Talk:The Buddha/Archive 13

Will ping The Wikipedian. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Support either The Buddha or Buddha. Either is better than the current name, and the argument that WP:THE allows use of the article here is valid. So no change of !vote regarding Buddha and still oppose Siddhartha Gautama as originally proposed here. Andrewa (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

And I will be requesting the closer so inclined to close to also change

Disraeli to The Gladstone and The Disraeli

.

Churchill could be moved to The Winnie

.

There is no reason that the Anglosphere should have special immunity against being trivialized. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Are the existing article titles Physical characteristics of the Buddha, Relic of the tooth of the Buddha and Maya (mother of the Buddha) trivializations? Ham II (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps this is an attempt at humour. But it shows no understanding of the issues IMO. Andrewa (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It is deadly serious. A consensus among males of the Anglosphere with backgrounds in the information technology fields, which is what WPs widely and repeatedly cited demographic is, the 16 years that I've been watching it, should be allowed to ride roughshod over any nuances that lie outside their narrow, blinkered, fields of view. There is a NY Times article just waiting to be written again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

So having failed to persuade with verbosity, your chosen tactic is to malign those that don't agree with you with puerile aspersions. A clear voice of reason!

Iskandar323 (talk

) 16:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This is indeed a systematic bias of Wikipedia, and a potential problem. But I think that most Wikipedians, and particularly administrators, take it into account and allow for it in casting !votes and in closing discussions. I certainly try to, and think that most editors succeed. As to whether I myself succeed, that's a good question, and one that any disinterested party is welcome to answer on my user talk page. Similarly, I am taking an issue you raise up on your user talk page. Andrewa (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment. AGF, wikipedians. Let's comment on the issue at hand, not each other. BusterD (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@BusterD: People are using various "searches" to measure the frequency of reference to what they think are the names of the "historical buddha". The historical buddha, the one that lived in the 6th century BCE, is whom this page is about. They cite COMMONNAME to arrive at "buddha," but if you examine, for example, The Princeton Encyclopedia on Buddhism, Princeton, 2014, 1,200 pages, its entry (paper encyclopedia version of our "article") on "buddha" begins: buddha. ... In Sanskrit and Pāli, “awakened one” or “enlightened one”; ... The term was used in ancient India by a number of different religious groups, but came to be most strongly associated with followers of the teacher GAUTAMA, the “Sage of the ŚĀKYA Clan” (ŚĀKYAMUNI), who claimed to be only the most recent of a succession of buddhas who had appeared in the world over many eons of time (KALPA). In addition to Śākyamuni, there are many other buddhas named in Buddhist literature, from various lists of buddhas of the past, present, and future, to “buddhas of the ten directions” ... So, this one paragraph alone will contribute "buddha" half a dozen times to the search, but none are to the historical buddha; the encyclopedia's page buddha is essentially a dab page. The historical buddha, it turns out, is SAKYAMUNI Buddha or GAUTAMA Buddah in the encyclopedia, the latter begin with:In Pāli literature, he is more commonly referred to as Gotama Buddha; in Mahāyāna texts, Śākyamuni Buddha is more common (Blockletters mean another entry in the paper encyclopedia)

So

WP:COMMONNAME

does not apply here as he is referred to by many names each of which has meanings other than names (and those are also notable). In my best estimation, you can call this page: "Historical Buddha," "Sakyamuni Buddha," or "Gautama Buddha," My first preference woud be "Historical Buddha" The probem here is that people appear, with no knowledge of Buddhism, only brandishing COMMONNAME like it could apply to anything and everything.

From the time this RM has begun, who do you think rewrote the abyssmal lead paragraph turning it into something readable? It was me. Yet it is the others, who appear, pronounce: support X name per Y editor per Z rule, but forget to add per W state (where usually W = ignorance) There is a drive-by editor who has the temerity to start an RM without the decency to have a discussion on it first. And this is a controversial topic with complex subject matter. I know, I wrote the history section of the FA India. Seriously what is going on here? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

All these are reasonable assertions. Thanks for sharing this expanded oppose assertion. A decent amount of discussion can improve everyone's understanding of opposing views and help everyone towards a consensus with firm purchase. More discussion does not necessarily clarify issues identified. When ANY wiki discussion bears into adjectives and adverbs describing users or user behavior, we've gone down the wrong thread. Make your point. Please. But I invite you NOT to be baited. BusterD (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I apologize. I was nodding off when I wrote the piece above. Have taken a nap, and thereafter made some minor corrections (mostly typos) but have also scratched out some intemperate remarks. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Status quo Buddha needs to be in the article title; after all it is "the Buddha" is his most recognizable popular name, however there are "other" Buddhas like Dipankara Buddhas, so would not suggest to move to Buddha article.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Move to
  Iskandar323 (talk
  ) 08:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  Note to closer: Iskander323 is the nominator — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. So this is a change of !vote on their part. Interesting. Andrewa (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  Hurrah for discussion.

