Talk:Shakya/Archive 1

Shaka and Shakya are one and the same
Yes they're one and the same. Both refer to one and same caste. The sanskrit pronounciation of the words is also same.


 * I am afraid that it is not such a widely held view that the Buddha was of Scythian descent, although "Shakya" is indeed phonetically very close to "Saka" or "Shaka", and the Buddha's belonging to the Kshatriya class indeed might point to Central Asian warrior-class origins. It might be considered as a supposition/theory, but this has never been firmly proved. Mention of this connection could be made in the content of the article (s), but it does not justify merging the two as if it was an undisputed fact. PHG 12:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Saka and Shakya are indeed same
Well as someone who has elementary knowledge of sanskrit, shakya indeed means capable in Sanskrit but i'm afraid shakya is wrong redering of word saks in English. Infact both spelling are way off the actual pronouciation. Buddha is known as Shakmuni in sanskrit and Shuk means Scythian. AMbroodEY 18:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

removed unsourced material
I removed some material without citations from the article. In the first case, there is a citation listed, but the source only shows the meaning of the word "śakya", not its connection to the Śākya people.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Etymology
The name is derived from the Sanskrit word  which means capable, able.

Current position
Shakyas are a high-caste group of Newar. All of them are Buddhists and perform high rituals of Buddhism. Many Vihars and Buddhist monuments are created or maintained by them. Most of them live in Kathmandu valley of Nepal.

The Myth of Arian Invasion
In the article, it is written: "Other experts say the controversial idea that Many thousand years ago, before the Aryan invasion, the land which is now called "India" was the land of the black-, brown-, and yellow-skinned people. They were the people of Negroid and Mongoloid stocks. After the Ariyan invasion about 2,000 B.C., these native people who were defeated were called "Milakkha" by the Aryans." Probably this is it, but the Aryan invasion it has been proved false by many scholars, and taking this into account we have to keep in mind the following facts:

Speaking of the Aryan invasion theory, it would probably be an oversimplification to say: "Germans invented it, British used it," but not by much. The concept of the Aryans as a race and the associated idea of the 'Aryan nation' were very much a part of the ideology of German nationalism. For reasons known only to them, Indian educational authorities have continued to propagate this obsolete fiction that degrades and divides her people. They have allowed their political biases and career interests to take precedence over the education of children. They continue to propagate a version that has no scientific basis.

The first point to note is that the idea of the Aryans as foreigners who invaded India and destroyed the existing Harappan Civilization is a modern European invention; it receives no support whatsoever from Indian records - literary or archaeological. The same is true of the notion of the Aryans as a race; it finds no support in Indian literature or tradition. The word 'Arya' in Sanskrit means 'Noble' and never a race. In fact, the authoritative Sanskrit lexicon (c. 450 AD), the famous Amarakosa gives the following definition:

“mahakula kulinarya sabhya sajjana sadhavah“

An Arya is one who hails from a noble family, of gentle behavior and demeanor, good-natured and of righteous conduct. And the great epic Ramayana has a singularly eloquent expression describing Rama as:

“arya sarva samascaiva sadaiva priyadarsanah“

Arya, who worked for the equality of all and was dear to everyone. The Rigveda also uses the word Arya something like thirty six times, but never to mean a race. The nearest to a definition that one can find in the Rigveda is probably:

“praja arya jyotiragrah” ... (Children of Arya are led by light) RV, VII. 33.17

The word 'light' should be taken in the spiritual sense to mean enlightenment. The word Arya, according to those who originated the term, is to be used to describe those people who observed a code of conduct; people were Aryans or non-Aryans depending on whether or not they followed this code. This is made entirely clear in the Manudharma Shastra or the Manusmriti (X.43-45):

But in consequence of the omission of sacred rites, and of their not heeding the sages, the following people of the noble class [Arya Kshatriyas] have gradually sunk to the state of servants - the Paundrakas, Chodas, Dravidas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Shakhas, Paradhas, Pahlavas, Chinas, Kiratas and Daradas.

Two points about this list are worth noting: first, their fall from the Aryan fold had nothing to do with race, birth or nationality; it was due entirely to their failure to follow certain sacred rites. Second, the list includes people from all parts of India as well as a few neighboring countries like China and Persia (Pahlavas). Kambojas are from West Punjab, Yavanas from Afghanistan and beyond (not necessarily the Greeks) while Dravidas refers probably to people from the southwest of India and the South.

For more details and facts which shows that the theory of the Aryan invasion is false, you can check the article "The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India" by David Frawley in the next link: http://www.sol.com.au/kor/16_01.htm

In the Wikipedia's article "Indo-Aryan Migration" under the title "Material Archaeology" it says:

"The Indo-Aryan migration is dated subsequent to the Mature Harappan culture and the arrival of Indo-Aryans in the Indian subcontinent dated during the Late Harappan period. Based on linguistic data, many scholars argue that the Indo-Aryan languages were introduced to India in the 2nd millennium BC. The standard model for the entry of the Indo-European languages into India is that this first wave went over the Hindu Kush, forming the Gandhara grave (or Swat) culture, either into the headwaters of the Indus or the Ganges (probably both). The language of the Rigveda, the earliest stratum of Vedic Sanskrit is assigned to about 1500-1200 BC."

Well, actually it is unknown the language of the Indus Valley Civilization as their scripture have not been yet decoded, and cannot be assumed that, due to linguistic data, Indo-Aryan languages (that should be called Indo-European languages) were introduced to India in the 2nd millennium BC, taking into account only the Rg Veda to assert it. Even, in the same article "Indo-Aryan Migration" it says under the title "History and political background" it says:

"[...] The Indus Valley civilization (IVC) was discovered in the 1920s. The discovery of the Harappa and Mohenjo-daro sites changed the theory from an invasion of "advanced" Aryan people on a "primitive" aboriginal population to an invasion of nomadic "barbarians" on an advanced urban civilization. [...] The decline of the IVC at precisely the period in history for which the Indo-Aryan migration had been assumed provides independent support of the linguistic scenario. This argument is associated with the mid-20th century archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler, who interpreted the presence of many unburied corpses found in the top levels of Mohenjo-daro as the victims of a warlike conquest, and who famously stated that "Indra stands accused" of the descruction of the IVC. [...] Most recent studies in the end of 20th century and beginning of 21st century, by various geneticists, however, do not indicate a significantly large migration of population since at least 10,000 years. These studies are exactly in line with the theory of the decline of the Indus Valley Civilization because of change in geological and climatic conditions in the Indus Valley around 1900 BC, resulting in a gradual movement of the Indus Valley population towards the more well-watered areas of Haryana and Gujarat, and subsequently to the Ganga and Yamuna rivers in the east, indicated by recent discoveries of Indus Valley type small townships in Gujarat and Haryana in India."

