See Platt's Urdu English dictionary. diff

دکهہ दुख dukh (p. 521)

H دکهہ दुख dukh [Prk. दुक्खं = S. दुःखं], s.m. Pain, ache, ailment, affliction, suffering, distress; misery, trouble, sorrow, grief, uneasiness, unhappiness Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Have been watching, and first let me say say what a pleasure it is just observing a deeply informed discussion of this caliber at Wikipedia. I don't read Sanskrit so cannot contribute at this level, unfortunately. I can glimpse the difficulty of the problem of how to render dukkha by searching "translating Dukkha" in books, and seeing the large number of results, including many which explain why the author is *not* translating it in their work. The best I can do is to reach out for some sources, and see if they might provide English renderings that might help, although at some level, they are all inadequate (but then, that's the nature of translation, isn't it?). I found four non-book sources, with a variety of approaches:

• Britannica – brief encyclopedic article for the general reader; uses suffering, and links the concept to "impermanence (anichcha) and the absence of a self (anatta)".
• Buddhist Dictionary(by Binh Anson, an engineer in Perth) – a long entry for dukkha, including: "is not limited to painful experience as under (1), but refers to the unsatisfactory nature and the general insecurity of all conditioned phenomena which, on account of their impermanence, are all liable to suffering"
• Oxford Bibliographies (Carol Anderson) a monograph with a good bibliography, which begins, "most often translated as 'pain,' 'suffering,' 'stress,' or 'dis-ease' (and as an adjective, 'painful, stressful')". She stresses the centrality of the term in Buddhist teachings, and "one of the most difficult understand in a comprehensive manner". The bibliographic reference that sounds the most interesting, or at least, most in depth, is Harvey (2009) "Translating Dukkha", but unfortunately that part of her article is behind a paywall
• Tricycle (Andrew Olendzki) – this was the most in depth of the four; he writes: "usually translated as 'suffering,' ” and in the interesting part (for me) goes on to characterize it as "best understood alongside the related word sukha" and contrasts word pairs sumanas/dumanas, and somanassa/domanassa and how they apply. I found this very interesting and informative, but again, difficult to render in a single word in English.

Somewhere between the despair of ever coming up with an adequate translation, and the hope of conveying something about the importance of the concept to an uninformed reader, we have to formulate something in the first sentence that will keep them engaged, and eager to read on. Although a number of authors refuse to translate it at all, I don't think that approach works for us here at a Wikipedia article. Maybe we just have to go with what everybody says is "usually translated as suffering", and either pipe it to Dukkha, or include an explanatory note? Mathglot (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, suffering was my initial choice, and the one I remember from the little Buddhist literature (mostly SAian history related) I have read. I forgot then that it was being linked to duhkha, a word I do know a bit. Actually I was complicit in the linking but not paying attention to the word much, thinking it was a Pali word.

duhkha in Sanskrit (through dukh in Hindi) is a commonly understood word in South Asia, pretty much everyone, the Urdu speakers, the Bengali speakers, possibly even the Tamil speakers, know it, mainly because the Hindi speakers loose no opportunity to use it. gham is the preferred word in Urdu/Persian which is used in Bollywood songs, but dukh is too.

They all have all those meanings: unhappiness, distress, suffering, grief, sorrow, ..., but not commonly the more esoteric meanings JJ is alluding to.

Mathglot has a good solution. Simply use "suffering" (my preferred and original) and link it to duhkha (note it is duhkha in Sanskrit (दुःख = दु + : + ख = du + h + kha (with a short a sound at the end) or maybe with a dot under the h, but not dukkha which would be spelled दुक्ख​ = du + k + kha (unless it is the Pali or Prakrit spelling, which it might) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Good work, @Mathglot: btw. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

As I'm clearly the least knowledgeable about the topic of anyone here, I very happy if any of my contributions can help in some small way, and I appreciate the accolade. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

F&f's final version

And thanks, @Mathglot:, for your earlier responses. Based on them and based on my reading of Sanskrit dictionaries (even Monier Monier-Williams, ca 1899) and the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, and @Joshua Jonathan:'s input about "unsatisfactory" I feel comfortable in this version:

Siddhartha Gautama or Gautama Buddha, commonly the Buddha and the founder of Buddhism, was an early historical figure of South Asia, ca. fifth-century BCE, who viewed human suffering or dissatisfaction to spring from desire; proposed a corrective in detachment; made sentient beings the base for moral conduct; and rejected hereditary transmission of status.

The noWiki version, showing the links, is:

'''Siddhartha Gautama''' or '''Gautama Buddha''', commonly ''' the Buddha''' and the founder of [[Buddhism]], was an early [[historical figure]] of South Asia, ca. fifth-century BCE, who viewed [[Duḥkha|human suffering or dissatisfaction]] to spring from [[Taṇhā|desire]]; proposed a corrective in [[nirodha|detachment]]; made [[sentient beings (Buddhism)|sentient beings]] the base for moral conduct; and rejected [[caste|hereditary transmission of status]].

