Jump to content

Talk:The Buddha/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19

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[4][5][6][c]), most commonly referred to as the Buddha,[e][f] was a South Asian renunciate[7] 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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

Requested move 25 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. We just had an RM and an MRV for this article, both of which endorsed the current title, and even if there wasn't as much opposition as there actually is to this proposal, I'd need to see a lot more consensus to effectively overturn the RM and the MRV than currently exists. For what it's worth, I wouldn't have closed the previous RM the way it was, but the closure was clearly in the realms of acceptable and I can see how it was reached. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

Survey

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)
For this sort of reply it is not enough to send anonymous thanks. So, thank you, Sarnec. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:10, 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)
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)
"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)
  • Weak oppose "Buddha" over "The Buddha", as "The Buddha" is preferred in English sources and disambiguates itself from the potentially more multitudinous interpretations of the term "Buddha" alone - a term for which the presence of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and utility for natural disambiguation) remains a point of contention. The use of "The" and recourse to WP:THE does make it more explicit/precise. Also oppose votes to overturn the previous, comprehensive naming discussion and return the page to "Gautama Buddha" - a title with comparatively few supporting sources and even fewer supporting arguments grounded in policy. Absolutely no substantive arguments have been made to support this move, just as no substantive arguments ever supported its usage in the first place. 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" (perhaps more correctly "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)
  • Support. Would be like naming the pope francis article "The Pope" or the 14th dalai lama one "The Dalai Lama". Dawkin Verbier (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Analogous to Dawkin Verbier's examples above, Buddhahood should be renamed to Buddha and this article to Gautama Buddha. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, i.e. strongly prefer Buddha over The Buddha. The recent October move failed to properly consider whether the the should have been included, and the nom's claim that the inclusion of the definite article was justified by WP:THE is incorrect, as Buddha has long redirected here anyway, as the primary topic. The text of the guideline says, "If a term with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same term without the article, the term with the article can be used as the name of a Wikipedia article about that meaning, and the term without the article can be used as the name of a separate Wikipedia article" (emphasis added), e.g. crown vs the Crown. As long as Buddha isn't changed to point to Buddhahood (which I would oppose as it's not the primary topic), there is no justification of having this page at The Buddha instead of Buddha, which is the proper name by which the subject is most commonly known. The the in the Buddha isn't capitalised in running text, so such use does not justify inclusion in the title either. The articles on Earth's star and satellite are at Sun and Moon, not The sun or The moon, even though there are other suns and moons and ours are always called the sun and the moon. Also slightly prefer Buddha over Gautama Buddha, as it's simply the most common name used by general sources in English (as well as locally in the largest Buddhist-majority countries like Thailand). --Paul_012 (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose', per Treetoes023, Johnbod, and Pat. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Move requests for this article really should be formatted as a choice (e.g. between (a) Buddha, (b) reverting to Gautama Buddha, (c) retaining The Buddha and moving Buddhahood to Buddha) instead of successive single requests like this, which are bound to lead to WP:trainwrecks as many people who oppose the specific thing being proposed don't actually prefer retaining the status quo. It might not too late to adjust the proposal. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    @Srnec: your domain. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    Personally, I'm not convinced that a different framing of the question(s) would help. It might just increase confusion, and we should also keep in mind the WP:RMCI#NOTOTHERPAGES rule. