Talk:The Buddha/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

TERRIBLE SPELLING

This article needs proofreading 2A00:23C5:9F17:9901:5981:7911:432B:596E (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you point out any misspellings? JungleEntity (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2023

Regarding the article on The Buddha under the section: Understanding the historical person under subsection Dating, I noticed in the dates in the paragraph regarding the accepted dates in Sri Lanka and South-East Asia are one year off.

The paragraph reads:

“According to these chronicles Asoka was crowned in 326 BCE, which gives the dates of 624 and 544 BCE for the Buddha, which are the accepted dates in Sri Lanka and South-East Asia.”

These dates are off by one year and should be: 623 and 543 as the accepted dates in SE Asia. In Thailand, Cambodia, etc., for example the current year is 2566 BE. So by subtracting 2023 AD from 2566 BE, results in a 543 year difference, not a 544 year difference. Thereby putting the historical Buddha’s birth and death at 623 and 543. These are the dates used in SE Asia. So I believe the article listing the dates of 624 and 544 to be typos or incorrect. 2001:FB1:42:950F:59D3:9B54:FF97:F524 (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the source used for those dates, and all it gives is the Buddha's birthday as circa 563 BC. This source (also used in the Buddha's Birthday article) gives 623 as well, but doesn't exactly state if this is the SE Asia dating or not. This one, citing "The Theravada school using Sri Lankan chronicles" (also citing an actual book) says 564. If anyone finds a better source, please update the article with it! Good catch OP! JungleEntity (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: per JungleEntity. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 09:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2023

The six sense bases only show five senses, they are missing "eye and sight".

change "The six sense bases are ear and sound, nose and odour, tongue and taste, body and touch, and mind and thoughts" to The six sense bases are eye and sight, ear and sound, nose and odour, tongue and taste, body and touch, and mind and thoughts. DavehackerWiki (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Ha! Yes, clearly the sense base that was missing when the text was first added. Done. Thanks. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2023

typo: change input feom to input from DavehackerWiki (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ascetic Sumedha and Dipankara Buddha.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead line

The paragraph should atleast include 'India' as he spent good time doing renuciation(in Bodhgaya) as well as a spiritual teacher. Don't you think so? South Asia doesn't even conclude that he had most in common with India.223.190.135.195 (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2023

The word "Parinirvana" in this sentence: "He died in Kushinagar, attaining paranirvana.[d]" is spelled P-A-R-A-N-I-R-V-A-N-A, instead of how it is really spelled: P-A-R-I-N-I-R-V-A-N-A. DiefferGhossss (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

buddha

It is stated in the intro that Buddha "founded Buddhism". This is not strictly true as Buddhism was created and proliferated by later followers. Chridman (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Chridman: It is what the reliable sources say, and therefore, so do we. Mathglot (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot If you bothered to check the passage, you'd see that the statement is unsourced. I see no problem in rewording it. ~~~~ — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Kashmiri, the lead sentence you see now was hammered out after extensive discussion, including Rfcs. There was lively disagreement on a number of issues, but not about that point. If you think "founder of Buddhism" is something that needs sourcing, feel free to do so. Several dozen sources were listed during those discussions that mentioned "founder of Buddhism" or words to that effect as part of the description; in fact, it is the one of the most common assertions about the Buddha to appear in reliable sources; see this list. For other viewpoints, see the Archives. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

And behold, your list proves its long-term utility again. Yes, 'founder', is all over it. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

line 3: ... and founded Buddhism.

Buddha certainly NEVER founded Buddhism (like Jesus never 'founded' Christianity). Organised religions usually appear 100s of years after the life of the enlightened Master (not that Jesus was definiteley enlightened) because some 'people' start drawing power and advantage from the wisdom of the -ism's origin. Every '-ism' is only an institutionalised, rather dead, knowledgeable copy of the original and tries to prevent searchers to find their individual way, just as Gautama Siddhartha - and many others - did who certainly NEVER followed any '-ism'... 89.247.171.247 (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above. And, particularly, this list of sources.RegentsPark (comment) 14:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2023

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 Buddha → Buddha – Procedural note: Previous The Buddha to Buddha move discussion was nearly a year ago and resulted in no consensus rather than overwhelming oppose and there's more to its rationale, so I'd like to reevaluate.