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I take back my earlier prohibitions about you not posting on my user talk page, pinging me, etc. Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

A shorter second sentence to balance the longer first might be in order: His teachings, supported by monastic orders and spreading to many parts of Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia, form one of the world's major religions.

We could then move to the second paragraph with the details. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Re "not posting", etc.: Understood; that's a good move, and will improve collaboration, which can only be a good thing. Re: latest version: looking very good. Btw, I will take into account all links, piped or not, so no need to nowiki-fy it on my account, just in case the question comes up again. Mathglot (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Btw, I'll still be around today, but will have very spotty wifi for a couple of days after; I may or may not respond until mid-week, or at most, only briefly. Mathglot (talk) 00:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Additional possible candidates

I was browsing both the lead paragraphs of the past, as well as our compendium of tertiary sources, and noticed the following excerpt from Encyclopedia of World History:

Siddhartha Gautama (better known as the Buddha, l. c. 563 - c. 483 BCE) was, according to legend, a Hindu prince who renounced his position and wealth to seek enlightenment as a spiritual ascetic, attained his goal and, in preaching his path to others, founded Buddhism in India in the 6th-5th centuries BCE.^{[emphasis in the original ]}

That really seems like quite a good formulation. It's a bit longer than some of the others, but includes aspects such as "legend", his background as a Hindu prince, and an allusion to Nirvana (which needn't be spelled out at this juncture, imho). I think it's pretty good, and worth including as an option, although we'd have to paraphrase it in order to avoid copyright issues. It's different enough from the others, and a bit more information-inclusive, so it seems like a worthy candidate to me. What do others think about this? If you like it, can you propose a rewording that works? If you don't like it, have another look at /Tertiary sources, and maybe something will inspire you to come up with an alternative. Mathglot (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Serious? A Hindu prince? There was no Hinduism at the time of the Buddha; there was Brahmanism at the western Ganges basin; sramanas; and local religions. The Hindu synthesis started at ca. 500-300 BCE, when Brahmins incorporated sramanic ideas and non-Vedic gods in their practice and worldview. And the Buddha did not live in the 6th century. And he didn't 'seek enlightenment'; he sought liberation, a life freem from passions and aversion. Bodhi ("enlightenment") probably meant no more than the realisation that he had found a way that worked. Joshua J. Mark and his Encyclopedia of World History are perennial untrustworthy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, we can drop that one; thanks for the feedback. Btw, maybe your comments should be added as well at WP:RSN, and possibly added to their List of perennial sources. That still leaves us with three candidates; do you see any other formulations, either in past versions, or in tertiary sources that would be a reasonable alternative for the community to consider? Mathglot (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence as it is now, with a link to "sramana," is fine. A short description of his teachings can be confined to the second alinea. "A middle path to overcome human suffering" is an inadequate summary; it's too literal. The Buddha wanted to overcome the overriding influence of passions and aversions, called "dukkha" in just one og many formulas in the Buddhist texts; "suffering" is just one, and not too accurate, translation. Too repeat: the first sentence is fine. 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Name, date, 'what' and 'where' are given; biography and teaching are given in the second alinea. If you compromise on "renunciate," and F&f compromises on a link to "sramana," we're finished. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I've been watching what has developed here and I must say these recent discussions reflect well on those participating. You folks seem to have disagreed yourselves into a lasting consensus. Very impressive wikipedians working here in a contentious area. You guys are making us all look good. BusterD (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I thought you were watching the other page and attributed the prevailing calm there to your presence.  :)

As for here, Blind men and an elephant is a Buddhist parable. I know it from a poem of Saxe that I had memorized in middle school. It has recently been merchandized. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I forgot: welcome to the page, BusterD, and thank you! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid, JJ, I can't agree to a lead sentence being a haiku of links, each link a trapdoor to obscurity. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I've asked you before, JJ, please write the lead in your own words, based on the sources I have provided. Please write it without links. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

What's obscure about Buddhism? Not using links "limit[s] further inquiry and understanding." WP:LINK: "Linking through hyperlinks is an important feature of Wikipedia. Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

In my own words

I'm asking again: please write the lead in your own words without using hyperlinks, explaining the concepts as you proceed, so we can simplify and smooth it. You had agreed to it earlier. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I already did:

Siddhartha Gautama (5th cent. BCE),[c] most commonly referred to as the Buddha,[e][f] was a South Asian renunciate and religious teacher who founded Buddhism.