It could be also assumed at ease that the people of the Indus Valley Civilization were also Indo-European. Also, the Indus Valley Civilization should be called as well as Sarasvati Valley Civilization, due to last investigations on this subject. There are many things unknown to us about early Indian Civilization, but it has been proved scientifically that the Theory of Aryan invasion of India is false. I recommend for people interested on this subject to update their knowledge at the light of the last investigations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.141.9 (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreadable
The introduction paragraph is unreadable to a person that would actually come to this page for information. And experts don't need to come to this page. Try a rewrite without jargon, and constant references to ancient names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Shakya
Why is the sanskrit version of the English word Shakya used? This article is in English, not sanskrit. Besides that point, the article's title is Shakya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Śākya is a proper name. We don't usually translate names. The Anglised spelling is the one that you are using. If the Sanskrit version was being used it would be spelt शाक्य. Jayarava 16:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahaabaala (talk • contribs)

King or Kingdom?
Is this line "The Hindu Puranas mention Shakya as a king of Ikshvaku dynasty, son of Sanjaya and father of Shuddhodana.[4]" meant to say "The Hindu Puranas mention Shakya as a  kingdom of Ikshvaku dynasty, son of Sanjaya and father of Shuddhodana.[4]"? I am under the impression that this article is about the realm, not about people named Shakya throughout history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.199.192 (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope. The article is about the clan named Śākya. The Hindu Purāṇas, if you are quoting correctly, are not quite accurate in recording the facts. The Pāli Canon does record that the Śākyas trace their origin to A king called Īkṣvāku. Jayarava 17:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahaabaala (talk • contribs)

Recent edits
I removed the recent additions to the lede for a variety of reasons. Primarily because the new text added weasel words which diminished the previously existing text and made unsubstantiated claims of "consensus among scholars in the field". Also, the lede is supposed to summarize the remainder of the article. Additionally, while linking text to other articles is a good style, dropping an unnamed link between two sentences is not. Please try to include your new content without undue disturbance to the existing content. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. I would love to have some material on the connection between the Śākya nation of the Buddha's day and modern clans called Shakya in Nepal and northern India. However, it should be based on academic research, not on speculation, which is all I've seen about it so far. As for the second removed paragraph, it said "significantly" the Newars are a Tibeto-Burman/Sino-Tibetan people, but I have no idea what the significance is. We should be clearer, too: Tibeto-Burman is a linguistic category, it certainly doesn't categorise the Newars as a people in general, any more than we can say that Bulgarians, Singaporeans, and Plains Cree are all "Indo-European peoples".


 * I do think it's interesting to look at the modern linguistics make-up of the Himalayan region where the Śākyas apparently lived. Because it is difficult terrain, there's a lot going on there: mostly complex contact situations between highly diverse local Tibeto-Burman languages with Indo-Aryan languages that hook into the Hindu civilisation to the south (plus some influence from the literate Tibetan civilisation to the north). Then there's Kusunda as an isolate; Burushaski is spoken not so far away. However, we need to be extremely careful drawing conclusions about its relevance to the ancient Śākyas, since we have no almost no idea how the current situations compares to what it was like 2,500 years ago.&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of anthropological consensus on Newar
The incest "pointing to Iran" conflicts with Herodotus' account that Cambyses had to figure out a way to make it legal to marry his sister — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilokite (talk • contribs) 23:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

For Wikipedia to stay neutral, credible and evidence-based, we need to include relevant expert literature and references, not just religious texts or folk legends. In this instance, the surviving Shakya (Sakya) lineage still alive in modern Nepal today, belongs largely to the Newar ethnic group. Nepal Ethnographic Museum, Britannica Encyclopedia as well as experts such as American anthropologists Robert Shafer and Paul Benedict recognize the Newaris as of Tibeto-Burman origin.

As such, these bona fide references should be included, when mentioning the Newar ethnic group. This is why I have restored my initial paragraph on the Newar and their Tibeto-Burman origin; which had been deleted without adequate rationale previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepal Kirat (talk • contribs) 04:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

less material
There is very less information given here with regards to Shakya dynasty. The Mauryas originated from Shakyas, which is nowhere mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.9.252 (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Buddha Head of Soviet like Republic?
Before I start hurling hurtful truth around, I would like to point some possible changes.

If indeed the statement found in the second paragraph: "This system of administration is adopted by the Constitution of India which identifies India as a republican state or Ganatantra (republic)." is true, then someone should change "king" to "republican king" each time that word accurs in the article. If instead an elected monarchy was intended, then state it so.

As for the statement that the Shakya were organized similarly to a "soviet republic" then this article should be added to the communism category. 67.206.186.141 (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Shakya is traditionally thought of as oligarchy comparable to some forms of ancient Greek republics. These governments didn't conform to the standard of egalitarianism set by modern democratic republics, but they were not monarchies. From this perspective, it is quite inappropriate to speak of a king of the Shakyas. However, the ancient primary sources certainly can't be required to be consistent with each other: some sources definitely portray Shakya as a kingdom. In that case, "king of the Shakyas" would be accurate representation of the what the source says.&mdash;Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Śaka vs Śākya
As far as I know Saka (Scythian) and Shakya (the Buddha's tribe) are totally unrelated, although both were probably Indo-Aryan (since the Shakya were Kshatriya). I have never seen anywhere a connection between the two, appart from some vague suggestions from time to time. I really don't think the articles should be merged. PHG 11:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Neither do I.  It would be more appropriate to mention in this article somewhere, that some people think there is a connection; but hold off on any merge until that is more definitely established. Codex Sinaiticus 11:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think this page should be merged with anything. It's an interesting and encyclopedic subject&mdash;principally because it's a tribe that produced one very famous members&mdash;that we don't happen to have much information on at the moment. Let's keep it as a stub and wait for someone to expand it (if we're not going to expand it ourselves). - Nat Krause 14:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I always agreed with keeping the difference clear. However last year in an online Indology forum Professor Michael Witzel - one of the world's leading Indologists - said: "The name of the Buddha’s clan, the Sakya (Skt. s'aakya [i.e. śākya]), cannot be separated from the designation of the northern Iranian Saka (Skt. S'aka [i.e. śaka]) that entered India only after c. 140 BE [sic. He means CE I think], via Sistan." Note that he is not equating the two groups, only hinting that there is no real difference in the names. Also a note of my own that though the Śākya's are portrayed as kṣatriya, the Buddha was called "Gautama" which is a distinctive and prestigious Brahmin name (associated with on the the ṛṣi Gotama who composed book 4 of the Ṛgveda) Jayarava 17:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion saka(scythian) and shakya are not same. It is assumed that Gauttam Buddha's period is 500 BCE - 400 BCE ,that means the shakya dynasty was fully developed before 500 BCE. So it is sure that shakya dynasty was originated quite before. while we look at Iranian history, saka(scythians)ruled there at 1st century of BCE. the shakya dynasty of Gauttam budhha could have some relation with the shakya of Kathmandu Valley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.244.81.3 (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Glorification attempts
The persistent edits trying to associate notable empires and dynasties with this clan are not encyclopedic. All ancient empires/dynasties claimed descent from religious or mythical leaders. The historical evidence about the Burmese monarchy completely contradicts the claims of their descent from the Buddha. There are tens of theories about the ancestry of the Mauryans and the Sri Lankans, and this is one of the less accepted ones. Moreover, these dynasties/empires have their own article, and there is no reason to copy-paste huge chunks of content from those articles to this one. utcursch | talk 13:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That is well said, Utcursch. Thanks for your attention to this article. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Degrading the article
I am seeing a trend in Admins that they keep degrading and deleting matter from the article. Whatever citation I provide, they keep removing for example --my citation from recent official govt approved documents like NCBC India, NCERT India were removed by Sitush saying that its controversial; --old history books removed saying its too old --new citatation removed saying its from some Raj period,

