Talk:Bodhi Tree

Untitled

"This tree is a frequent destination for pilgrims, being the most important of the four holy sites for Buddhists." Could we get a link to the other three of the four most holy places in Buddhism? - Heartofgoldfish 03:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Reads like religious text

The entire Historical Events section sounds like an excerpt from the Tripitaka. If anyone is better qualified than I am to make it sound like an encyclopedia article, please, go ahead. Colin 01:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've boldly retitled this section "In Buddhist chronology" which I believe is a more neutral title that neither affirms nor rejects the historicity of the traditional accounts used as sources. I'm also adding language identifying this content as according to traditional Buddhist accounts. WP:NPOV permits reporting the traditional Buddhist point of view (which is clearly a significant one) so long as other viewpoints are not excluded. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Merged

Shouldn't this be merged with sacred fig (the exact same tree)? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. This was a tree, while the sacred fig is a kind of tree. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 02:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dead Link

Citation 2 to Hawaii University is situated behind their proxy. I suggest update this citation to something more accessible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.253 (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, it repeats a tradition and greeting that I believe are specific to Japan as though they were universal to all Buddhists- Bodhi Day, as far as I know, is definitely not celebrated by Theravada Buddhists and is primarily a East Asian Mahayana festival. --108.69.226.112 (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Organised and simplifed

@Dharmalion76: Hello, i have simplified the sentence. Please read it, these were edits in good faith.

• This article is about Bodhi tree found in the temple. Peepal is generic term for scared fig in South Asia (already mentioned in sacred fig page) but tree found in temple is known as Bodhi/Mahabodhi, not peepal.
• This article specifically talks about the ancient bodhi tree of bodha gaya and the one found in temple today.
• I have decluttered, organised and simplified the sentence. 117.192.210.51 (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The given reference states "peepal" and that is more verifiable than the opinion of an IP address. Your "decluttering" moves the references around so they aren't accurate anymore. Dharmalion76 (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This is very silly, Peepal is generic term for sacred fig tree in South Asia, not Bodhi tree found in the temple. It is known as Bodhi or Mahabodhi tree specifically.117.192.210.51 (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion but the lede as written is referenced. Dharmalion76 (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not my opinion - Is Bodhi/Mahabodhi tree in Nepal and Bhutan? If this was in reference to "Peepal" then it is wrong. Peepal is generic term in SA, Bodhi/Mahabothi specifically refers to tree at Gaya temple, where people go for pilgrimage. 117.192.202.240 (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The sentence says the term Peepal tree is used in used in Nepal and Bhutan not that the tree itself is in Nepal and Bhutan. Please stop removing referenced material. At this point it is bordering on vandalism. Dharmalion76 (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Except, Peepal is used in all south asia not just in Nepal and Bhutan which is inaccurate, the Devanagari sript itself covers it. if you really want to add it then it should be South Asia. It's not vandalism to correct inaccuracies.

• This is not a accurate sentence "in Nepal and Bhutan, was a large and very old sacred fig tree (Ficus religiosa) located in Bodh Gaya".
• It should start with "Bodhi tree was a large and very old sacred fig tree located in ancient Bodh Gaya, under which Siddhartha Gautama, the spiritual teacher later became known as the Buddha "
• If you want me to add sources then i will. 117.192.202.240 (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The sentence isn't "in Nepal and Bhutan, was a large and very old sacred fig tree (Ficus religiosa) located in Bodh Gaya". There is a beginning to that sentence. "The Bodhi Tree (Sanskrit: बोधि) also known as Bo (from Sinhalese: Bo) and "peepal tree" (Devanagari: पीपल)[1] in Nepal and Bhutan, was a large and very old sacred fig tree...." shows that Nepal and Bhutan know it as peepal tree. You are taking it out of context and pretending it says something different so you can delete it. Dharmalion76 (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not taking it out of context.

• See Peepal terminology in various south asian languages, it's generic term. Like sacred Tulsi for example.
• In India, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka peepal is generic term for scared fig. Bodhi or Mahabodhi is not generic term for all peepal trees. Peepal trees worshiped by Hindus in Nepal or India is not known as Bodhi tree for example.
• Peepal in Nepal and Bhutan like in India is a generic term, while term Bodhi or Mahabodhi is used in context of Buddhism.117.192.197.21 (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Bodhi-Fig Tree

After researching how it's often referred to as "Bodhi Fig Tree", I added this alternative to the beginning of the article. 73.85.203.43 (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 8 June 2021