References

• "Siddharta Gautama" - personal name; obvious, I think, but sourced by Buswell & Lopez, amnog others, as provided by you;
• "5th cent. BCE" - scholarly consensus;

• [7] Stein]: "is now thought to have been born, in the fifth century bce";
• [8] Kulke & Rothermund: "archaeological evidence also seems to indicate that the Buddha lived in the fifth rather than in the sixth century";

• "most commonly referred to as the Buddha" - could also be "commonly called the Buddha";
• [e] - note on the names, including Gotama Buddha and Shakyamuni Buddha, mostly sourced to Busweel & Lopez, as provided by you;
• [f] - note on the translation of "bodhi" and "Buddha";
• "South Asian" - imprecise, but according to contemporary nomenclature and nationalistic sensibilities; specified in the second alinea. Your sources also use "India";
• "renunciate" ("[[śramaṇa|renunciate]]{{sfn|Ray|1999|p=65-67}}") - renunciate per Thapar and Ray, who elaborates on Thapar:

• Thapar: "As a general category they were referred to as sramanas or samanas"
• Thapar: "Renunciation was not necessarily identical with asceticism and a distinction between them might be useful. The ascetic ideally lived in isolation, discarding all social obligations and performing his death-rites before leaving home. The renouncer discarded the social obligations required through family and caste ties, but entered an alternative society - that of the Sangha, where new obligations were assumed relating to the life of renouncers."
• MOS:UNDERLINK: "In general, links should be created for: [...] Articles explaining words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions or phrases."

• "religious teacher":

• [1] Coningham & Young: "religious identity"
• [2] Thapar: "he founded a religion"; "the two parallel streams of religious articulation"; "the Buddha's teaching"; "The Buddha did not see his teaching as a divine revelation";
• [4] Fogelin: "a wide variety of religious traditions emerged"; "Jainism and Buddhism became major religions"; "multiple overlapping religious sects, all competing for the support of the laity. Of these, Brahmanism, Jainism, and Buddhism"; "Buddhism was only one of many religious traditions"; "their teachings";
• [5] Gilbert: "The teachings of Siddhartha, who later was known as a bodhi (possessor of wisdom) or Buddha (Enlightened One), came to form the basis of Buddhism, a religion"; "the teaching"; "The Buddha’s followers codified his teachings";
• [7] Stein: "The teachings of the Buddha"; "he commenced teaching"; "particular great men – usually the founding teachers";
• [8] Kulke & Ruthermond: "the teaching of Gautama Buddha"; "Buddha’s teachings";
• [9] Ludden: "the teachings of Gautama Buddha";
• [10] Fischer: "Jainism and Buddhism. These new religions"; "These two religious movements";
• NB: your sources also use the term "spiritual";

• "who founded Buddhism.":

• [2] Thapar: "he founded a religion";
• MOS:UNDERLINK: "In general, links should be created for: [...] Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully [...] Articles with relevant information."

For additionial requests I'll have to charge you a fee; I'm just a volunteer, remember? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I have said repeatedly—three or four times now—please write the lead in your own words, not the lead sentence. Please write the lead without using wikilinks, explaining the jargon in common English as you proceed. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Forget the references for now. Simply write the lead in ordinary English without wikilinks, explaining what Sanskrit terms you use as you proceed, just as you would in a paper encyclopedia. It will be a big step forward. It will give us something to work with, to further hammer into shape. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I have repeatedly said: the second alinea already gives a short overview of the (legendary) biography and his teachings. This summarizes the body of the article in an adequate way, and suffices. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

And it is adequate according to whom? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Wow. Just wanted to call out an admirable job of documenting the specific word choices in this version in a clear, thorough, and methodical manner. Rarely have I seen the thought process behind the wording of a single sentence documented this well. Bravo! So, take a break, have a beer, eat a double-chocolate sundae, or some cookies; smell the roses, contemplate your navel, or whatever kind of present you can give yourself. You've earned it. Mathglot (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I see that Joshua Jonathan has been editing the lead throughout his time. I thought we had an agreement that the lead would remain inviolate until there was talk page consensus. I received many holier-than-thou admonitions.
When I am ready, I will edit the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Just a little amendment, to incorporate dukkha: change

teaching a Middle Way between sensual indulgence and severe asceticism

into

teaching dukkha ("standing unstable," "unsatisfactoriness") and it's cessation through a Middle Way between sensual indulgence and severe asceticism

Dukkha, of course, is a notorious term to translate; as I've stated before, "suffering" does not suffice. See Talk:The Buddha#Dukkha - or duḥ-stha. And see, ironically, Bhikkhu Bodhi (2013), I Teach Only Suffering and the End of Suffering. “Nope, I didn’t (quite) say that” —The Buddha:

Our contemporary environment of thought, which relishes reducing complex systems of ideas to simple catchphrases and slogans, has also contributed to the distortion [...] if the dharma is to be presented accurately, the example discussed above shows that we should be careful when quoting the Buddha’s words. To ensure that the dharma is understood and transmitted correctly, we cannot escape the need for serious study of the texts, with an understanding of the classical languages in which they have been preserved.

As for the sources for "standing unstable, unsatisfactoriness" (or "unsatisfactory"):

• Monier-Williams, Monier (1899), A Sanskrit-English Dictionary (PDF), London: Oxford University Press
• Analayo (2013), Satipatthana. The Direct Path to Realization, Windhorse Publications
• Beckwith, Christopher I. (2015). Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia (PDF). Princeton University Press. ISBN 9781400866328.