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Change back to Gautama Buddha. The MRV merely demonstrated the precision of the close, not its accuracy or outcome. I opined to the closer that while I would abide by the close, I felt this naming issue was badly left unresolved, the headcount being merely one indicator. I believe that excessive move requests on a core topic (especially a topic about faith) looks bad for Wikipedia, so another RM (about "the") a mere month after a controversial close (the fourth in what fourteen months?) makes our community look totally unserious about this subject matter. This RM (and the last one) feels a bit like gaming to me. A determination to "win," IMHO. The discussion bludgeoning has been ridiculous in these last few requests. I also feel (perhaps less strongly than User:Fowler&fowler), there's necessarily an Anglo-American English language bias to these processes, and these various g-search profiles. When dealing with articles outside my expertise, I often look to content experts. I think one of F&f's issues is a belief these recent processes have been initiated and largely supported by editors who have limited editing experience on this page and largely opposed by primary contributors. Pardon me, F&f if I've misunderstood your characterization. BusterD (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    You said it much better than I did @BusterD:. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
None of that is a reason why Gautama Buddha is a better title, especially when viewed through Wikipedia policy. Sources do not use "Gautama Buddha" anywhere near enough to make it the common name, something seemingly obvious enough that nobody makes that claim. The comments for moving it back to Gautama Buddha make no attempt to explain why that title is more consistent with Wikipedia policy, which is how titles are determined. That it's "felt" there's a regional bias would perhaps be a point to consider if there were evidence of that, but no such evidence has been presented. That editors unbiased to the content see the facts and comment accordingly is not an argument that their position is wrong; if certain editors with "editing experience on this page" were right in this, they would be able to lay out the facts in a way that would sway someone looking at this in a neutral way. That there have been "excessive move requests" is not an argument for moving the title back to the problematic title that initiated so many of those requests. Wikipedia policy supports the current title and it absolutely does not support a move back. Why use Gautama Buddha, giving undue emphasis for a name used only in certain regions, over Shakyamuni Buddha/Buddha Shakyamuni, for example? "The Buddha" is region-neutral, in that even in areas that sometimes use Gautama Buddha in English, they also use "the Buddha". "The Buddha" is precise, neutral, and the most commonly used (even by editors who oppose the title), all of the things that Wikipedia policy looks for. "Gautama Buddha" is none of those things. - Aoidh (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm forced to use a comparison to demonstrate my point about precision. I know we're talking about this subject but the comparison informs the need for specificity in encyclopedic work: If we were to look up books about the American Civil War, virtually none of them would title the conflict American. All the books on my shelf (and I have hundreds plural) say Civil War or The Civil War. Yet since there are multiple civil wars across nations and eras, wikipedians are required to use the specific modifier American. Since there are several buddhas notable enough for ready familiarity (even in the English speaking world), it's not forward thinking to jump to our own conclusion about which of those is "The" Buddha. Our previous RMs have led us to an inaccurate, imprecise titling which will blow back on us later, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from with that analogy, but it really is an apples to oranges comparison. For one, "the civil war" can change depending on context and geography where "the Buddha" does not. "The Buddha" refers to the same thing in India that it does in Japan or America; geography and context do not change what is being referenced. While there are multiple Buddhas, the other Buddhas are given qualifiers and none of them are "the Buddha". That there is a Maitreya Buddha does not create confusion or ambiguity as to what the Buddha refers to. That might be an argument against simply "Buddha" but "the Buddha" is precise and unambiguous in a way that "the civil war" could never be. - Aoidh (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Really, the same? There is Buddha of 800 million Hindus in India that is not quite the same as Buddha of India's Buddhists. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I feel like that link only reinforces what I'm saying. It uses "the Buddha" to refer to this article's subject (going by the sources). That Hindus interpret details of the person born as Siddhartha Gautama slightly differently than Buddhists is not a judgement on the usage of "the Buddha" by either group. Nothing in that link says Hindus use "the Buddha" to refer to anyone or anything other than this article's subject. If anything, that link only strengthens the idea that "thw Buddha" is unambiguous even outside of Buddhism. - Aoidh (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Did the Buddha of Hinduism reject hereditary social order as the
Buddha of my proposal above:

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

did?
Will his worshippers drink water offered by untouchable?
Do they believe their Hindu Buddha invented a new religion that is worshipped in a large part of Asia?