Why don't you tell me what kind of proofs, references and citation do I need to provide. Because I can provide whatever level of proofs you want to. It takes hard work, time and research to enhance an article.

Do not make BIASED decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth only 1 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Re:Degrading the article
I agree with you. I had also felt the same. This Sitush is a paid writer who gets paid to write disparaging stuff about others. I think Interpole should look into such cyber criminals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.34.202 (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Devanagari and IAST
There was a discussion on User talk:Sitush a little while ago (see this archive) about this edit, which removed Indian scripts and IAST (transliteration) from the lede. This was motivated by WikiProject India which states that "There is community consensus that the lead sentence of an article should not contain any regional or Indic language script." I've never heard of such a policy or a consensus on Wikipedia articles before, and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. Looking at part of the discussions for the related RfC, it looks to me like what's under discussion is mostly modern Indian articles, rather than ancient history. Also, this consensus appears to contradict whatever consensus went into: Naming conventions (Indic). This being the case, what I'd like to do is assume that this article does not fall under the scope of WikiProject India and restore IAST and Devanagari in some way/shape/form. Not sure what the best formatting option is, though. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't your role to interpret the RfC. That was done and the result was WP:INDICSCRIPT. - Sitush (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, as a Wikipedia editor I have to try to understand what the policies are and ideally why they were adopted in order to know whether they are relevant to a particular article. In this case, it's difficult to understand what the scope of the consensus is or why it would be applied to this article. That's the problem from my perspective. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that not only WP:INDICSCRIPT, but that devanagari, which appeared around the 10th century, was coopted in the 19th century as a unifying script. It's not "the historic script of Sanskrit"; using it does not make anything more authentic. There's no more authenticity in writing Sanskrit in devanagari than in IAST, and IAST has the advantage of being at least minimally legible as it uses Roman letters. Ogress smash! 01:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really have a strong opinion about whether or not Devanagari should be included in the article. I think that a tradition of printing Sanskrit in Devanagari has solidified in the last couple hundred years, to the point where Devanagari is now considered the standard way of writing Sanskrit. I oppose the use of Devanagari for Pali, which would be an irrelevant Sanskritism. I would like to include IAST for Sanskrit and Pali in the article. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , IAST is appropriate. I believe the Pali form is just "Sakka". Ogress smash!  05:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Using IAST was actually also deprecated: that it uses Roman characters does not make it any less non-English. IPA was ok as an aid to pronunciation. - Sitush (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, technically it's the National Library at Kolkata romanization or "NLK". However, it's just refined IAST (with some unusual variants, such as for Bengali). But no, Manual of Style is actually to include the romanized form and IPA as appropriate. Ogress smash! 06:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not referring to MOS. I am referring to INDICSCRIPT - that is what this entire section concerns. Dig through the discussions and you will see that IAST was classed as an Indic script. This article has far more problems than quibbling about what the second word in the lead should be. - Sitush (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I shall read it. That's interesting, because it conflicts in two places with MoS India. Ogress smash! 06:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly. The whole thing was quite farcical in implementation, although clear in outcome. It is a common issue when people look at things in isolation. The "war" over diacritics etc, for example, extends much further and indeed has recently been the subject of a report relating to an ArbCom decision of some sort. - Sitush (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * When I read academic papers that deal with Sanskrit or Pali, I expect to see IAST or something like it. I don't ever remember seeing them use IPA instead, and I think I would remember that because it would seem so unusual. By the same token, an article about something related to China will normally transcribe characters in pinyin or Wade-Giles rather than in IPA, unless they are discussing the phonology of a particular spoken form. (Indeed, using IPA could be taken to imply that the phone in question always had the same realisation, which is not necessarily the case.) On Wikipedia, if I were reading an article about a China-related topic, I would be surprised if I didn't find the Chinese characters for the name of the subject along with a pinyin transcription. If I were reading an article an article about a Tibet-related topic, I would expect to find the subject's name in Tibetan characters or in Wylie or both. I don't see why we wouldn't want to follow a similar practice in this article. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I expect NLK - that's the inclusive version of IAST, like if we're talking Pali or another Prakrit you're using NLK already - in an article. I know it's not standard, but otherwise a lot of homophones or whatever go out with the baby. I literally never ever add IPA to an article that has NLK because what's the point of explaining the pronunciation of a system that is designed to be phonetic? It's like sticking IPA on articles that have Pinyin... it's not helpful. Ogress smash! 04:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (Looks like they're doing just that on some China articles now: Zhu De. I'd guess there are more en.wikipedia readers who can pronounce "Zhū Dé" than can pronounce [ʈʂú tɤ̌]. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC))

Hatnote
Please stop reverting and discuss the issue you are having here on the talk page so we can figure out why you keep deleting the hatnote. Ogress smash! 23:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Kachhi (caste) by User:122.171.85.85/User:Truth only 1 diff

is it correct that some Kachhi claim descent from the Shakyas? See also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakya&action=history. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

From Truth Only 1


 * @Joshua Jonathan:
 * Kachhi is just a synonym for Kachwaha or Kushwaha. Over the time Shakya, Maurya, Kushwaha, Koeri, Saini and lots of other castes who face similar social, political and economic circumstances and residing in same region started having more interaction with each other. But this does not mean that they are all the same caste. Most of these castes are and historically were unrelated. Kachi or Kushwaha is something we hear a lot is because of their huge population in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan and MP. This misleads us in presuming that Shakya and Kushwaha or Kachhi are same, when actually they are not.