Monier Monier-Williams doesn't need an introduction; Analoya is a respected scholar-monk; and Christopher I. Beckwith is "an American philologist and distinguished professor in the Department of Central Eurasian Studies at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana." Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I've just read MMW's entry. You have to look at all the uses of दुःख through the word combinations, not the etymology.

It is mostly sorrow, suffering, distress, and pain over unsteadiness, standing unstable, or unsatisfactoriness.

See MMW's

• duhkha-moksha, deliverance (or moksha) from pain;
• duhkha-duhkin, or sorrow upon sorrow;
• duhkha-loka, the world of pain;
• duhkha-yantra, application of pain, torture;
• duhkha-jivin, (with jivin related to jiva), living with pain or distress);
• duhkha-moha, perplexity from pain or sorrow;
• duhkha-patra, a vessel or receptacle for sorrow;

The primary meaning is sorrow, distress, pain, suffering, and so forth

The transferred or figurative meanings are difficulty, as in duhkh-"dohiya" (milked with difficulty) or duhkh-laabhdika (gained with difficulty).

Etymologies can lead us astray into Indo-European roots etc. I'm reasonably sure about this now. You can ask at WT:INDIA if you'd like. There are Sanskrit speakers there, one such posted on my page after the lead of Sanskrit was finished. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot and Joshua Jonathan: And I just checked the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. It has a long entry. Here are the first few lines:

duḥkha Sanskrit (Pali. dukkha; T. sdug bsngal; C. ku; J. ku; K. ko 苦). In Sanskrit, “suffering” or “unsatisfactoriness”; the first of the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS (CATVĀRY ĀRYASATYĀNI) of Buddhism and a concept foundational to Buddhism’s worldview and religious practice. The emblematic description of duḥkha, as found in the first noble truth, is, “Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering. To be conjoined with what one dislikes is suffering and to be separated from what one likes is suffering. Not to get what one wants is suffering. In short, grasping at the five aggregates (SKANDHA) is suffering.”

Suffering thus not only includes the suffering that will invariably be associated with ordinary life, such as birth, aging, disease, and death, but also subsumes a full range of mental, emotional, and spiritual dissatisfactions, and ultimately is seen

to be inherent to life itself. ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

For the record: this is my preferred version, to which the above should be added; plus "like-minded seekers rejecting caste," as proposed by F&f. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

J J, I see your linked preferred version, but I don't know what the word "above" means in "to which the *above* should be added", and then the part after "plus" as well is unclear to me. I'm trying to keep track of preferred versions; could you please explicitly perform the substitutions you refer to, and paste the new text below in its entirety? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Ehm.... I'm losing track 'duhkha and it's cessation'; when you start the RfC I'll make an edit to my preferred lead and revert it, to have a link to show it. But I'dd add duhkha and "rejection of caste."

@F&f: you're right, it's an etymology. I found an author who states that the etymology is probably correct, but that the Buddhist tradition uses duhkha. I'll add it to the duhkha-article. It could be, of course, that the Buddha did use duh-stha; we'll never know. "Suffering, unsatisfactory" is acceptable, with a link to duhkha; a note would be too much, I think; there's too much subtlety to explain in a note. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

At further thought, maybe I know what I find problematic about "who viewed human suffering or dissatisfaction to spring from desire" or "teaching dukkha ("standing unstable," "unsatisfactoriness") and it's cessation." Try to follow me through:

From the Alagaddupama Sutta:

26. "What do you think, monks: is corporeality permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, Lord." — "And what is impermanent, is it painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, Lord." — "What is impermanent, painful, subject to change, is it fit to be considered thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?" — "Certainly not, Lord." [...] "Whatever feeling... whatever perception... whatever mental formations... whatever consciousness, whether past, future or present, in oneself or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near — all... consciousness should, with right wisdom, thus be seen as it is: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

28. "Seeing this, monks, the well-instructed noble disciple becomes disgusted[31] with corporeality, becomes disgusted with feeling, with perception, with mental formations, with consciousness.

29. "Through his being disgusted, his passion fades away.[32] His passion having faded, he is freed.[33] In him who is freed there is the knowledge of freedom:[34] "Ceased has rebirth, fulfilled is the holy life, the task is done, there is no more of this to come," thus he knows.

Now, when we look at the Four Noble Truths, they begin with duhkha. The stock-description then sums up what is duhkha: birth, old age, sickness, etc. Last they say: "In short, the five aggregates of grasping are duhkha. That is, they refer back to the stock-description quoted above. The second truth is duhkha samudaya, the third dukhka nirodha, "cessation, extinction." We can take that literally, as the cessation of duhkha, or the cessation of suffering, in the popular understanding. But we can also understand it as the sequence above: nirodha = seeing with right wisdom - disgust - dispassion - liberation. So, 'cessation of dukhka', then, is not the literal end of 'suffering', but the end of the fetters (chains) of one's passions. So, a better, but still short description, would be ""who viewed the human suffering or dissatisfaction (duhkha) of bondage to one's negative emotions to spring from desire," or "teaching the unsatisfactory (dukkha) bondage to one's negative emotions, and the cessation of this bondage."

