Jump to content

Talk:The Buddha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Requested move 31 March 2023

[edit]
WP:SNOW, this was already subject to a move request only six months ago. Talk:The Buddha/Archive 15#Requested move 5 October 2022, which this move req is an attempt to revert. There is no need to relitigate this again so soon. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

The Buddha → Gautama Buddha – I have gone through the previous two RM requests but I fail to understand how we still arrived at this conclusion. Although. Dwayne Johnson is more popularly known as The Rock, we can clearly see how the Wikipedia page is titled. And while I'm not advocating for the name change to Buddha, someone correctly said in a previous RM that there are many moons but the wiki page refers to our Moon. While, a case can be made that Captain America (please note, the lack of The) is a title for many characters but the page references to the character that is primarily known by that name (Steve Rogers), another case can also be made that Ant-Man is a title and many of the characters using that title have their own separate pages. So, what I'm trying to say is while Buddha would make sense, Siddhartha Gautama would make even more sense but The Buddha makes the least amount of sense. Since, Siddhartha Gautama was previously denied during a RM and the title of the article was not changed for over 15 years, I would suggest a RM back to Gautama Buddha. Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. CaseNotClosedYet (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose - I'm not sure what the rationale for the RM is. The RM proposal does not say why the current title is problematic, nor why the proposed title should be used, nor is any evidence provided to show why the article should be renamed. Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it is cited, yet the RM is an attempt to fix something that isn't broken. As was made clear in the previous RM that changed the title to its current one, English-language sources do not support "Gautama Buddha" as the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject, and this subject is the overwhelming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this title. Apples-to-oranges comparisons to articles like Dwayne Johnson (who perhaps was as one point more commonly known by The Rock but his career as an actor has overshadowed that) are not a sufficient rationale to try to overturn a recent move simply because the proposer "fail[s] to understand". Consensus can certainly change, but we just had this discussion and it's only been a few months. The nom brings forward no novel argument that would warrant reopening this topic so soon. - Aoidh (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Every other Buddha's in this portal has similar naming structure, so I don't see how this needs further reasoning how or why English-language sources do not support this. Eg- Kassapa Buddha, Sumedha Buddha, etc.
    Also, this is relating to a cultural and religion topic, why you are looking for English-Language sources only, is quite ignorant and probably very offensive to people who are not primarily English speakers, hence why, I have read many people citing other Wikipedia language pages for Gautama Buddha as the preferred naming structure.
    I compared with a wrestler and fictional superhero as that's what this naming structure has brought Siddhartha Gautama down to. You are treating him like fictional character, a superhero or a person trying to go by the stage name for a profession. He is a person yet his article is referring to him by the title that was most associated to him. Let's not forget this article is related to Siddhartha Gautama. Please give example's where title has only been used to refer to a person.
    A few examples for my reasoning.
    1) Mahatma Gandhi - Mahatma is a title not a name yet the title is mostly if not only used for Mohandas Gandhi.
    2) Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother - First of all, Queen Elizabeth is the most popular queen at this age and according to the logic of why The Buddha should be used, perhaps Elizabeth II should have her page renamed to The Queen. Anyway, to avoid confusion with Elizabeth II, Queen Elizabeth is most popularly known as The Queen Mother and her page reflects that. But somehow, here we are trying to create confusion than trying to educate people and remove confusion.
    3) Mansa Musa - Same reasoning as above.
    4) Jesus - No one could say, if Christ is more popularly known or Jesus. And, while Christ is a title that is only used to refer to one person, it is not the name for the page. In fact, the title has a separate page - Christ (title).
    It is quite ignorant and blasphemous to make light of the subject. People need to know about the person in this article not the title. According to me, this naming structure is encouraging a mindset that this is a fictional or mythical person. I could then understand why some people would be against the idea for change to create confusion and spread misinformation or rather the lack of proper information. The core principle of Buddhism is that every person can and probably someday will achieve the state of Buddha, so referring to Siddhartha Gautama as The Buddha is quite against the idea of what Buddhism is about or what he taught. Which from a religion standpoint I presume is very offensive to non-English speakers, some might see this as a win but I consider this as a disrespect to the person behind the title and mystifying title itself. CaseNotClosedYet (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: What Aoidh said. Overall, a somewhat baffling RM. The message seems to be "Siddhartha Gautama" would be best, which is consistent with the Dwayne Johnson material further up, but failing that, since it was already tried last year, a default back to the previous poorly supported page title would suffice ... hang on, what? Setting aside the general comparisons with fictional super heroes and pro-wrestlers, umm, sourcing? "Gautama Buddha" went the way of the dodos because it was a total flunk of a common name. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Kindly refer to the above comment for any confusion you have. Also, Gautama Buddha is quite a common name in non-English speaking communities or people who actually follow Buddhism. It gives respect to both the person and also his status as a Buddha. Hence, the case with Mahatma Gandhi. CaseNotClosedYet (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per the above, and previous discussions. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move and snowclose. This request is nonsensical. O.N.R. (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and WP:SNOWCLOSE per other editors comments. – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 19:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. It's not inherently wrong or bad, but it makes infinitely more sense to me to have this page at Buddha, following Britannica. — kashmīrī TALK 19:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Capitalization in Lead