If he did not found a new religion then what is he? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Wow. The response makes me think we are contrasting Macintoshes and Galas. To your example, the descriptive "Buddha" could easily refer to a number of individual humans, as Buddhahood (and this article's lede) makes clear. For that reason, in your opinion, "'The Buddha' refers to the same thing in India that it does in Japan or America"; in your opinion, "geography and context do not change what is being referenced." (F&f has already provided complete refutation; the term doesn't even refer to the same thing in India.) Your opinion may dovetail somewhat with previous measurements of consensus on this issue, I'll concede. IMHO the descriptor Buddha is being used as shorthand for an individual when it should be used for an entire class of individuals (or more accurately, a state of being only achieved by select group of humans, notably and most famously Gautama). Like calling George Washington "The President" or Mohammed Ali "The Greatest." I'm not a Buddhist, but as a life-long person of faith, I subscribe to the tenets of many peoples, thinking each faith a mere school of enlightenment. What rankles my tender sensibility is that the subject is honored because of his selflessness, but wikipedians continue to belabor to bestow on the subject (in this titling) as unique "the Buddha" an honor he never wore and would have rejected in life, IMHO. Arguing about this feels all wrong. To me this discussion feels... like a misunderstanding (made of great cultural arrogance). (criticizing the culture and not the members and beliefs thereof) Am I being thick? Please enlighten me. I'm fully versed in pillars, policy and guideline. Does anybody besides me feel what's transpiring is just fundamentally wrong? There are more than two paths at the horns of dilemma. BusterD (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I think like you, BusterD, some of us are either stunned, or tired, or both. I am not Buddhist either. I'm not even a person of faith if Darwin's view of life is not faith, though I have great respect for faiths, for the drive they have given humans, for the creativity they have unleashed (the Authorized Version 1611 being just one example in the English language; not to mention the Dalai Lama's wisdom which uses the barest bones of English).
I am not sure what is going on here. There is a page name issue which seems to have become an avenue for cultural arrogance or cultural comfort. Then there is the issue of content. I was just looking at the version of 28 November 2012. Can I say in all honesty that there has been some progress in the last ten years in the article's content? I can't when I look at today's version. Ten years ago it was written for an audience with some thought given to communication. Today's version seems to have been written by All Chiefs and No Indians, for themselves, not even for each other. It is that unreadable. The drive to over-simplify the page name has been accompanied by the drive to over-complicate the content.
I don't know what the way out is, at least the way out if one is not to tread on others' toes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
In the last three months, while on the surface the page moves have been grabbing attention, an incredible amount of harm has been done to the content. It has become more turgid, laced with more original research, more synthesis, more regurgitation of undigested material, complicated with more links (whose claim to fame is not their independent value or need but that they have been created by the same editor(s)). The same had happened earlier with images. If you add an OR tag, they will find some obscure source, cite it at the speed of light, and remove the tag. That is not how encyclopedias are written. They are meant to expose complicated material in a lucid commonly accepted form. Not show the world how smart we are. I'm pretty sure that if the Wikipedia The Buddha page is submitted as a term paper at a university (at least at the ones in which I've taught) it would receive no more than a C (and that after a lot of sifting and improvements by the professor).
In other words, the page title has a head cold, and we are all agog, have been agog for three months. The page content is in a medieval coughing hall with TB and no one is paying attention. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
@BusterD: The point about the page title "The Buddha", and why it is the de facto common name, is that is understood universally to refer to the same figure, regardless of the geographically varying understanding of who that figure was/is, and this is the page for a figure without prejudice to different religious interpretation or systems. "The Buddha" may not mean the same thing to people in different continents, but it will certainly be intelligible to English-speaking people from all continents. Titles such as "Gautama Buddha" and the like, by comparison, are parochial titles specific to a given geography, but not universally understood. This actually parallels your example above with the American Civil War, where "Civil War" may be a parochially acceptable title in the USA, but from a global perspective, it must of course be "American Civil War", because this is not the American Wikipedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Iskandar323, I don't need to be lectured or instructed by you further. The assertions you've made above are strictly your opinion, and I believe your determination and bludgeoning have been driving us away from appropriate consensus. I will not respond to you further. BusterD (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
@BusterD: No one is lecturing anyone, and I was only responding to your considerably lengthier assertions above. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
A thing to consider Iskandar323 is not to ping editors with our heartfelt musings. Please examine the thread above. There is only one ping. It is mine, specifically responding to a question of BusterD. Nothing else. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Treetoes023, Johnbod, Pat, and Joshua Jonathan. Also, seriously people, if we're going to fight every move decision that you don't like, we'll end up building a yo-yo rather than an encyclopedia. Sometimes, you just have to live with what you don't like. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose The question at hand is whether to keep The Buddha vs. changing it to Buddha. Adding a third option not in play muddies the water. There's a distinct difference between Buddhas (Kashyapa Buddha? Maitreya?) as well as the state of being a Buddha, as has been discussed, and the article "The" clarifies both. Longchenpa (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
    But, playing devil's advocate for a minute, if "The Buddha" is kept, the issue will keep reappearing in future RMs. After all, Britannicas version "Buddha" is written by no less an authority than Donald S. Lopez Jr. Surely he has thought about these issues.