And please, there's no need for another round of extensive discussion and quotes; just contemplate it. I found F&f's remark on "sorrow," which he removed, insightfull in this regard; I see it as a sign that the discussion leads to insight and wisdom, and that's good. So please, just think about it; I don't ask to incorporate it, but just to contemplate it. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

JJ Contemplation is good. I removed my edit because even sorrow (in the English language) can be problematic. Rivers, for example, which cause major floods were once called, "----'s sorrow," e.g. "Bengal's sorrow," (Damodar River) or "China's sorrow," (Yangtze river). People experiencing sorrow from a natural event can't really be helped with the advice that they are experiencing a surfeit of desire, or craving, or attachment. In other words, Buddhist principles can be easily misinterpreted. That is why I went back to my version which has "human suffering or dissatisfaction." Like you JJ I'm in no hurry. Contemplation and reading is good. The Indian high-school book is not bad. It has material on Mahavira as well, and Buddhist legacy in art, and even something on how historians reconstruct histories from traditional accounts. Mathglot, though, was simply attempting to clarify. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

alternative etymology - duḥ-stha

The article on dukkha contains an eye-opening alternative etymology of dukkha, "suffering," namely duḥ-stha, " standing unstable." In this etymology, the famous trilaksana becomes 'all dharmas are impermanent; unsatisfactory, imperfect, unstable; and without an innate self-identity'. The Buddhist path, then, does not aim at ending literal suffering, but ending [mental] unstability, ending the swaying of the mind/person/life caused by the winds of desire. This extended etymology makes much more sense, also with respect to dhyana/samadhi, 'detached awareness', being aware of the passions without swayed by them. Also 'extinguishing the fires (of craving, passion)': they lose their fire, the fuel is burnt up, one becomes cool (nirvana). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hijacked

collapsed as off-topic by poster

I believe this talk page discussion has been hijacked. The ilk of thought that anyone can write the lead, a belief in a literalist interpretation of the Wikipedia banalities about "anyone can edit," seem to be prevailing Jimbo Wales who knew better considered it an oversimplification, indeed a misconception, way back in 2007 in his NY Times Magazine interview. Interview by Edward Lewine Nov. 18, 2007 Greatest misconception about Wikipedia: "We aren’t democratic. Our readers edit the entries, but we’re actually quite snobby. The core community appreciates when someone is knowledgeable, and thinks some people are idiots and shouldn’t be writing." (where by "idiots," he meant "not knowledgeable") What is the situation here? Joshua Jonathan has written the bulk of this article. Johnbod has recently written Life of the Buddha in art. Patliputra has written large parts of Mauryan art, which has many depictions of the Buddha, including the one that currently graces the lead. A few months ago, I rewrote Lion capital of Ashoka, the earliest surviving commemoration (ca. 250 BCE) of the Buddha's first sermon at Sarnath. As for the Ganges, I drew a map of the Ganges headwaters by hand in 2007: File:HeadwatersGanges1.jpg by hand. I visited India to take pictures of the headwaters: File:Bhagirathi alaknanda ganges devprayag2008.jpg, File:Confluence of Alaknanda and Mandakini at Rudraprayag.JPG, File:NandprayagConfluence.JPG, ... Yet one version says that the Buddha wandered the basin. When I asked the proposer if they meant to use "wander" transitively, they dismissed it by pointing to dictionary links, but without waiting to consider that the transitive is subordinate usage, commonly employed in a general sense (wandered the streets, wandered the bars on the weekend, ...) and in the instance of the object (of the verb) being well delineated, "wander" has the meaning of "traverse by wandering" (from the OED, the most detailed entry on wander in the English language). We don't say "wandered the Mississippi basin, when someone has been commuting from La Crosse to Praire du Chien. The Ganges basin is huge. The Buddha didn't even wander the middle Ganges basin, (i.e. traverse the middle Ganges basin by wandering). He wandered in the middle Ganges valley, or better yet preached his ideas in the middle Ganges valley. So where are we, 15 years after Jimbo's NYTimes interview? The talk page mavens and the drill-masters of WP:This and that have taken over. If you emphasize knowledge, you get WP:OWN and WP:Kitchen sink thrown at you. I reiterate: Joshua Jonathan is the major author of this page. Let them write the lead based on the excerpts of the major text-books I have provided, in turn based on WP:SCHOLARSHIP and the relevance of WP:TERTIARY in determining due weight. But they should at first do so without using Wikilinks. This will enable us gauge what they are attempting to say, to simplify it, smooth it, and to then wiki link it to the most appropriate wikipedia page. Once a lead is complete, we can write the lead sentence, so that the lead sentence jibes with what will follow it. I reiterate also that if an RfC is forced now, I will request a broader admin-supervised RfC under WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions. This has happened in South Asia-related topics before. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC) You get WP:OWN thrown at you because you keep delivering masterclasses in it. The sum total impact of the above useless diatribe will be exactly zilch. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC) And the sum total of your doozy: "the Buddha wandered the Indo-Gangetic plain?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Have him wandering wherever you want him to be wandering. Again, if you spent half as much time making constructive comments as opining... Iskandar323 (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Are you suggesting, there can't be an admin-supervised RfC under WP:ARBIPA in a controversial but vital South Asia topic area (broadly construed)? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC) You can request what you like. It didn't require you to write that in a talk thread. You either make the request or you don't. That's your choice. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC) The only comment I will make here, is that the purpose of an article Talk page is to host discussions on how to improve the article, and not to discuss user behavior. As all of my contributions at this talk page are made in good faith in order to better the article, I will have nothing further to say on that point. As to your comments about "hijacking the page", I am unable to respond here, for two reasons: 1) I have no idea what that phrase even means; but more importantly, 2) it sounds like an accusation of editor misbehavior of some sort, and therefore it is off topic for this page. I would invite you to add whatever comments or accusations you wish to make about my behavior to my Talk page, where any discussion about my behavior belongs. Please use this page exclusively to discuss article content, not users. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC) It is not about editor misbehavior but a rejection of a ritual by which knowledge is not made on Wikipedia, only oppressively systemized and thereafter abused by people who don't know the topic area, only the process. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Your proposal predictably is all form and no content. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Why do you bother writing this stuff? We all know that you are contemptuous of the Wikipedia process, policies and many of its editors. Good for you. You don't have to be here. But while you are, how about being more constructive and less raging against the machine. Who is meant to be your audience for this? It comes across as borderline trolling. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC) I'm registering a protest. I don't have to have an audience. One previous protest was reported in The Atlantic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Gautam Buddha, the description as given in Magadhi Prakrit and Pali texts of Anga