The definite article in the title looks like hypercorrection. Firstly, in terms of WP:THE: "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the Wikipedia article name. Otherwise, do not". Here "the" is not an inseparable capitalized part of the proper name, as in The Crown, The New York Times or The Beatles. At the same time, whenever Buddha is mentioned, Siddhartha Gautama is typically assumed, making him WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - which is apparently why Buddha currently redirects to The Buddha rather than to Buddha (disambiguation). So confusion here is negligible, it's not the issue of crown vs The Crown mentioned there. As such, the argument from the previous move discussion that "the definite article "The" is required, and justified by the guideline WP:THE, to distinguish "The Buddha" from the broader concept of buddhas or buddahood" is miscalibrated optics. Secondly, major reference works have their entries at Buddha, rather than The Buddha: Encyclopedia Britannica, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Cambridge Dictionary, etc. All this favors dropping "the" from the title. Brandmeister^talk 12:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 15:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with the above. The counterargument that has been in the past to this is that "Buddha" could be confused with "buddha" (lower case), i.e. the general concept of "buddhahood" or one of the other figures associated with it - an argument that I, personally, have never found particularly compelling. There are other buddhas, yes ... but, as the tertiary sources above attest, "Buddha" (upper case) only has one real meaning in common English. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2023 (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) 15:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous and lengthy discussions above. "The Buddha" is the smartest solution. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose because I am tired of page moves; because the last move ended on December 3 2022 which is 8 months not a year; because I am ashamed of the time I seemingly invested in previous page moves and, in general, in talk page discussions here; because their memory is so hazy as to be of a lifetime ago; because the lead of the article remains in the same state of disrepair and disregard it was two years ago; and ultimately because Gautama Buddha, the Sage of the Sakyas, would have walked away, and did walk away, from such arguments to seek the shade of an unfrequented tree. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose: The nominator quoted the second criterion at WP:THE (about capitalization in running text), but neglected to quote the first criterion, which 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." The suggestion is that while "buddha" could refer to anyone who has achieved buddhahood, when someone refers to "The Buddha", it is reasonable to assume they are referring to Gautama Buddha. Addressing the "upper case" part of the comment by Iskandar323, Wikipedia has no way to distinguish between an article title that starts with an uppercase letter and one that starts with an lowercase letter. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, so both Buddha/buddha (upper/lower case) already direct here. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. If we had a way of distinguishing between them, we might send "Buddha" to Siddhartha Gautama and "buddha" to buddhahood. It is interesting that your view seems to have changed since November. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  That it already directs here is merely fact. That no one was has bothered to open a discussion to redirect it anywhere else in the last eight months shows that no one has a strong convinction against the current arrangement. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  The first criterion of WP:THE is not much applicable here because of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Otherwise Buddha would have redirected to Buddha (disambiguation) instead. Brandmeister^talk 20:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think the choice of a title is more than a matter of picking the shortest name that fits WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (assuming it is correctly considered a primary topic). So I disagree with the suggestion that first criterion of WP:THE is not relevant here. I just took a look at the three places linked above. I notice that both Britannica and Stanford, although they title their articles "Buddha", use the phrase "the Buddha" a lot. The cited dictionary seems simply deficient, as it fails to acknowledge that the word has other meanings – it mentions statues explicitly, but many (perhaps most) of the statues are depicting other buddhas, not that buddha. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  What matters in Britannica or Stanford is the lack of "the" in their entries rather than presence in the running prose. Currently Wikipedia appears to be in minority among major reference works that use "the" in the Buddha entry - most of them reasonably use simply "Buddha" in the entries/headlines. Brandmeister^talk 07:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  As a reminder, Talk:The Buddha/Tertiary sources, as linked in the talk page header, provides a fairly full gamut of tertiary sources for those inquisitive along these lines. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support Britannica uses simply "Buddha", and the name already redirects here. There is the question of whether Buddha (title) should have been soft deleted, but it's clear that the person is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the title. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