    Also when people are stalemated at A and Not-A, the Buddhist solution might lie in B. It did in Buddha's time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and Ortizesp. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Neutral (I was the closer of the previous RM on this subject) - I'm not fussed either way, both forms exist in sources with no clear winner, but "Buddha" should remain a redirect to "The Buddha" if it's not moved, given that it's clear that this topic is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for both "Buddha" and "The Buddha" in sources and long-term significance. Also strongly oppose any move back to "Gautama Buddha" or "Siddhartha Gautama". Firm and conclusive evidence on those titles not being the WP:COMMONNAME was raised in the last RM, which is why it was closed the way it was and endorsed at WP:MRV.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
    Well let's see we know a great deal about the Buddha because of excavations carried out in Sarnath in 1905 by F. O. Oertel a German-born civil engineer; he in turn was able to organize that excavation because of an archaeologist with clout, John Marshall, who was not afraid to take risks and support creative proposals such as the one of Oertel. Marshall in turn had been appointed the Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India two years earlier at the age of 27 by a visionary if much-denounced Viceroy, Lord Curzon. Little school boys (and the fewer little schoolgirls) in the British Indian Empire knew the name "Lord Curzon." Everyone one in the British Empire, ie the bigger one on which the sun never set, who knew him, did so as Lord Curzon. Somehow though Wikipedia's wonderboys (and males they usually are) have turned him into George Nathaniel Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston. So next time you get the urge to spout chapter and verse overconfidently, or the urge to respond with "OTHERSTUFF" and its cousin of every remove, please be aware that not only are there dozens and dozens counterexamples to your dictum, but that in your audience are people who know a great deal more about both "Gautama Buddha" and "Siddhartha Gautama" than you've given evidence thus far in your edits on WP. Most of us are not too fussed by any name. But we are fussed by people turning the name into a fetish, or worse, a holier-than-thou song and dance. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
    Slightly o/t: I just wanted to say thanks for this "neutral" vote (without implying my own opinion on the merits). The reason for the thanks, is that I think in some Rfc's, the majority view is either "neutral" or "both equally" or "don't care" or something of that nature, and I get the feeling that the "Neutrals" don't vote, because they feel somehow that it doesn't count, or that everybody is taking sides one way or the other, and so what's the use. But I strongly urge the "Neutrals" (on this, or any Rfc) to vote "neutral", if that's how they feel, because in some cases they may be a silent majority. Imho, the tallies in many Rfc's are unnatural bivariate distributions, for example 8 – 5 in favor of something, whereas in reality, maybe it's more like 8 pro, 5 con, and 50 neutral, but the last group doesn't vote, so it just comes out 8 to 5, which doesn't give a true reflection of editor opinion on the topic, which in this example is "mostly neutral", not "mostly in favor", and might result in a different consensus. Which is all a long-winded way of saying, if you are neutral on this Rfc question, your opinion is still valuable, so vote! (And so are all the other opinions, too, but they already know that.) Mathglot (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
    The neutrals don't vote because they want no part of a process in which the victor wades through slaughter to a throne. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
    Their lot forbad: nor circumscribed alone
    Their growing virtues, but their crimes confined;
    Forbad to wade through slaughter to a throne,
    And shut the gates of mercy on Mankind. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:THE and WP:COMMONNAME. Beginning an article title with the definite article is discouraged for searching and indexing reasons. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to Gautama Buddha. Subject is known by his WP:COMMONNAME: Buddha. Shwcz (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Buddha is simple and widely understood as the historical founder of Buddhism. It follows the same style as Jesus (not Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, etc.). Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:THE, and per WP:COMMONNAME. The guideline starts off sentence 2 with: "There are some situations where [The, etc] are warranted [at the start of an article title]...", so for starters, there is no blanket condemnation of the in the title, just qualifiers like some and many. Secondly, the convention continues with two numbered points describing when the def/indef article "should be included", namely, in either of these cases:
    1. different meanings with and without
    2. capitalized in running text
and since the expressions The Buddha and Buddha (without the) have different meanings (there are many Buddhas, amply covered in the previous RM; see also Category:Buddhas, but only one "the Buddha"), #1 is satisfied. Furthermore, since the convention explicitly states that the article *should* be included " if at least one" of the conditions is satisfied, a !vote in support of the RM which is based on the failure to capitalize the in running text is flawed; meeeting both conditions is not a requirement. Condition #1 is met, therefore the should be included is what WP:THE is recommending in this case.