In case you are still seeking ideas for the opening lead sentence:

Siddhartha Gautama, also known as Gautam Buddha and popularly referred to as The Buddha, was a sage and spiritual teacher who lived during the late Iron Age in what is today the Indian subcontinent, and whose teachings regarding the nature of reality and the associated human suffering, as well as the cessation of suffering by liberation from desire, form the basis for the world religion of Buddhism. Born into an aristocratic family of the Shakya clan during the 5th century BCE, he...

This is what is taught in the CBSE school textbooks in India, and an identical version, replacing the "Sage" with "Mendicant," is taught in the Gelug schools of Buddhism at Dharamshala, home of the Dalai Lama.

Thank you, and good luck with the rest of the article! 2402:3A80:19A2:A3F8:278:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank YOU, IP contributor! We appreciate your opinion and your personal experiences. BusterD (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training) textbook used in CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) schools in India at the high school senior year level is Themes in Indian History-1, Theme 4, accessible around the world.

I have already linked it in a discussion above. There is a Background section, pages 84 to 87 and a more focused section on the "Buddha pages 89 to 94, on the Buddhist legacy in art, architecture, and so forth for quite a few pages thereafter. The discussion does not use words such as "sage," or "spiritual teacher," only "teacher." It does not use "Indian subcontinent," only "the subcontinent," which in the meaning of cultural space as opposed to geophysical on WP is "South Asia." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thanks IP 2602. My impression from what you wrote is that you copied or translated it from a textbook, and if that's the case, we can't use that exact version; it would have to be reformulated (not just closely paraphrased), but if you (or someone) can do that, this would certainly be worth adding to the candidate list for the rfc (which is currently on hold while the other one is running). Mathglot (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 November 2022

The Buddha → Buddha – Current title does not meet either criteria at WP:THE: the definite article is not usually capitalized in running text and there is no question of separate articles for "Buddha" and "The Buddha". Srnec (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You realize it has only been a month since Talk:The_Buddha/Archive_15#Requested_move_5_October_2022 closed? There was a lot there as to why "Buddha" should not be used. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I was evidently stupid to think that I could raise just the question of the "the" and leave everything else aside. I do not in fact think that "The Buddha" vs "Buddha" was sufficiently discussed. So long as Buddha redirects here, I don't see any basis for going with The Buddha. Of course, I'd be happy to see the move reverted and the old title restored. Srnec (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

By the old title do you mean Gautama Buddha @Srnec:? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Srnec (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that "The Buddha" might be a bit of an "other" case along similar lines as Naming conventions#Other proper names. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Nagasaki temple six weeks later

One Bamiyan Buddha 11 years later

Comment Siddhartha Gautama—who became Gautama Buddha in his mid-30s; the enlightened one; the jewel of wisdom or the mine of happiness to which Buddhists the world over go for refuge; the Sakyamuni or the Sage of the Sakyas of my Tokyo hotel nightstand book of long ago; the Lord Buddha, one of ten incarnations of the Lord Vishnu; or the Great God Budd of a Kipling poem—was not changed one whit even after Nagasaki and Bamiyan.