 * Changes in the Shakya article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakya) is misleading that Shakya people in North India adopted Shakya surname. This is the first time I am seeing someone say that as I myself do research on North Indian castes and never heard anyone saying that. There is no evidence or proof at all anywhere which says that Shakya population in present times has falsely adopted a surname which was not theirs. Also Shakyas are not just in India, they are in Nepal also. Did they also adopt the surname ? The Shakya article itself needs more detailed profiling of Shakya population in present time which I will do as soon as possible.


 * I ask here to provide me one, just one, reliable evidence that Shakya people who are currently living have falsely adopted the Shakya surname.
 * And if you cannot then remove the misleading first line from the article.
 * Additions on wiki must be done based on evidence not because you don't have time to dig deeper or you are just biased or maybe just dont care." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth only 1 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 24 July 2015


 * great, now we are talking! And I think you've completely misunderstood: nobody says that the Shakyas adopted their surname; it is being said that some Kachhi trace their lineage to the Shakyas. let's see what Sitush says. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Shall we also assume that Tsering Shakya, Ming Zhen Shakya, and Thich Nhat Hanh are descendants of the ancient Shakyas until evidence is provided that they have falsely adopted that surname? According to information that was once in the Shakya article until it was removed for unknown reasons, the term Śākya, or the Pāli equivalent, was once applied generally to followers of the Buddha, or some subset thereof. Indeed, according the article on Newar Buddhism, “Shakya” is still the name of a Buddhist priestly profession in Nepal.


 * According to traditional Buddhist accounts (such as the commentary to the Dhammapada verse 47; not sure if these events are described in the tipitika per se), the Shakyas were almost all massacred during the Buddha’s lifetime and their state was absorbed into Kosala. I wonder how far back sources go that dispute the extinction of the Shakyas. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

From Truth Only 1

@Joshua Jonathan: 1) First of all, as I said Kachhi is just a synonym for Kachwaha or Kushwaha caste which is a well known fact. Shakya and Maurya population is sometimes persumed to be Kachi/Kushwaha because
 * a) similar geological location and economic/political interests leading to more interaction with them.
 * b) Kushwahas are in very huge numbers.

2) Example: Do you really think Mauryas are Kachhis ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kachhi_(caste) Is there any historical background proving or even saying that Mauryas and Kachwahas are same. Yet, today Mauryas are misundertsood as Kachhis and the same misconceptions are written in wikipedia due to lack of desire to research by wiki editors.

Or you will say that present Mauryas are actually Kachhis who adopted the ancient 'Maurya' surname ? Ancient Mauryas were not even massacred, so where did they go then ?

3) @Greg Pandatshang A) First "almost all massacred" does not mean "all massacred". And that happened more than 2000 years ago, enough time for remaining people to increase in population once again. Moreover thats the reason that there are not many Shakyas presently.

B) Shakya does not only mean the members of Buddha's family. Shakyas were common people also. Thats why Shakya was a republic not a kingdom, Shuddhodhana was a leader of Shakya republic not a monarch/king. Shakyas were there even before Buddha's family. Shakyas were there is other regions as well. So they all got massacred ? Gautama Buddha's cousin Pandu Shakya went to Sri Lanka and has their own generation and history. Did they also got massacred ? Is that even possible ? Doesn't that defy common sense ?


 * So, what's your point? You're stating again "Mauryas are Kachhis," which you contest; the point is the reverse, and different: some Kachhis claim descent from the Shakyas. The claim may be a fact (I don't know); but you reverse the statement, and go on about "Shakya and Maurya population is sometimes persumed to be Kachi/Kushwaha." That's not what this descendence-claim is about.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no historical evidences that either Mauryas or Shakyas were Kachhi. Its simply a process of Sanskritization in India which was successful in case of Rajputs and Kayasthas(with doubts), Yadavs got little success. Rest all the communities claiming royal order could provide no historical links and hence failed in totality. If at all there are any acceptable historical evidences proving the claim to be true, any one here is most welcome to project. Otherwise, all such claims and discussions have no meaning at all.--MahenSingha (Talk) 19:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

From Truth Only 1

@Mahensingha

If we go by your logic then there are no Kshatriyas or Brahmins at all and everyone is just claiming. If you ask even Brahmins to provide proof they won't be able to prove that they indeed belong to the same lineage as ancient Brahmins were (no one used to keep DNA records at that time FYI), and the reason is that it is not possible to provide reference to something that did not change. If a certain community in a region held a meeting and decides to change their surname then we will have that documented somewhere. If there is no such proof of mass change then we cannot assume that since a community does not have proof that means they would have adopted the surname.

I have seen your comments in Kushwaha discussion and it seems like:

1) you are trying to prove Kachhi and Kachwaha/Kushwaha are separate castes and then grant Kshatriya status to Kushwahas

2) But you will need someone to be in Kachhi caste afterall, hence you are trying to prove that Shakya population in present times has 'adopted' Shakya surname while they are actually Kachhi. (which was evident by your change in hathnote in Shakya article)

Let me inform you a few things:-

1) Kachhi, Kachwaha, Kushwaha, Kurvaka etc all these similar sounding names are same community. The changes in names happen because of influence of regional dialect. Just like Chandra Gupta Maurya was known as Sandrokottos and Androcottus in foreign Greek and Latin accounts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandragupta_Maurya).

2) Without an organized plan and centralized authority is it possible for a large part of community (Kachhi) consisting millions to adopt a certain surname 'Shakya'. Moreover do you have any proof if/when they did that ?

3) Shakyas are not just in India, they are in Tibet and Nepal also, so were they also Kachhis who adopted Shakya surname ?

Have you heard of "Occam's Razor Theory". It says among competing hypotheses the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected Now which theory seems more simpler and with less bizzare assumptions:

A) Kachhi, Kachwaha, Kushwaha, Kurvaka etc all these similar sounding names are same community. The changes in names happen because of influence of regional dialect. Just like Chandra Gupta Maurya was known as Sandrokottos and Androcottus in foreign Greek and Latin accounts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandragupta_Maurya).

B) Millions of people of Kachhi community scattered at different part with no internet/phone or any centralized authority (who were already claiming lineage from Kush, the son of Lord Rama) started to say "hey have of heard of Shakya they were also Kshatriya, so lets dump our claim that Kushwaha came from Kush and lets start calling ourselves Shakya, that would be fun !"

I agree that some individuals in Kushwaha community use misleading surnames like Verma, Singh, Kushvanshi, Maurya, even Suryavanshi, Raghuvanshi also, but these are individual cases cannot be used a defining factor for wiki articles.

From Truth Only 1

@Joshua Jonathan

Please read my reply to Mahensingha (above), you will understand my point.