Secondly: nothing in the two major sections of the guideline (i.e., when they "should be used", and when they "should be avoided") covers a case exactly like this one, i.e., it is is neither a sports team, a university, and so on. However, the very last bit of "Other cases" at the bottom states that "it can be used in cases of prevailing common use", illustrating it with three cases analogous to this one, and names The Edge, The Notorious B.I.G., and The Doctor (Doctor Who) as examples. The fact that "the Buddha" is prevailing common use was very clearly described in the last RM, and in all three of the given examples, the the is present in the article title, and is *not* capitalized in running text in reliable sources, and therefore not capitalized in sentence-medial position in the respective WP articles. The case of The Buddha meets condition #1, is prevailing common use, and is very much like these three examples; therefore I oppose this move request. Mathglot (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The Notorious B.I.G. is a particularly good parallel, since Notorious B.I.G. similarly directs there, but the article nevertheless retains "The" in the title. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Change back to Gautama Buddha: Buddha simply means awakened one. If we create an article on buddha discussing what the concept means, buddha and The Buddha will be confusing. We also have pages like Gautama_Buddha_in_Hinduism where we use Gautama Buddha. Buddha could be anyone, Gautama Buddha makes it easy to understand that the page is about the historical person, not the concept of what the Buddha means. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
When you say If we create an article on buddha discussing what the concept means I assume you might be talking about the article Buddhahood? At any rate confusion about what "Buddha" might refer to is not an argument for changing it back to Gautama Buddha, since "The Buddha" is unambiguous in reliable sources, is WP:PRECISE, and is the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject. Gautama Buddha is none of those things, so Wikipedia policy quite simply does not support that title. - Aoidh (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I would contend, have contended, and see contended on this page by several users, assertions that "Buddha" is quite and definitively imprecise, since scores of humans have historically been recognized under that honorific, leading to an inevitable question. Which one? One of the Seven Buddhas of Antiquity? One of the 29 Buddhas of Theravāda? Precision is exactly where these arguments for the honorific (such as it is) fail. That more than one Buddha exists/existed is a fact, not an opinion. That we cover this multiple incarnation/honorific material at Buddahood is fine, but that wikipedians are choosing a "winner" (so to speak) here seems inappropriate. I know this argument seems to have been dismissed by one previous measurement of consensus but the argument has not been refuted. It may turn out to be that in the consensus of opinion of this discussion of wikipedians Gautama's article will be titled as if they are the sole (or most well-known) Buddha, but that consensus will still be an opinion, albeit an informed and neutral one. BusterD (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Whether "Buddha" is imprecise is not something I'm commenting on, and I'm not refuting it here because it's irrelevant to what I'm saying. "Buddha" may or may not be precise, but "The Buddha" is precise. An argument against "Buddha" is not an argument against "The Buddha". Wikipedia policy determines article titles, and what seems to be choosing a "winner" is actually just following WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Every iteration of a primary topic amongst multiple choices is "choosing a winner". An argument that the page should be "Gautama Buddha" rather than "The Buddha" because "Buddha" refers to more than one thing only makes sense if we ignore that such a concern is addressed by Wikipedia policy (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), and ignores the very important fact that "The Buddha" is not the same title as "Buddha". "The Buddha" is not used to refer to the other six Buddhas of antiquity or any of the others; it is precise in what it is referring to. "The Buddha" overwhelmingly refers solely to this article's subject. It's precise, neutral (doesn't favor areas that use Gautama Buddha over ones that use Shakyamuni Buddha/Buddha Shakyamuni, as areas that use those names also use this one) and is the most commonly used way to refer to this article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry for belaboring (especially with Aoidh, whose good faith I have abused a bit) what appears to be a non-winning argument, but IMHO adding "the" to "Buddha" is a distinction without a difference. Adding "the" is an advanced demonstration of the community's consensus of opinion to prioritize (and crown somewhat) the most searched for and most viewed Buddha. One might as well say, that if consensus came to the conclusion, adding "the" to "civil war" (to milk my prior contrasting) settles the naming discussion on precision, and in that particular case it clearly does not. RMs are the mechanism the community should use in order to settle good faith naming disagreements and this is how it should be. I have said plenty and I will shut up now, with respect to all participants. BusterD (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:THE, and previous RM. He's referred to as "The Buddha" as the most common term in sources, including the "The". See voluminous previous evidence offered. That is really all there is to it. (The very very distant second choice is Siddhartha Gautama if we wanted to be extremely scrupulously secular and avoid any religious titles, but there doesn't appear to be anyone seriously advocating that.) SnowFire (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Possible taint due to non-neutral notifications

This RM may be tainted by the appearance here of users influenced by a non-neutral notification at numerous Wikiprojects. The notice placed at WikiProject Korea is typical; the rest of them appear to be identical (I didn't check every one). Despite protests of neutrality at their talk page, the wording is not neutral, and may have already influenced some !votes. Three Four votes (currently) are for "Change back to Gautama Buddha". One of these is from a long-standing participant here, and is not of concern. (Ditto, for a fourth user who used slightly different wording.) But the other two three "Change back's" I find concerning, because:

  • The WikiProject notifications stated outright that this article "had been [named] Gautama Buddha for 16 years". Given that the RM question wording was strictly about the word the, such mention at the notification is at the very least irrelevant, and at worst, an attempt to influence the outcome towards a result not part of the original question;
  • A !vote in favor of "Gautama Buddha" aligns perfectly with the preference of the editor who placed the notifications, and who has bludgeoned this RM and the previous one with their opinion about it;
  • Placing twenty-one project notifications is excessive (and still managed to miss eight of 15 projects listed in the talk header; not sure if anything should be read into that). With an entirely neutral notice, it probably wouldn't have mattered, but such a wide distribution of a non-neutral notice has the appearance of a possible attempt at campaigning.

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC) count updated; by Mathglot (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  • As I'm certain User:Mathglot is aware, this is not an RfC but an RM. The two processes are quite different. An RfC requires a neutral statement upon which to base a discussion, for example, where a move requester is allowed to advocate reasons for a change. I have read the notifications and I see nothing factually incorrect or untrue in the posts made by F&f in notifying various interested Wikiprojects. It could be reasonably argued that if there is an attitude or belief expressed in each notification, that belief is that there have been too many RM processes recently, not about the specific outcome of this process. If there are more projects remaining to be notified, feel free to notify more. 21 hardly seems enough. My opinion is that this subject is so significant a core topic, we should have a more centralized discussion not limited to the subject talk. BusterD (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    Quite right; have adjusted the text above to say "RM". If you feel more notifications are needed, I think that's within your right to do so. Thanks for the heads-up. Mathglot (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, let's see, I was thinking, "I should post in all the Buddhist lands or former Buddhist lands (i.e. their WikiProjects) because people are more likely to be knowledgeable or interested." So, I proceeded India ==> Sri Lanka ==> Myanmar ==> Laos ==> Cambodia ==> Thailand ==> Singapore ==> Malaysia ==> Indonesia ==> Vietname ==> China ==> Mongolia ==> Korea ==> Japan ==> ==> Bhutan ==> Afghanistan ==> Pakistan ==> Nepal. And to this I added Buddhism and Biography.