The talk page discussion for a number of weeks has been about the most appropriate lead sentence for this major world figure (for which candidates have been submitted). How then did someone have the gall to ask for a third name change in as many months? Is Wikipedia now only for the obsessive thrills of the talk page mavens of the Anglosphere, who bone up on the rules, but have never created any content? It is deeply shameful and I deeply resent this. @Jimbo Wales: please note. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you calling me a talk page maven who never creates content? Srnec (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I obviously meant who has never created any content on this page or for that matter any South Asia, Southeast Asia, or East Asia pages, the spawning grounds of Buddhism. How shameful is this? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The same very likely goes for your predecessors in this quest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I opposed the last two move requests. Whose 'quest'? Srnec (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say request, or 'quest. I meant the quest to change a page that had been Gautama Buddha for 16 years and is known by that name or related in names in most Buddhist lands, not to mention other language Wikipedias, to something that we in our arrogance think is better from our perspective and to do so without having the courtesy to test the waters on the talk page, to broach the topic leisurely for weeks and months, to contribute here and there to the page, and to have the humility to learn something about the topic. That is what is shameful. You don't seem to have edited anything on Wikipedia east of the Horn of Africa. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say 'quest. I opposed moving the page from Gautama Buddha. Twice in six months and even argued it at move review. I don't want the page at Buddha. I just want it at The Buddha even less. I'm not on any quest.
I have dabbled east of the Horn, having written Maitreyasamitināṭaka, George (Ongud king), Pu Shougeng, Anglo-Siamese War, Bible translations into Sogdian... Srnec (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Dabbled, yes. But changing page names is not dabbling. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. The RM is open now. I see it as an opportunity to restore Gautama Buddha. Wikipedia should aspire to what stretches the mind than to what confirms familiarity. Someone who Googles "Buddha" and finds themselves transported to "Gautama Buddha" will gain in that moment of slight perplexity and its quick resolution a lot more than they would were the page name what they had taken for granted or even hazily remembered. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Yes there's other buddhas, but this one is clearly overwhelming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC worldwide.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  user:Johnbod has written Life of the Buddha in art, user:Joshua Jonathan has written most of this article, I have written Lion capital of Ashoka, the first commemoration of the Buddha's first sermon at Sarnath, and the leads of both Sanskrit and Brahmi script, the script of Buddhism's first inscriptions. Have we dickered with the page's name in 16 years? Or are we just idiots? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  Your content expertise seems to be soccer leagues and those too west of the Indian ocean. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC) It was uncalled for. Apologies @Ortizesp:. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

As was pointed out the last several times you made this comment, there is no meritocracy on Wikipedia and comments are not discounted just because you personally feel they didn't contribute to the correct articles before making a comment. Comment on content, not on the contributor. - Aoidh (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

So who was Jimbo valuing in the NY Times in 2007? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The people who write about the Buddha, or the people who obsessively change the page names of the Buddha biography on Wikipedia once a month for three months, and that too after 16 years? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbo. Your interpretation of an interview from 14 years ago doesn't matter. - Aoidh (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

That essay is about what Jimbo said on Wikipedia, not about what a reliable source, the NY Times, cited him stating about Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a novel interpretation of that essay, given that it doesn't say anything about being limited only to "what Jimbo said on Wikipedia". I frankly do not care what someone said to The New York Times in 2007, given that Wikipedia policies and guidelines in 2022 do not support your personal interpretation of it (and to my knowledge have never supported that idea). You misreading an old interview does not circumvent WP:CONSENSUS. - Aoidh (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

You mean if Jimbo had written an article in the Journal of Communication Studies and said, "The core community appreciates when someone is knowledgeable." It would not be a reliable statement about Wikipedia? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic and is not about the article's subject, so I will respond on your talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

No, please do not @Aoidh: this is a public request. Don't post on my talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