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: (non-admin closure) NOT MOVED. There is consensus against adding "The" to the article title. There is no consensus on some other move; either to change "Tree" to lowercase, or to add parenthetical disambiguation (and presumably having Bodhi tree become a DAB or redirect to some other article). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Bodhi Tree → The Bodhi tree – The inclusion of "The" can be used to distinguish between the one particular tree under which Gautama Buddha is said to have attained bodhi and the other trees that are called bodhi trees, e.g., all trees of the species Ficus religiosa or the trees that are direct descendants (e.g., the Mahabodhi tree or the Anandabodhi tree) or clones from cuttings (e.g., the Sri Maha Bodhi Tree or the Bodhi Tree in Honolulu) of the particular tree under which the Buddha sat. (See WP:THE: "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.") Also, the sources are mixed about capitalization of "tree". So is the Wikipedia article. In fact most of the sources that I have checked use lowercase for "tree". Brittanica uses lowercase. The CNN article cited in the first sentence does too. In a web search, many instances that capitalize the word "tree" are doing so for the names of institutions and enterprises rather than for the name of this particular tree (e.g., Bodhi Tree Bookstore, Bodhi Tree Salon & Spa, Bodhi Tree Yoga Resort, Bodhi Tree Juice Co., Bodhi Tree Massage and Skincare, Bodhi Tree Guesthouse & Studio, Bodhi Tree Educational Foundation, Bodhi Tree Cafe). When sources are mixed, Wikipedia generally prefers lowercase. But "Bodhi tree" (without "The") is more ambiguous, as it could refer either to this article or the article about the species of tree or one of the other individual trees. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure WP:THE is applicable here. It seems to me that in "Bodhi tree" versus "The Bodhi tree", the definite article is simply performing its usual function of picking out a unique referent, and not changing the meaning of the term as it is in, e.g., "crown" versus "The Crown". I agree that lower-casing and further disambiguation seems necessary from your evidence, though. Perhaps "Bodhi tree (Buddha)" would be better? Rublov (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• The quote from WP:THE above cuts off an important portion of the quoted sentence. The full sentence is (omitted portion in bold): 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 word without article can be used as the name of a separate Wikipedia article. Unless it's being proposed that Bodhi Tree redirect somewhere else (which doesn't seem to be the case), then this clause of WP:THE doesn't apply. Colin M (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Bodhi Tree (Buddhism). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Is the capital "T" in that suggestion intentional? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes. Seems to me to be a proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Between those two choices, I would favor Bodhi tree (Buddhism) (lowercase) over Bodhi Tree (Buddhism), as I don't think "tree" is part of the proper name, and the capitalization in sources is mixed. When sources are mixed, Wikipedia tends toward lowercase. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose the article; support the lowercase tree. Proposed title has improper use of the article (cf. Tree of life, Simsapa tree). And keep this article without a parenthetical per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC/WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. —  AjaxSmack  03:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Move to Bodhi tree (Bodh Gaya) - I agree with BarrelProof on capitalisation here, but don't think "(Buddhism)" works to disambiguate since descendants of that tree and even other F. religiosa trees are all relevant to Buddhism. This particular tree is called the "(Śri) Mahābodhi tree" to distinguish it from other F. religiosa trees that are called bodhi trees, however, some of the descendants of this tree share that name too since the cuttings may be viewed as continuations of the original tree and not as distinct descendants. Similarly, "the" could be accurately applied to any particular one of the descendants so that doesn't work for disambiguation; therefore, I don't agree with the original proposal.

It seems, then, that the distinguishing feature is not the religion, the title given to the tree, or a definite article but the geographical location of this tree: "located in Bodh Gaya, Bihar, India"; this is how that first line of the article itself disambiguates this tree. This issue with geographical identifiers is that the original tree is dead and has been replaced by cuttings planted at the same location, however, the article itself already covers this history of the tree at Bodh Gaya, and in-fact most of the content of the article is a history of the cuttings of the original tree at Bodh Gaya including subsequent generations at Bodh Gaya and cuttings transported elsewhere. Therefore, I don't think it's problematic to disambiguate this article geographically. Scyrme (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2021 (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.

Requested move 29 July 2021

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: Not moved . Consensus is: disambiguation of a primary topic article at the base name is unnecessary. If nom wanted to argue that this topic is not primary for “Bodhi Tree”, well, that argument was not presented. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 01:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Bodhi Tree → Bodhi tree (Bodh Gaya) – The previous requested move for this article (now closed) raised several issues which were unresolved, specifically regarding capitalisation and ambiguity; there was a general agreement in favour of a lowercase "tree", but this makes the title ambiguous. As I argued in that discussion, the distinguishing feature of this particular tree is not the religion ("Buddhism"), the title given to the tree ("Śri Mahā-"), or a definite article ("the") but the geographical location of this tree: "located in Bodh Gaya, Bihar, India"; this is also how the first line of the article itself disambiguates this tree. "Bodhi tree (Bodh Gaya)" is the only accurate, unambiguous title for this article. Scyrme (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is the primary topic for "Bodhi tree"; as such there is zero need to add a parethentical disambiguation, as there is no need to disambiguate it from anything else. The parenthetical addition is unnecessary at best. Such parenthetical disambiguation is used only when there is a need to disambiguate the term. It's not needed here. - Aoidh (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aoidh: There is a need to disambiguate it from other bodhi trees (F. religiosa) in general, and other descendants of the historical tree at Bodh Gaya, which includes trees which aren't even in the same country yet share that same name and share the same significance for local Budhhist communities because they were cut from the tree at Bodh Gaya. If primary topic guidelines allow these other trees to just be ignored, then please demonstrate this rather just saying it. Scyrme (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

There's not though; this is the primary topic. Thus, there's no need for a parenthetical disambiguation. There is zero reason to add a parenthetical disambiguation when it's already at the primary topic. It's creating a problem rather than solving one. - Aoidh (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – There is no need to disambiguate because there are no other articles with the same title. MClay1 (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2021 (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.