What "person"? Siddharta? "Buddha" is only and always a state of being, ie a title. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Both this article and Britannica refer to Siddhartha Gautama as the primary meaning of "Buddha". I think it's important to consider what a lay person would think of when hearing "Buddha" compared to a devout Buddhist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per the arguments in the many earlier discussions, and precisely (per F&F & Pat) because there have been so many earlier discussions. Most Western readers understandably have an uncertain grasp of Buddhist theology, and (in fact like many Asians, even Buddhist laity) are unaware that eg many a "statue of Buddha", especially in East Asia, is not a statue of "the Buddha" but another Buddha. The current title plays a very small role in increasing awareness of the distinction. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose "The Buddha" is fine and sensible, while seven discussions over the title of this page over five years is decidedly not. AristippusSer (talk) 05:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: I feel like "The Buddha", as the page is titled right now, is a decent compromise between the other options, either a more specific name like Gautama Buddha or just "Buddha". There are reasons to dispute the inclusion of the definite article, but changing it in either direction is just going to spawn endless move requests, which is why I favor leaving the name as it stands and stop cluttering the page history with RM.

Personally speaking, I will say that I do not like the name "Buddha" by itself because of the entirely legitimate concerns about ambiguity raised in previous RMs; just to give an example, out of the thirteen traditional schools of Japanese buddhism, only four (Nichiren and the three Zen schools) recognize Śākyamuni as the primary buddha. But I am OK with "The Buddha" as a middle ground if this is how he is normally referred to in English-language sources, since it doesn't entirely equate "Buddha" with "Gautama Buddha". And if that compromise comes only at the expense of a few style rules, I say it is our best choice. Aristippus Ser (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support as listed by major reference works. "A buddha" in distinction to "Buddha" is covered by the buddhahood entry. Robert Kerber (talk) 08:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - I can see the merits of both "The Buddha" and "Buddha" but I cannot support or engage in an RM every few months. If half as much effort had been put into the article as had been put into the last 5 RMs (6 counting this one) this would probably be an FA by now (and yes, I am aware of how much my own bytes added to some of those discussions). An RM proposal would have to be very persuasive to warrant changing the title or even attempting to so frequently, and opening a new RM because of a selective reading of WP:THE, which is not a novel argument in these RMs, is not persuasive in my estimation. - Aoidh (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. As in previous discussions, I will write again that this should be avoided because there are many Buddhas (see Category:Buddhas) and it is not the case that the term is used primarily for this figure in all contexts. I still believe that Buddha should redirect to Buddhahood (as well as that the article should not have been moved away from its previous title). Dekimasuよ! 09:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Depending on the outcome of this RM, someone who believes the same should probably actually launch that discussion to redirect Buddha to Buddhahood, because as long as Buddha directs here, it will continue to appear nonsensical to disambiguate the page away from its own redirect by deferring to WP:THE. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom, PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Support per nomination. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 10:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose "Buddha" is generic, and may be any of several (e.g., these seven). "The Buddha" denotes a unique personage, and obviously that is Siddhartha, and not any of the others. Furthermore, WP:PRECISION is policy—and that overrides WP:THE, which is merely a guideline, if it even applies here at all. Mathglot (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. 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) 19:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Clear primary topic for Buddha (which redirects here anyway, thus undermining the arguments that this Buddha is not the only Buddha; we know, so what?) and per WP:THE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:THE. The presence of "the" changes the meaning here, which is a huge deal. "The Buddha" and "Buddha" are not synonyms, and placing the article here helps clarify the matter. Side note: for religious topics, there should be a special concern for accuracy to how the religion itself presents it rather than convenience or common name outside the religion. If Buddhism says there are lots of Buddhas, that should be taken into account. SnowFire (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per many of the comments and previous discussions. The Buddha is a particular person. 'Buddha', although correctly redirected here to pick up readers who are looking for this particular Buddha, has now been described as having many bodies and existences. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with the other participants who have noted that there are other figures who have held the title of "buddha", and thus that "Buddha" would be an insufficiently WP:PRECISE title. Though my first preference would be Gautama Buddha, there was a fairly recent consensus against that title so I think it's wise not to revive that particular issue; instead, I'll support the current title of "The Buddha", which I feel is a WP:NATURAL and WP:CONCISE way to differentiate this particular buddha from others. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  (As a corollary, I'd also support retargeting Buddha so it redirects to Buddhahood instead of here; we can then use a hatnote to clean up any remaining navigation issues.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:00, 5 September 2023 (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.

What are the current problems with the article, and how can we fix them?