[edit]

In the third paragraph, "his teachings" should be changed to "His teachings" because "His" is the first word in the sentence. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done; thanks. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Asia

[edit]

@Divinemomentever: South Asia is a neutral term. This has been discussed several times before; dropping sources, without further discussion, or simply reverting, won't help here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Joshua, thanks for your elaboration. However, I don’t get it when you say south Asian is a neutral term. It is not. Indian subcontinent, which refers to a geographical feature, is the neutral term. For example, South Asia includes Afghanistan. Do you suggest that really Afghanistan was related to the birth place of the Buddha? Besides, South Asia is definitely a political term, coined recently, just look at the history of such term.
it is like we call European civilization a “west Asian” civilization since west Asia is a more neutral term than Europe which is technically a peninsula of Asia.
Are you suggesting that there was the so called “South Asia” at the time of lord Buddha? Don’t you think it contradicts all the documents and archeological evidence that India (Indus, Hindus, Bharat) was written in documents regarding the land of lord Buddha?
How can you claim that Chinese monks referred to the Buddha’s place of birth as “South Asia”?
With due respect, whether you intentionally want to use the so-called South Asia to demote Indian civilization, or you just do not know how politically charged such the former is. Divinemomentever (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTADVOCACY. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed: 2016–17 California textbook controversy over South Asian topics#India and South Asia. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just one example of previous discussions here. An overview here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Neutral term: South Asia#Name:

According to historians Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, the Indian subcontinent has come to be known as South Asia "in more recent and neutral parlance".[1] Indologist Ronald B. Inden argues that the usage of the term South Asia is becoming more widespread since it clearly distinguishes the region from East Asia.[2] While South Asia, a more accurate term that reflects the region's contemporary political demarcations, is replacing the Indian subcontinent, a term closely linked to the region's colonial heritage, as a cover term, the latter is still widely used in typological studies.[3][4]