 * "Sanskritization" is the relevant context; thanks.
 * @Both: the disputed claim is still not that "Mauryas or Shakyas were Kachhi," but that "some Kachhis claim descendance'' from the shakyas." It's not relevant if this claim itself is "correct" or not; the only releavnt questions are: is this claim being made,and is there a relaible source for it? Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with User:Joshua Jonathan, any thing supported with reliable sources is most welcome but the self assumptions even if practically prevalent are needless to discuss. The discussion must focus on what the reliable sources suggest.--MahenSingha (Talk) 05:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

From Truth Only 1

@Joshua Jonathan

Earlier there was no hatnote and I had no issues with this article. I think you were not paying attention to the hatnote changes that were being made recently. Let me tell you by example:-

The previous hatnote was this:

'''This article is about the ancient Indian people. For the Kachhi community of North India who adopted "Shakya" surname, see Kachhi (caste)'''

Now, this misleads a general reader to think

1) Shakyas were only in ancient times and they are not alive anymore.

2) Which further implies that everyone from North India or anywhere else who uses Shakya surname is a Kachhi. Which is false because the Shakya state itself was from North India and hence most people using Shakya surname are infact Shakyas not Kachhis.

There can be individual instances where Kachhis/Kushwahas use Shakya surname but then they use a lot of different surnames from other castes as I mentioned in my last comment. This cannot be used as an excuse to make the entire Shakya community a Kachhi/Kushwaha.

The current hatnote is this:

'''This article is about the ancient Indian people. For the community of North India who also claim to trace their lineage to the Shakya clan, see Kachhi (caste).'''

Now this also misleads a general reader to think Shakyas were only in ancient times and they are not alive anymore BUT atleast it does not imply that anyone who is currently using Shakya surname is a Kachhi/Kushwaha. It leads a user to understand that "ok there are Kachhis/Kushwahas who claim lineage from Shakya. They may or may not be using Shakya surname"

I would request to modify this hatnote to reflect something like this:

'''This article is about the history of Shakya clan. For the community of North India who also claim to trace their lineage to the Shakya clan, see Kachhi (caste).'''

And then

In Shakya article: we can later add current demographic of Shakya population in various regions, their current conditions etc

In Kushwaha/Kachhi article: we can add their various claims to Kush, Maurya, Shakya etc while specifically informing that these are seprate castes whose surname Kachhi/Kushwahas sometimes copy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth only 1 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 26 July 2015

--- Also I am seeing a trend in this article that admins add something (example this hatnote which is recently added) without providing any evidence and when someone tries to correct it then they ask evidence from them. Anyone adding anything to an article must do that by providing evidence in the first place, which would save us from wasting our time on sunday. If I am admin then I can add that Shakya came from a far away planet and then ask evidence to revert it. There wont be evidence saying that they did not, because there are evidences for things that changed/happened NOT for things that did not change/happen.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth only 1 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 26 July 2015

---

End of copied text

One more option:

I have seen no evidence that Kachhi/Kushwaha claim lineage from Shakya or adopt Shakya surname on a mass scale (as I told, some individual instances cannot be considered as a trend. If I change my last name to Gates that will not mean that all Gates, including Bill Gates, are Shakyas who adopted Gates surname.) '''If someone has such an evidence then please present here. If not then it would be better to REMOVE the hatnote altogether'''

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.85.85 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 26 July 2015

Hatnote part 2
Let's try again. You state:
 * The previous hatnote was this: "This article is about the ancient Indian people. For the Kachhi community of North India who adopted "Shakya" surname, see Kachhi (caste)"
 * The current hatnote is this: "This article is about the ancient Indian people. For the community of North India who also claim to trace their lineage to the Shakya clan, see Kachhi (caste)."
 * I would request to modify this hatnote to reflect something like this: "This article is about the history of Shakya clan. For the community of North India who also claim to trace their lineage to the Shakya clan, see Kachhi (caste)."

Okay, my response: Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "This article is about [the] history of the Shakya clan." - fine;
 * "For the community of North India" - make it "For the Kachhi community of North India";
 * "who adopted "Shakya" surname" c.q. "who also claim to trace their lineage to the Shakya clan" - we'll have to investigate at Talk:Kachhi (caste). But the solution here is quite simple: "For the Kachhi community of North India"; no mention of these claims at all.
 * "see Kachhi (caste)." - of course.

Thanks for trying to understand my point.

Now, the current hatnote is "This article is about the history of the ancient Shakya clan. For the Kachhi community of North India, see Kachhi (caste)." Well, this is also a little twisted. This again leads a reader to presume that Shakyas were only in ancient times. I requested it to just make "This article is about [the] history of the Shakya clan." Just like you yourself have presented in your last comment. I am sorry I am making this change myself as tomorrow in Monday and I need to sleep now so can't wait for your reply.
 * The second sentence which says "For the Kachhi community of North India, see Kachhi (caste)." I have no problem with this.
 * The first sentence "This article is about the history of the ancient Shakya clan."

Well, just relocated the word 'ancient' thats all. Regards, Truth only 1


 * Fine with me. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Can someone advise why there is a hatnote about the Kachhi caste at all? That article does not have the same title as this one and it does not mention Shakyas. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Shakya" is a surname used by some Kachhis.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   03:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

From Truth only 1

@Greg Pandatshang

Even I am saying the same thing from the beginning. I had to fight for 2-3 days just to get this hatnote corrected to make it less misleading. And I thank  Joshua Jonathan   for taking his time to understand this case.

Still I do not believe there is any solid reason for that hatnote.

I agree that some individual Kachhis may be using Shakya surname (even though I could NOT find any evidence for this). But then Kachhi/Kushwaha are rumored to use many other surnames also like Verma, Singh, Kushvanshi, Maurya, Murao, Saini, Kurma even Chaudhary, Thakur, Suryavanshi, Raghuvanshi also and lots of others, so according to the logic by which the hatnote is placed on this article then similar hatnotes must be placed on those articles also.

And also, one again I would like say that there are no reliable evidences (and I researched a lot) that Kachi/Kushwaha even use Shakya surname. Whatever articles, forums, books I have researched just indicates that these groups along with various Kurmi sub-castes have had more interaction because of common political interests. They have in past tried to organize a common political front to increase their vote bank by uniting these various groups (which were not Yadavs or Brahmins or Scheduled Castes), example attempts made Kushwaha Mahasabha. And this has in turn led to many misconceptions.

So can someone be kind enough to think again about putting that hatnote ?