I see some people lamenting the current state of this article in the move discussions above. I know very little about this subject so I don't know what the general academic consensus is, so I don't know what's missing or inaccurate in the current article, but I'd be happy to help out with copyediting or organization, or anything else really. Would someone mind letting me know what the current problems are with this article, or what's missing?

Thanks,

3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Replying to myself here, but on a quick scan through of the article I'm not seeing a whole lot on the Buddha's "legacy" -- how later Buddhists have interpreted him and his teachings, and the evolution of how he's portrayed in texts. (For example, Muhammad and Confucius each have a "legacy" section, while Jesus has "religious perspectives".) There seem to be a few bits sprinkled in about how, originally, the Buddha was portrayed certain ways, but maybe a separate section could be added discussing his historiography or hagiography, etc. -- 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Two issues I'm seeing at first glance is the large gallery below the Artistic depictions section which should be trimmed per WP:NOTGALLERY and listy format in the In other media section which should be streamlined and converted into prose per MOS:EMBED. Brandmeister^talk 10:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2024

Buddha was born in Nepal. 103.174.168.54 (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: First of all, please use a "change X to Y" format for edit requests. Secondly, the "Nepal/India/South Asia" dispute has been going on ad nauseam. Please read the existing discussions in the archives and prepare an actual argument. Aristippus Ser (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Request to change the article title

Everybody in the world knows he is termed as Gautam Buddha. Yes some people do call him Siddhartha Gautam or Prince Siddhartha as that's his original name..but after being enlightened one it's Gautam Buddha where Buddha refers to the enlightened one.

There are many Buddhas. The little Buddha, the pancha Buddha and many more..by giving the title The Buddha, there will only be confusion or say less reach of the article. Please keep it the original one. Thanks! Sandhyahere (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Good morning @Sandhyahere:, please take a look at the discussion at the top of this page, where a similar move was proposed in March 2023, following on from the decision to move to The Buddha in 2022. There was almost unanimous opposition there to returning to the Gautama Buddha title, so it seems highly unlikely that a fresh move request now would be successful. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

If it's a unanimous decision, then it's fine. Thanks :) Sandhyahere (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Checkuser note: Sandhyahere blocked as a confirmed sock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality in intro

@Skyerise: Greetings! Regarding this revert, the article should not say that the Buddha "died in Kushinagar, attaining parinirvana" as if it were a fact, because this claim is highly disputed. It should be obvious that billions of people think there is no such thing as parinirvana. It's fine to say that Buddist tradition asserts this, which is why I kept the statement but added "reportedly". WP:CLAIM correctly advises avoiding phrases like "reportedly" when and only when they inappropriately call the factuality of the assertion into question. Is there some other way you'd prefer to neutralize this statement? -- Beland (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beland: Changes to the lead require consensus. Please show that other editors agree with your edit per our bold, revert, discuss cycle. Otherwise any single editor (such as myself) can insist that we maintain the status quo. Words which cast doubt are always introducing a non-neutral POV. It's up to you how to phrase it without using "claim", "reportedly", etc. You are misreading WP:CLAIM: we have to have a source to use such a word and typically use it in an attributed and cited quotation, usually in the body of the article and not the lead. Matters of belief require more delicate treatment. Whatever phrasing you use should clarify it as a matter of belief without using words which cast doubt. Currently, the whole paragraph is introduced with "According to Buddhist tradition". I personally believe that is as much "disclaimer" as we need. Skyerise (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Reading it again, it appears there's nothing in the intro to indicate that the factual accuracy of the assertions made by that tradition are disputed by scholars. Those disputes are described in several sections of the article, which means the intro isn't a good and neutral summary of the body. The Buddhist perspective should certainly be presented in a way that Buddhists find fair and accurate, but it can't be the only perspective. -- Beland (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beland: Then add a summary of the disputes by scholars, but remember to keep the lead to four paragraphs. What do you propose to remove? Skyerise (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what I can do. I've already trimmed a little here and there; it'll take me a while to work my way through the entire article, as there are neutrality problems in the body as well. In the meantime, don't let me stop anyone from making suggestions or neutralizing edits. -- Beland (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead already states twice "According to Buddhist tradition," precisely because we hardly have accurate historical information to rely on. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

\

Per MOS:LEADCITE,

The verifiability policy states that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

That's the verifiability policy, as quoted in MOS:LEADCITE actually says

Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.