• Change to Gautama Buddha, as long as this is opened up again. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  Agree. Change back to Gautama Buddha per Talk:The_Buddha#Names_of_the_Buddha_on_other_Wikipedias and Buddhist lands Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I am neutral between "Buddha" and "the Buddha" but I will note that the closer specifically pointed out that "the Buddha" is not an issue since sources use that convention. Since WP:THE notes that "it can be used in cases of prevailing common use" this usage is not in fact an issue when viewed through that naming guideline. Also, while I do somewhat lean towards simply "Buddha", I will note that we just had a move request, and in that discussion there was quite a bit of pushback on naming it simply "Buddha". While some of those comments were not policy-based objections, it certainly did not enjoy strong support either. Consensus can change, but nothing has happened in the 1 month since that RM was closed that would warrant a new RM, so on that principle I can't support this move. It's too soon, the justification for it is that there's an issue that in reality isn't an issue, and I don't see this move succeeding at this time. - Aoidh (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – We just did this last month. As stated last month by the user Iskandar323, this article's title does meet one of the criteria for WP:THE. "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 [2][3][4]." Treetoes023 (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, per User:Treetoes023 and User:Johnbod. No need to rehash long arguments made a month ago, and "The Buddha" is indeed the most natural choice, at least on an English-language Wikipedia. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  You mean an English language encyclopedia that is tone deaf to other languages of the world Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: This discussion once again raises the issue of having the page titled Buddha redirecting to this page as its presumptive WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Those that feel particularly strongly about "Buddha" being an inadequate title for this page's subject (and a title that might perhaps more aptly redirect to Buddhahood or host a disambiguation page), should really raise the topic as a discussion on that page. Because as long as Buddha redirects here as its presumptive WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, questions over the justification of using The Buddha/WP:THE over Buddha will remain. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
• Change back to Gautama Buddha. I think being precise and accurate here trumps COMMONNAME. We shouldn't be giving readers the impression that "Buddha" is the name of an individual, rather than a title which has been given to multiple individuals. That mistake is already widespread and we should be working to correct it by having a precise title. At the very least, this should stay as "the Buddha", because that gives the impression of being a title rather than a personal name. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  Very cogently argued. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  "That mistake is already widespread and we should be working to correct it..." sounds like a WP:RGW argument. We should be doing what sources do. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

"Gautama Buddha" would need its own RM, and with a compelling reason why (1) the previous consensus should be overturned only 1 month after it was made and (2) why Wikipedia policy (WP:COMMONNAME) should be ignored; "the Buddha" meets WP:PRECISION's requirements. - Aoidh (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

People are still allowed to vote their hearts and minds. "What one truly understands clearly articulates itself. The words to say it come easily." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it's also permitted for me to point out that there is no policy-based justification for a move back to that title.Wikipedia is not a democracy so a vote based on "hearts and minds" would not impact how consensus is determined. - Aoidh (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the edification, but people are still allowed to vote for what is consonant with what they feel and what they think.

From Roman times, Equity, or the recourse to general principles of justice has always lain outside the law ; otherwise how would it correct the law or supplement it?

See OED equity of a statute: the construction of a statute according to its reason and spirit, so as to make it apply to cases for which it does not expressly provide. Also: In England (hence in Ireland and the United States), the distinctive name of a system of law existing side by side with the common and statute law (together called ‘law’ in a narrower sense), and superseding these, when they conflict with it.

"reason and spirit" is no different from hearts and minds.

I never click on links. So yours are a wasted effort as far as I am concerned. What one truly understands doesn't need links. Good luck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I never click on links. That explains so much (but I doubt that that's true). You refusing to recognize a point does not discount it, and its not you that need be convinced of anything. The double standard is curious though; if "people are still allowed to vote their hearts and minds" then what's the reasoning for comments like these? You certainly didn't criticize Ficaia for not having edited the correct articles before commenting...almost like it's not really about that and it's about trying to discount opinions that you otherwise have no valid rebuttal for. Also the points about Roman and English law have absolutely nothing to do with anything related to this page or its title. - Aoidh (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Renaming the article back to Gautama Buddha would not need another new RM. There is an RM currently open about the title of this article. If the result of the RM discussion is a consensus to move it back to Gautama Buddha, then that would be fine, procedurally speaking. The outcome of an RM does not need to be merely a yes or no conclusion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: But after an endorsed move based on evidence, we should be expecting some pretty extraordinary arguments as to why it should move back. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Move request is based on no new information or change in situation following the previous move. There has been vociferous pushback against the title "Buddha" at previous move requests, and while the redirect of Buddha to here does make the situation counterintuitive, this is more a reflection of the lack of action to alter the redirect than any lack of opposition to Buddha as a title. The strong evidence that "The Buddha" is generally preferred in sourcing over "Buddha" also still stands and has not been addressed. Also oppose piggybacking votes to overturn the previous, comprehensive naming discussion and return the page to "Gautama Buddha" - a legacy title with comparatively few supporting sources and even fewer supporting arguments grounded in Wikipedia policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
• Change back to Gautama Buddha. Agree with other arguments above. It simply is the best name for this article. Have "The Buddha" still redirect here though. JungleEntity (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: One of the reasons to start an article with "the", according to WP:THE, is "If a term with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same term without the article". This is the case here. "A Buddha" is anyone who has achieved Buddhahood, and there have been various Buddhas, but "the Buddha" ordinarily refers to Gautama Buddha. Similarly, there are various Bodhi trees, but The Bodhi Tree is the one under which Gautama Buddha sat. I suggest redirecting Buddha to Buddhahood or to Buddha (disambiguation). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that Buddha should redirect to Buddha (disambiguation), since that is the unresolved crux of the issue that sparked this fresh move request in the first place. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Move to Siddhartha Gautama That was the historical persons name. (I have no opinion one way or the other if Buddah or The Buddha should redirect here.)★Trekker (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)