 * I have no further opinions on the concrete facts; my only consideration would be that it is just usefull.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   11:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems like a pretty tenuous connection, if it’s just based on a lot of people having a particular family name. Is there thought to be a particularly high likelihood that somebody will come to this article expecting to find information about Kachhis and then be disappointed? – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * any opinion?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   18:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I will take another look at it. IIRC, Kachhi did refer to the ancient Shakya & it was sourced to a university press ... but some edit warriors got involved. WE do have to be careful, eg: the ancient Yadavas are not the same as the modern Yadavs, although the latter like to claim that they are because it makes them appear to be descended from warriors. It's the usual vanity stuff, I'm afraid. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, Truth only 1 has been fighting about this and related matters since 2013 and they've still not proven the point. Shakya is indeed a synonym for the modern Kachhi community and there is no certain connection between the ancient Shakya clan and the Kachhi. The thing came and went several times at the Kachhi article due to warring by Truth only 1 and another who supported them (both ended up being blocked etc, I think). Any experienced admin knows that user accounts with "truth" in their name usually spell trouble when it comes to caste articles. I'm afraid this is no exception. See this from Oxford University Press, for example. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * So ultimately all mess, now let's talk little meaningfully---
 * Shakya is the surname used by Kachhi caste see here
 * for more detailed review see here
 * Kachhi -a low caste cultivators see here
 * Kachhi a low caste similar to Pasi or Kori see here
 * Kachhi and Kori castes merged and became Kushwah see here
 * Kachhi as vegetable grower and sellers. see here
 * there are numerous such sources mentioning the truth that they are a occupational caste who styled to become superior by adopting names like shakya or kushwah and sometimes Maurya, but historically the links were found absolutely fake and unreliable. Let the eminent authorities think wisely and decide the shape in which the various related article should be. Thanks.--MahenSingha (Talk) 19:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It still doesn't sound like something that we would normally have a hatnote for. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If anyone has any better solution then I am ready to accept in order to make the article only pointing to ancient historical people, who certainly have no connection with the Kachhi caste except they use Shakya surname in modern times. Previously also such surname issues were raised an were resolve having hatnote, one such example is Yadav having a hatnote for reducing confusions--MahenSingha (Talk) 17:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break
@MahenSingha

You are just saying what we already know.

No one is denying that SOME Kachhi/Kushwaha maybe using Shakya surname, just like they use dozens of other surnames including Maurya. This cannot be used as an excuse to make the entire Shakya or Maurya community a Kachhi/Kushwaha. If today Kachhis start using Gates surname, then will that make all the Gates (including Bill Gates) in the world a Kachhi ? This article is about the actual Shakya people who are still alive in India/Nepal/Tibet.

This hatnote is misleading: "This article is about the ancient Shakya people . For the modern Kachhi community of North India using Shakya Surname, see Kachhi (caste)."

Now, this misleads a general reader to think 1) Shakyas were only in ancient times and they are not alive anymore.

2) Which further implies that everyone from North India or anywhere else who uses Shakya surname is a Kachhi. Which is false because the Shakya state itself was from North India and hence most people using Shakya surname are infact Shakyas not Kachhis.

This is not an edit war. I am just trying to say what is right.

Myself, Greg Pandatshang and Joshua Jonathan reached to a consensus on this and you came and reverted everything back. I know what you are upto.


 * Would you be able to count to then, take a deep breath, and then finally understand what this is about. Nobody is saying that "the entire Shakya or Maurya community [is] a Kachhi/Kushwaha." Only you are.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear editor, I just gave my opinion only. I noticed something ill informative and to highlight the reason I refered few sources also. Shakya was an ancient kshatriya clan. Modern Indian castes raised their claims to be descended from these ancient Kshatriya through Sanskritization and this is well established fact. So far there is no acceptable proof that any of such caste is really descended from ancient Kshatriya and this includes Rajputs as well. Hence, I felt the need of the said hatnote. I just gave my opinion. The editors community may wisely decide on the matter.--MahenSingha (Talk) 11:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: remove the hatnote
The solution I suggest is to remove the hatnote and replace it with nothing. If the name "Shakya" is not associated with Kachhis enough to warrant a mention in that article, I don't see why it needs to be mentioned at the beginning of this article. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Greg Pandatshang (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I agree, this entire situation doesn't even seem to warrant the hatnote people are wildly warring about. I say we remove it as not notable. Ogress smash! 02:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Mildly oppose I prefer to keep it as it is now. But if a majoruty wants to remove it, fine.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: I have removed the !vote by the block-evading editor and temporarily semi-protected this page, so that other editors have the time and space to discuss and settle the issue of the hatnote. If any unregistered editors, who are not User:Truth only 1 socks, wish to edit the article or talk-page urgently, feel free to approach me on my talk-page and we can try to work something out. Abecedare (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some sort of hatnote is required because Shakya is a synonym for Kachhi. If there were three usages of the word then we would have a hatnote to a disambiguation page but we don't do dab pages for two uses. The wording of the hatnote needs to be amended but the principle of its existence is not only acceptable but indeed required. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Kacchi does not even mention the word Shakya, though. Can you clarify? Ogress smash!  19:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, it did but the warriors removed it. The thing can be reinstated. - Sitush (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe the dispute could be resolved on that article before also involving this article. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no genuine dispute on that article. It is just the usual pov warrior stuff that infests caste-related stuff, hence WP:GS/Caste. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with caste articles but I certainly am not. I've provided a source above and there are plenty of others. Synonyms have dabhats, period. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed the source when you posted it earlier. It stands to reason that if you have a reliable source to cite, and this information is considered relevant enough to include in an encyclopedia, and there is no dispute over its inclusion, then it would appear in the article currently. If the problem is that the dispute cannot be resolved because of POV agendas by some editors, then I think it would be great if we could to restrict the problem to one article rather having it spill over into other articles. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the sourced Shakya stuff needs to be reinstated at the Kachhi article. However, anyone who has hovered around caste articles for a while knows that spill-over is common. The efforts of, for example, "not here" Rajput and Gurjar editors cross hundreds of articles, while we currently, and by no means for the first time, have a problem relating to Nair that has crossed into Ezhava. It is par for the course and sometimes it is best just to do what is right (per policy etc) and let things catch up in due course. It isn't the good guys who are causing the problem, obviously. I refer you yet again to our guidance relating to dabhats and dabs themselves. - Sitush (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is no evidently defined caste shakya at present at least in North India. If at all, there is another shakya caste in North India who are not Kachhi, then please project the sources in this effect. Otherwise hatnote is a basic need of the article in order not to misguide the readers.--MahenSingha (Talk) 10:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you clarify? You say there is no Shakya caste and therefore we need a hatnote? I'm missing something. Ogress smash!  19:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Shakya basically are mentioned in history as ancient kshatriya (warriors). Do you find any of the clan in India whose direct link with these ancient people is proved? No. Still, what I said is that if there is any reliable source proving that the modern Shakya (Kachhi or anyone else) are descended from these ancient Shakya Warriors, then please let me too know. Of course, there are Kushwah, a well defined Rajput clan and Kachhi and other allied communities copying the Rajput style have started using the Titles like Kushwah, Shakya etc. and framed their own historically baseless theories of kshatriyahood and such theories were never accepted. The Kachhi caste is occupationally identified as to be the community of vegetable growers and sellers. I am still looking forward if anyone can prove the modern shakyas are the same as ancient Shakyas. Further, I have no objection if the Kachhi article is stating that they use shakya surname or claim to be the ancient shakya. But here since this article is about the old Shakya Kingdom which we find in history of olden days, hence I am sorry to say that we are doing it at the wrong place. --MahenSingha (Talk) 15:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please also see the hatnote once agian. "This article is about the ancient Shakya people . For the modern Kachhi community of North India using Shakya Surname, see Kachhi (caste)." The hatnote does not say that there is no other Shakya, what we are discussing, It simply cautions the reader not to be confused with modern Kachhi Shakya and you are still in favour of removing it. --MahenSingha (Talk) 15:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Shakya Demographics
Hello Ogress, I see that you have removed my addition of demographics in Shakya article saying that the article is about 2500-year old kingdom. So where do I add the details regarding the present day demographics of the Shakya people ? Should I create a separate article for that (which I do not believe is required). ? Did you read the citations provided ? Please Guide. - Illuminaati — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminaati (talk • contribs) 21:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI, this is the addition: Demographics