References

  1. ^ Bose, Sugata; Jalal, Ayeha (2004) [First published 1998]. Modern South Asia. Routledge. p. 3. ISBN 0415307872.
  2. ^ Ronald B. Inden, Imagining India, page 51, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2000, ISBN 1850655200
  3. ^ McArthur, Tom (2003). The Oxford Guide to World English. Oxford University Press. p. 309. ISBN 9780198607717.
  4. ^ Lange, Claudia (2012). "Standards of English in South Asia". In Raymond Hickey (ed.). Standards of English: Codified Varieties around the World. Cambridge University Press. p. 256. ISBN 9781139851213.
[2] Afghanistan: is Tamil Nadu related to the birth place of the Buddha? Why not call it Nepal, or "lived in the Ganges plain"?
[3] “west Asian” civilization: go ahead, propose a name change for "Europe" and all related articles;
Ancient kingdoms and cities of India during the time of the Buddha (c. 500 BCE)
[4] “South Asia” at the time of lord Buddha: it seems to me that, during his lifetime, wandered the kingdoms of Kosala, Kasi and Maghada, among others; what does Tamil Nadu have to do with it?
[5] Chinese monks: the Chinese called India Tianzhu, "five Indias," referring to five regions;
[6] "demote Indian civilization" - ah, there we are;
[7] "politically charged such the former [South Asia] is: obviously you're ignorant of the political bagage of the term "India."
I hope you're done now with your rhetorics, and come with some real arguments. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well, let's call Europe from now on "Western Eurasian".
I checked this guy, Jazzmand, he is blocked now. Apparently he had a Hinduphobic and Anti-Indian agenda. From when, India is a name given by British!? the last time I checked, it comes from the Sindhu, i.e. river. Clearly, demoting Ancient India by replacing it with non-historical invented term, South Asia, is due to anti-India and Hinduphobia. Aparently, Indians are the new Jews. Such non-historical name changing smacks of racism and hinduphobic as well as anti-semiticism. Divinemomentever (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, India is a bastardised form of Sindhu believed to derive from the classical Greek period, when it was used in reference to the Indus valley. The extension of the name to the whole subcontinent is ofc an ironic misnomer and one that would also be anachronistic in the context of the Buddha – just as much as as any modern geographic nomenclature, so that is a highly moot point. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tianzhu, "five India", wrong! It means five rivers as India means Sindhu or river! Man, the British did not even existed when India was India! I don't get how Chinese and antisemitic propaganda try to hijack the term India and you are supporting such baseless claim! Let's call China as the middle kingdom since China is also an Indian name, from Chin in Sanskrit! You are promoting Hinduphobia. Divinemomentever (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we get back on topic? You gave one good argument: what term do WP:RS use? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Random inferences about propagandistic influences are not advancing your point. They're also bizarre. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tianzhu (天竺) itself has nothing to do with "five", which arises only in Wutianzhu (五天竺).
zhu (竺) here is almost certainly a transliteration of *dhu from Sanskrit, so while in a certain sense it could be construed as having connotions towards "river" when back-translated, in any reasonable sense it's a toponym when used in this and related terms (竺國 etc). I have no reason to doubt the claim in Cheung 2014 p.179 n.284 that the 五 (five) here refers to "regions" rather than "rivers". Folly Mox (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Divinemomentever: may I remind you that you still haven't gained consensus for "Indian subcontinent"? It seems that you don't understand how Wikipedia works... Calling my reverts "disruptive" is not helpfull either. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friend Joshua, I looked at WP: consensus and there is consensus on usage of both South Asia and Indian subcontinent, both featuring geographical terms. I suggest you to review the consensus to find hundreds of such examples. Just search Sikhism in WP to see it. Divinemomentever (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No there isn't. The term "South Asia" has been used at this page for more than two years; two editors are opposing now "Indian subcontinent." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, South Asia is the WP:NPOV socio-cultural-political-historical term. "Indian subcontinent" should not be used outside of strictly geophysical contexts. Thus in Kashmir we do use "Indian subcontinent." But in Indus Valley Civilisation, the Maurya Empire, or the Mughal Empire, we do not. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "Indian subcontinent" references what became "India" during the British Raj. That geography was created by the British by conquests and subsidiary alliances, mapped by the British in Great Trigonometric Survey, and given sovereignty by the British as a result of treaties and representation in international venues, such as the Olympics or the League of Nations. The "India" of the "Indian subcontinent" is no longer around. There is no reason to create linguistic ambiguity by letting people interpret it to be about the Republic of India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu

[edit]

Hello Joshua Jonathan your edit summary is inaccurate.[1] I removed that sentence for the reason I already stated. Hindus are not the only non-Buddhists who uphold Buddha, and he is also rejected by those Hindus who does not consider him as their Vishnu avatar. That's why it is undue for lead. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which other religions then venerate him? Neo-Vedantins consider him to be an awakened one, relevant for Hinduism. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahmadiyya sect of Islam for starters. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use the Sri Lanka Convention Dates

[edit]

Scholars agree the Buddha lived for 80 years. The dates of those 80 years follow one of four chronologies. The Sri Lankan version is 'The Convention' used by serious Buddhist scholars, since it originates from two of the earliest texts: Birth c.624 - Parinirvana c.544 BCE.

Let's use these dates here.

For a basic layperson's discussion on the dates (that unfortunately mis-ascribes intentions) by Joshua Mark, from the"World History Encyclopaedia", 2020: The dates of the Buddha['s life] have been derived from various chronologies which all recognize that Siddhartha Gautama lived for 80 years but disagree on the dates those 80 years encompass. The chronologies are: 1.) Sri Lanka's Long Chronology: c.624 - c.544 BCE (The Convention) 2.) Alternative Long Chronology: c.567 - c.487 BCE 3.) India's Short Chronology: c.448 - c.368 BCE 4.) Contemporary Chronology: c.563 - c.483 BCE</ref> Metokpema (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We use scholarly consensus, not primary sources. Skyerise (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are obviously scholarly secondary sources, inevitably based on primary ones. But whether these dates represent the full spectrum of scholarship, I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we "use" those dates? We're supposed to give an overview of the relevant scholarly sources, not pick a religious dating. Joshua Mark is not a "serious scholar." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Buddha&oldid=1255549102"