  Iskandar323 (talk

  ) 12:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  Changing the name of this article to

  WP:PRECISE, but it might require a new Move Request if anything close to a consensus is to be achieved. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk)

  12:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  It would certainly not be an improvement. "the Buddha" is what you call him in the second or third sentence, once you have established which Buddha you are talking about. It would never be the title. Very similar to Mahatma Gandhi, who is often referred to as "the Mahatma," but never in the title of encylopedic entry (WP version of a page name). Gandhi himself alluded to it in "the woes of the Mahatmas are known only to the Mahatmas." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  As noted above by RegentsPark, the

  WP:COMMONNAME. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy actually does have "Buddha, the".

  That's 11 instances of "Buddha" or "the Buddha" as the title of an English-language encyclopaedic entry for this historical figure. Lest anyone think I'm cherrypicking, I can also find one each for "Siddhārtha Gautama" (Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism), "Siddhartha Gautama" (World History Encyclopedia) and "Gautama Buddha" (Oxford Dictionary of Asian Mythology; there are two of these if I also count the Oxford Companion of World Mythology, where the text appears to be identical. This last-mentioned pair also have further brief entries titled "Buddha" referring primarily to the person). In the entry for "Buddha" at Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, the primary meaning is "An enlightened person [...]" and the secondary meaning is "Title applied to Gotama [...]". Fowler&fowler mentioned the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism; its entry "buddha" has the scope of our article titled Buddhahood, while "Śākyamuni" is apparently its primary entry on the person ("Gautama" is on the family name), though the dictionary "narrates the events of the life of the Buddha in separate entries about his previous lives, his teachings [etc.]".

  From this sample of encyclopaedias "Buddha" is clearly prevalent in titles of entries on the person, and I've argued that "The Buddha" best fits Wikipedia policy on article titles. Ham II (talk

  ) 15:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  It might require a new move request but might not. If the closer assesses rough consensus here to move to an alternate name, then that is exactly what should happen, with no further discussion required. And it is often done. Andrewa (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. The main aim of all talk pages is to work towards consensus. Andrewa (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• :::  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment
  The subcontinent on this basis. Both are very similar to "The Buddha." They are terms used once the longish formal term ("British people," "Indian subcontinent," "Gautam Buddha = Gautama, the Awakened,") has been employed for disambiguation. I'm pretty sure I can make a longish list of such page names on WP. The point is we don't go around changing names to what strikes as the most common, or troop by pages that we have never visited making comments such as "clear common name," from which a WP policy has to be wheedled out. I very much do think this is a paradigmatic example of systemic bias. A closing admin will need to be very careful in how they judge, and I say that as someone with a great deal of knowledge about South Asia. In 2013, the British people page used to have "and archaically Britishers in the lead sentence." It has now gone. But in South Asia, "Britishers" is not archaic at all. It is used neutrally without malice. If in an RfC in some (perhaps future) scenario, South Asian editors were to troop by the page and support "Britishers" back in, how will a closing admin be judging? Fowler&fowler«Talk» At the site museum in Sarnath a number of years go, where the Buddha gave his first sermon and the Buddhist community began and where the statue that currently graces the infobox of this page resides, I was being shown around by the director. I was enthralled by his knowledge and he perhaps welcomed my attention. This went on wonderfully for a while. Then I began to get text mesanges on my phone from the people I had come with who wanted to go shopping. I began to get irritated. He must have noticed my irritation. "Let it go," he said, "That is what the Buddha would have done." And folding his hands and said goodbye. Fowler&fowler«Talk»
  01:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Neither of those examples are very good analogies (aside from not being simple terms for individuals, in one case a collective and in the other a geography). "the British" obviously mops up any mentions of "the British ... (insert anything)", people or otherwise, while in your subcontinent example, the Ngrams difference is in any case marginal, and alone could never serve to demonstrate anything.

  Iskandar323 (talk

  ) 20:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  They are terms used once the longish formal term ... has been employed for disambiguation — This would be a good argument, if you can prove it. If you can show that a majority of English-language reliable sources use "Gautama Buddha" first, and that the apparent preponderance of "(the) Buddha" is only because of the large number of subsequent uses of the shorter term, then I will happily strike my vote. But I don't think you will be able to demonstrate that. Let's take a look at the 140-odd sources that this very article cites. Not a single one of them uses the term "Gautama Buddha" in the title. However, many of them do use "Buddha" or "the Buddha":