Shakya population is mainly concentrated in Nepal. A small number of Shakyas also live in areas adjacent to Nepal i.e North India and Tibet. In Nepal, Shakyas are part of the Newar people, who are the indigenous people of the Kathmandu Valley, Shakyas and Vajracharyas serve as priests and hence occupy the higher social position in the caste system.


 * the Hatnote at the top of Shakya says Kachhi (caste). Ogress smash! 01:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, I edited the content above to fix the broken parts. Don't forget to cut and paste the bibliography part below as well. Ogress smash! 01:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)



(Tech-Tip:use keyboard buttons CTRL+F to search for keywords)

Newar Shakyas in Nepal follow Buddhism and are Buddhist priests. Other than the citations already provided above these are few others:
 * Paragraph 1 under Buddhamargi castessee here
 * Read fourth section named “Banra, Bare”see here
 * Page 158, about Shakyavamsha – Buddha’s lineagesee here
 * DNA study, page 36, Study on the Lost Sakya Tribesee here


 * I have not heard about Kachhis in Nepal but as per the above discussion Kachhi is a community in India who follows Hinduism and uses various titles like Verma, Singh, Kushvanshi, Maurya, Murao, Saini, Kurma even Chaudhary, Thakur, Suryavanshi, Raghuvanshi also and lots of others.

The actual Shakya community is different from the Kachhis. Please take some time out of your busy schedule and do research on this topic on your own as I think that a lot of confusion is there around this article.


 * Also regarding that hatnote, it also needs to be corrected. A little self-research in history on google will help us all. Thanks. Illuminaati (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You need consensus on these changes, as the current consensus is that this article will not contain any current populations. Also, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Ogress smash! 06:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * First I am not citing Wikipedia, those 2 are just references to existing wiki sections and you need to look into the citations provided inside those sections. Most Citations I have already provided in the paragraph itself that I added (also see bibliography below). Second, 4 anonymous people on Wikipedia deciding on history of a community of lakhs of people is not ‘consensus’. Consensus must be based on evidences as per wiki guidelines. I request you to please have a fresh look on this topic, read the citations provided with an open mind. They are evidences having wiki standards.
 * First I am not citing Wikipedia, those 2 are just references to existing wiki sections and you need to look into the citations provided inside those sections. Most Citations I have already provided in the paragraph itself that I added (also see bibliography below). Second, 4 anonymous people on Wikipedia deciding on history of a community of lakhs of people is not ‘consensus’. Consensus must be based on evidences as per wiki guidelines. I request you to please have a fresh look on this topic, read the citations provided with an open mind. They are evidences having wiki standards.

Please guide me how to get consensus on this. Thank you for your help. Illuminaati (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Also I just read the entire discussion regarding the hatnote, I do not see any consensus which says that article will not contain any current populations. That discussion is about Kachhi caste, and had requested for evidences of Shakya caste which is not Kachhi. Please calrify.


 * Paging hatnote discussion people.


 * Please sign your comments and stop edit warring.


 * First, you changed the hatnote to fit what you wanted to add, which you should not do given the discussion I have been (attempting) to have with you. There was a discussion about it and you can't just wade in and change it. The hatnote itself begins, "This article is about the ancient Shakya people" and the discussion was about whether a hatnote was even necessary because obviously it was about the community 2500 years ago, after all, that's what the entire article is about. Why would it also include the topic of random modern populations who have a surname "Shakya"? There was also a discussion that the surname in question doesn't really exist anyway maybe because it's more caste-edit-warring that's endemic. I thought maybe the hat was not useful. (More fool I.)


 * This page is definitely not about 1. the 2500-year-old community and "republic" associated with Gautama Buddha and 2. random modern populations with the last name "Shakya" who live in North India or Nepal or wherever. It's about one or the other, unless you have some unbelievably impossible document demonstrating an amazing historical connection between the two as opposed to, say, Newar Buddhists who just happen to have a surname identical to that of the "Sage of the Shakyas". Remembering too that the Newars are the indigenous population of Nepal and are Tibeto-Burmans. So basically, I don't know where this information goes, but it does not go here. Ogress smash! 07:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Illuminaati, based on recent discussions above involving the people whom Ogress has just pinged, it looks like you are engaging in WP:SYNTH. You cannot do that. - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)



Apologies if anyone thinks that I am doing edit warring. I am here to discuss and make this article stable.

@Ogress : You are saying that Newar Shakyas just happened to have Shakya surname, when they are living for centuries in the same region as ancient Shakyas, follow Buddha’s religion, are priests and monks in Buddhist monasteries; Doesn’t this sound unusual in the face of all the evidences that I have provided so far.

Does anyone here can present a reliable evidence that each and every ancient Shakya died without having any descendent? If not, then why does the hatnote implies that Shakya were only In ancient times? Shouldn’t that be modified.

You are asking for document proving the connection between present Shakyas and ancient Shakyas. Can anyone, including you, in this world show any reliable proof of their ancestors who were 2500 years back ? No. So does that mean we all ‘just happened’ to magically appear. The only evidence would be DNA proof and I did present an encouraging evidence regarding that also. Unless you decide today that you will keep DNA record of all the future generations in a safe repository starting from today, your descendants 2500 years later can only claim to be your descendants. ''You ask for evidences for my claim which I do provide, but for your claims you do not even provide a single evidence? Why is that ? Please clarify.''