I wasn't counting. If you think 21 is too much then which ones are less relevant? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think good Mathglot is necessarily against more notifications. I think their concern was targeted notification, which is a reasonable worry. I do agree your language was borderline and I think you might consider a slightly less pointed approach when adding any further warnings. If you find a wording which is superior, you might think to go back and replace extant notification statements with something even more neutral. BusterD (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear. My concern is about neutrality (or lack thereof), not number. Mathglot (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
    Changed to: The page which had been Gautama Buddha was unsuccessfully proposed for a change to Siddhartha Gautama, then successfully changed to The Buddha, and is now being proposed for a change to Buddha. Your input and expertise would be most welcome at: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
    Still non-neutral. How about this:

    There is currently a move discussion going on, proposing that the article The Buddha be renamed and moved to ⟶ Buddha. Your input would be most welcome at this discussion. ~~~~

    Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, F&f, but Mathglot is winning this disagreement so far. BusterD (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
    I understand. But this is as far as I go. My motivations are unprejudiced. Mathglot is welcome to be bold and change my notice in whatever fashion they'd like, or remove it in its entirety. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
    Agreeing with BusterD, this behavior seems to be acknowledged as WP:CANVASSing at this point, and is not appreciated. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
    Consider three versions below
    (a) Please join an ongoing move discussion at Talk:The Buddha, proposing the new page name "Buddha." Earlier the name had been unsuccessfully proposed for the change "Gautama Buddha" to "Siddhartha Gautama," thereafter successfully "Gautama Buddha" to "The Buddha." (This is an abridged version of what I posted the second time.)
    (b) There is currently a move discussion going on, proposing that the article The Buddha be renamed and moved to ⟶ Buddha. Your input would be most welcome at this discussion. (Mathglot's version)
    (c) Please join an ongoing move discussion at Talk:The Buddha. (the bareboned)
    To the extent they provide context, what makes (a) CANVASSING and (b) not CANVASSING relative to (c)?
    What if I said: I consider (b) and (c) to be a form of canvassing for they skew the sampling toward a group of editors that routinely participates in RM discussions, that typically does not bring content-related arguments to the table, and away from editors who have some knowledge of the subject (and for whom the names Gautama Buddha and Siddhartha Gautama might constitute significant markers of the discussion's complexity and thus hooks for their participation, not for their choice of the vote)?
    The former group moreover has participated in enough RMs to have developed factions of visceral admiration and disregard. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
    I'm honestly more leaning with option a. The RMs for "Gautama Buddha" to "The Buddha" were fairly recent, and I think regardless of the suspected "taint", there is genuine support for all three names. I think people notified should get a see that. JungleEntity (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm one of the users who voted for "Change back to Gautama Buddha", purely because I agree with it. I'm not signed up for any of the notifications for the Wikiprojects this was posted in, and merely have this article's talkpage on my watchlist because I'm a Buddhist and am concerned with Wikipedia articles covering my faith. I also didn't put much reasoning in my vote because what I would say has already been said by others. I apologize for my low effort vote, but please know that I am not here from another article, championing someone else's opinion, but a silent watcher who has been paying very close attention to this RM and the others before it. JungleEntity (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
That's a valuable data point; thanks for sharing that. Mathglot (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
You make wild allegations about the vote of another editor (JungleEntity) being the result of easy, wide-eyed, gullibility. They are the children of Hamelin (if not also the rats) and me the Pied Piper. When they attempt to disabuse you, saying that the are not from Hamelin, or any town on the Wesser River, but from Munich, you change the linguistic register of your delivery and reply, "That's a valuable data point; thanks for sharing that." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
While the accusations against me are unfounded (and possibly the other editors, although I can't speak for them), and could've been solved by a check on my edit history to see that I'm not in the spheres of Wikipedia where the notifications were posted to, I do understand Mathglot's concern. I agree that the original notification was slightly non-neutral, even if by accident, and it's reasonable to be suspicious of votes for a change not mentioned in the RM but that is in the notification.
I have no qualms with Mathglot. This seems like a simple mistake that I probably would've also made if I was in their shoes. JungleEntity (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Buddha/Archive_17&oldid=1127055200"