Regarding parinirvana, to state that the Buddha reportedly attained parinirvana is off the mark; the suttas cannot be considered as eye-witness accounts. What's more, the idea that reincarnation exists is a metaphysical, supernatural assumption, beyond the realm of eyewitness-accounts (the Buddha 'reportedly' acquired insight in past lives through a suparnatural insight). And even the idea that a person could be completely liberated from desire and passion seems to belong to the realm of belief, not 'natural facts'. But/so, therefor: "according to Buddhist tradition." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I insist but the policy is very clear. The verifiability policy states,

All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.

What you cited is a guideline and it talks about balancing the desire. It does not supersede the policy. There are no exceptions regarding the specific cases the policy mentions even regarding the lead, as the lead guideline itself states. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you miss the point here. According to Beland, the statement "attaining parinirvana" is not neutral, as it is a religious statement. That the Buddhist tradition adheres to the teaching of Parinirvana seems to be beyond doubt. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

According to you. I am not saying you are right or wrong in your claim about the info. But each mind is its own universe and info in Wikipedia needs to be verified by what reliable sources state, not by editors opinions. The point is that an editor challenged some info in the lead in good faith and then that info, according to the very clear aforementioned policy, should have an inline citation (if it is still applicable because some changes may have been made since you made your reply). Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• There was certainly room for improvement in the tone and style here. Just having "according to" at the beginning of a paragraph doesn't absolve the entire paragraph of needing to be written in a neutral tone. I've worked in some changes using more subtle nods, and tweaked a duplication of the "according to" framing. None is this is consensus altering stuff; just basic copyediting. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed; I've changed it so that each sentence that repeats a Buddhist tradition makes that clear, rather than implying a factual assertion. The intro still is unbalanced, but I've gotten bogged down in problems on Buddhism which I was reading for background. (I'm not sure that all Buddhist traditions actually believe all the things that are ascribed to them.) -- Beland (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Move

Add me forward or backward to the long list of people correctly trying to move this to Buddha. The Buddha only has a capitalized article when it's at the beginning of a sentence; otherwise it's the Buddha. Note the way our running text works here in this article versus, eg, The New York Times or The Rock. WP:THE is crystalline clear on the subject, it's entirely unnecessary here, and every "oppose" in the previous discussion is so obviously (well meaning but) mistaken that an admin should just step in and get them to knock it off.

There are many other lower-case buddhas. As a single upper-case Buddha and even as a lower-case one, this guy is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the others don't matter at all in the discussion. It's not even a case of WP:NATDAB because Buddha redirects straight here anyway.

It's only a question of if anyone calls this guy The Buddha instead of the Buddha. In reliable English sources and in English publications with actual English-speaking editors, no, absolutely no one does.

(Note that this is different from how you treat the headword at the Wiktionary entry. That's also where some of the confusion is coming from on the other side, again needing an admin to just kindly remind them, nah, it's different here. Sun and Moon being where they are doesn't mean that you don't use the article with them in other contexts.) — LlywelynII 17:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - The Buddha only has a capitalized article when it's at the beginning of a sentence I don't think anyone is disputing that, the reason this article is called "The Buddha" and not "the Buddha" is simply Wikipedia:Article titles#Use sentence case, so the statement about sources using "the Buddha" rather than "The Buddha" doesn't seem to be a refutation of the current title. - Aoidh (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Agree move Temerarius (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per last time. Capitalization of "the" isn't at all the issue, in fact it's a complete red herring. Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - every "oppose" in the previous discussion is so obviously (well meaning but) mistaken that an admin should just step in and get them to knock it off - you surely know how not to gain consensus. But you're right that WP:THE is "crystalline clear":

Convention: In general, a definite ("the") or indefinite ("a" or "an") article should be included at the beginning of the title of a Wikipedia article only if at least one of the following conditions is met:

1. If a term with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same term without the article, the term with the article can be used as the name of a Wikipedia article about that meaning, and the term without the article can be used as the name of a separate Wikipedia article.

The Buddha refers to Shakyamuni Buddha (or Gautama Buddha, or whatever); Buddha in general refers to someone who has acquired full Buddhahood, and also to the Buddhas preceding Shakyamuni Buddha. So no, it's not "entirely unnecessary here," on the contrary, which makes your wish for admin-intervention even mor appalling. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)