  • Anālayo, Bhikkhu (2006). "The Buddha and Omniscience". Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies. 7: 1–20.
  • ——— (2014). "The Buddha's Last Meditation in the Dirgha-Agama". The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies. 15.
  • Armstrong, Karen (2000), Buddha, Orion,
    ISBN 978-0-7538-1340-9
  • Asvaghosa (1883), The Fo-sho-hing-tsan-king, a life of Buddha, translated by Beal, Samuel, Oxford: Clarendon
  • Bareau, André (1963), Recherches sur la biographie du Buddha dans les Sutrapitaka et les Vinayapitaka anciens (in French), Ecole Francaise d'Extreme-Orient
  • Bechert, Heinz, ed. (1991–1997), The dating of the historical Buddha (Symposium), vol. 1–3, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
  • Bhikkhu, Mettanando; von Hinüber, Oskar (2000), "The Cause of the Buddha's Death" (PDF), Journal of the Pali Text Society, XXVI: 105–118, archived from the original (PDF) on 9 April 2015
  • Bodhi, Bhikkhu (2005), In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon, Simon and Schuster
  • Carrithers, M. (2001), The Buddha: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press,
    ISBN 978-0-02-865910-7
  • Dhammika, Shravasti (n.d.) [1990s]. The Buddha & his disciples. Singapore: Buddha Dhamma Mandala Society.
    OCLC 173196980
    .
  • ———. "Dating the Buddha: a red herring revealed". In Bechert (1992), pp. 237–259. Harvc error: no target: CITEREFBechert1992 (help).
  • ——— (2009), What the Buddha thought, Equinox
  • Hartmann, Jens Uwe. "Research on the date of the Buddha: South Asian Studies Published in Western Languages". In Bechert (1991), pp. 27–45. Harvc error: no target: CITEREFBechert1991 (help)
  • Mahāpātra, Cakradhara (1977), The real birth place of Buddha, Grantha Mandir
  • Mohāpātra, Gopinath (2000), "Two Birth Plates of Buddha" (PDF), Indologica Taurinensia, 26: 113–119, archived from the original (PDF) on 4 October 2012
  • Ñāṇamoli Bhikkhu (1992), The Life of the Buddha: According to the Pali Canon, Buddhist Publication Society
  • Penner, Hans H. (2009), Rediscovering the Buddha: The Legends and Their Interpretations,
    ISBN 978-0-19-538582-3
  • Prebish, Charles S. (2008), "Cooking the Buddhist Books: The Implications of the New Dating of the Buddha for the History of Early Indian Buddhism" (PDF), Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 15: 1–21,
    ISSN 1076-9005, archived from the original
    (PDF) on 28 January 2012
  • Ruegg, Seyford (1999), "A new publication on the date and historiography of Buddha's decease (nirvana): a review article", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 62 (1): 82–87,
    doi:10.1017/s0041977x00017572
  • Shults, Brett (2014), "On the Buddha's Use of Some Brahmanical Motifs in Pali Texts", Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, 6: 106–140
  • ISBN 978-1-78074-054-6
  • ——— (2007), Relics of the Buddha, Motilal Banarsidass
  • Swearer, Donald (2004), Becoming the Buddha, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
  • Tripathy, Ajit Kumar (Jan 2014), "The Real Birth Place of Buddha. Yesterday's Kapilavastu, Today's Kapileswar" (PDF), The Orissa Historical Research Journal, 47 (1), Orissa State museum, archived from the original (PDF) on 18 March 2012
  • Waley, Arthur (July 1932), "Did Buddha die of eating pork?: with a note on Buddha's image", Melanges Chinois et Bouddhiques, 1931–32, NTU: 343–354, archived from the original on 3 June 2011
  • Walshe, Maurice (1995), The Long Discourses of the Buddha. A Translation of the Digha Nikaya, Boston: Wisdom Publications
  • Weise, Kai (2013), The Sacred Garden of Lumbini – Perceptions of Buddha's Birthplace (PDF), Paris: UNESCO,
    ISBN 978-92-3-001208-3, archived from the original
    (PDF) on 30 August 2014
  • Willemen, Charles, transl. (2009), Buddhacarita: In Praise of Buddha's Acts (PDF), Berkeley, CA: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research,
    ISBN 978-1-886439-42-9, archived from the original (PDF) on 27 August 2014{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
    )

  A handful use other terms, mostly "the historical Buddha" or some form of "Sakyamuni":

  • Beal, Samuel (1875), The romantic legend of Sâkya Buddha (Abhiniṣkramaṇa Sūtra), London: Trübner
  • Cousins, L.S. (1996). "The Dating of the Historical Buddha: A Review Article". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 3. 6 (1): 57–63.
    JSTOR 25183119. Archived from the original
    on 26 February 2011. Retrieved 4 April 2006 – via Indology.
  • Hirakawa, Akira (1990), A History of Indian Buddhism: From Śākyamuni to Early Mahāyāna,
    ISBN 0-8248-1203-4
  • Narain, A.K. (1993), "Book Review: Heinz Bechert (ed.), The dating of the Historical Buddha, part I", Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 16 (1): 187–201
  • ———, ed. (2003). The Date of the Historical Śākyamuni Buddha. New Delhi: BR Publishing.
    ISBN 8176463531
    .
  • Schumann, Hans Wolfgang (2003), The Historical Buddha: The Times, Life, and Teachings of the Founder of Buddhism, Motilal Banarsidass,
    ISBN 978-81-208-1817-0

  But not one uses "Gautama Buddha". Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for your efforts compiling this added damning indictment of the current title. Yes, 'Gautama Buddha' has never had a good

  Iskandar323 (talk

  ) 09:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  There is much wisdom in this. But there is also wisdom in obeying the laws of the land where that does not compromise some higher good. And the rules here include discussing such issues on user talk pages rather than on article talk pages such as this one. And there are good reasons for this. Andrewa (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose any move. The term Buddha is used to refer to one who has attained the final insigths, so I oppose moving to Buddha too. Akshaypatill (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Move to Buddha per
  The Quran
  both redirect to single-word titles).