My suggestion Modify the hatnote like this – '''“This article is about the ancient Shakya republic. For present day communities using Shakya surname, see –link to a Disambiguation page”''' On this page we can specify various communities in Asia using Shakya surname. Because even if, hypotheically, we believe that everyone using Shakya surname is a fraud, there is still a long list of social groups in different regions that use Shakya surname – Kachhis is India, Newars in India/Nepal, communities in Tibet, communities claiming decendant from Abhiraja Shakya in Burma; so why does the hatnote only says about Kachhis. It is very easy to remove content because that saves you from hassle but its very difficult to research and add content. Please Think about it.

@Sitush : Please read the entire discussion in this section “Shakya Demographics”, do all the citation that I have provided fall into the category that you are saying. If yes, then please guide me about which kind of citation I should provide? Illuminaati (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress : ''one more thing, You say that there is a discussion going on about hatnote and I just waded in, well frankly, I do not see any discussion happening after 31st of last month i.e since half a month. Please clarify.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminaati (talk • contribs) 10:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If there are more than two communities that are known by the Shakya name, and if those communities are notable by reference to reliable sources, then we do indeed need a disambiguation page and we need some sort of article for the ones that are not covered already (ie: any community other than the ancient Shakya tribe and the modern Kacchis). - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for talking logically.

And yes we absolutely and already do have more than 2 communities that are notable by reference to reliable sources. Since we are considering ancient Shakyas as all dead now, hence along with them present day Kachhi in North India and Newar Shakyas in Nepal/North India would be total 3 communities.
 * If we wish to go deeper then this does not stop here, we have Shakya community in Tibet who have their own sakya tradition, Shakya community in Burma (claiming descent from Abhiraja Shakya), Shakya community in Sri Lanka claiming descent from Buddhha’s cousin Pandu Shakya who migrated there etc.

Now,
 * -article for ancient Shakya is this itself
 * -article for Kachhi already exists
 * -creating article for Newar Shakya is not difficult as we have loads of citation and scholarly articles for it (I myself provided many, details can be googled)
 * -creating article for Shakya community in Tibet, Burma and Sri Lanka would require some serious hardwork as present Shakyas there are not as influential or large in numbers that may lead to many publications for them. So finding scholarly works is difficult if not impossible. Editors will have to contribute.


 * Your suggestions are also invited.

Illuminaati (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree there should be a disambiguation if additional pages are created. I remind you we require reliable sources.


 * However, I won't be writing those pages. I choose to defer to other persons to deal with what is the usual caste politics and warring and magical thinking as frankly I do not have the spoons to deal with these intellectual shenanigans, I spend them on dealing with shenanigans in other areas of Wikipedia. Ogress smash! 20:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ogress on all points (although I cannot claim to as active as she when it comes to spoonsing other areas' shenanigans). P.S. I am not aware of a Shakya community in Tibet (although I might be missing something; I do not know where Tsering Shakya got his name). There is a large and influential Sakya sect, but the resemblance of that name is coincidental. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * One of the things I spend spoons on is Buddhism articles such as Tibetan ones, and yeah, the name Sa skya (note the additional s) does not make Tibetans think of the Buddha; its name means "the Red Earth". Sha kya is sometimes taken by Tibetan monks, like Buddhist monks and nuns of all Buddhist cultures, as a kind of surname because it's the Buddha's name, but Tibetans don't have "surnames", at least not traditionally: see Tibetan name. East Asian societies normally have surnames; Thích Nhất Hạnh's surname, Thích, is in fact the Sino-Vietnamese pronunciation of Shakya . Ogress smash! 03:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Scythian
Responding to Illuminaati: Silk Road scholar Christopher Beckwith devotes the prologue of his book "Greek Buddha" to the thesis that the Shakya were Scythians. Much of this can be read online at Amazon: Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. The discussion starts on page 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teishin (talk • contribs) 22:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that Witzel has made the same suggestion. Also, Jayarava Attwood, citing Witzel with his own thoughts. See Jayarava Attwood, Possible Iranian Origins for the Śākyas and Aspects of Buddhism, or jayarava.blogspot, The Son of the Śākyas . – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * One need not in this proclaim that the Shakya definitely are this or that; one need only acknowledge that there are scholars who claim that it is such and cite them. Teishin (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * A thorough and clear statement on the topic would make it clear that this goes against conventional wisdom, as Jayarava mentions in his blog post. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * What are the citations for the "conventional wisdom"? How does one justify that this is "conventional"? At present the page has no justification of this. Teishin (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The article now says "The Shakya were a clan of the Vedic period (1750–500 BCE)." That may be misleading; do we know of Sakyas as early as 1750 BCE? NB: 1750 is also wrong.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed the dating; the association with the Scythians first sounded weird to me, but after checking the dates, who knows?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for the link to Beckwith's book; I've always wondered where the Buddhist influences in classical Europe were.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have obtained a pdf of Beckwith's book if anyone needs to review the argument. Pages 1-21 detail his analysis of Scythian origins of the Shakya.Teishin (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we please resolve the conflict about Siddhartha "giving up the throne"?
These two sentences conflict: "Siddhartha was the son of Śuddhodana, the chosen leader of Śākya Gaṇarājya. Because Gautama Buddha founded a new religion and abdicated the throne, the lineage continued with his son Rāhula." I previously cited scholarly sources that Suddhodana was an elected official of the oligarchy. Fine, you changed it to "chosen leader" although that is itself not entirely clear. The article also notes that by the time of Siddhartha's birth, the Shakya republic was a vassal state of Kosala, so whoever led the oligarchy of Shakya had limited power. That is a fact that an article about Shakya should state, in my opinion. But you obviously disagree. Can you please tell me why you insist on saying Siddhartha abdicated the throne? What throne? And whatever he gave up wasn't because he founded a new religion, it was because he left to become a mendicant and then reached Enlightenment and decided to be a teacher. The way you wrote the sentence it sounds like he left to go start a religion. And lastly, please clarify what you mean by "the lineage continued" because that is unclear. Which lineage are you talking about? In the Pali canon, as I'm sure you know, Rahula became the first novice monk when he was 7 years old. I'll admit it is a tad frustrating that you keep erasing my edits, but let's try to work this out. Citations are a must, I think.

UPDATE: I made changes which should clarify AND still keep what I believe was your intent. Cheers! Scottahunt (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Made necessary changes. Lineage now is just a generic word which signifies 'lineage', as with any historic personality. Avoid adding junk. This is not a research paper. Illuminaati (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Your language and repeated deletions, Illuminaati, are offensive to me. What I added was called history and fact, not junk. And yes, this is like a research paper: it presents facts. And many people who are working on research papers will read this material. So we owe it to them to include detail. You are clearly engaging in an edit war. Every time I put anything on this page, you delete it. You do not engage in a discussion with me, and you write offensive things. I'm not going to be bullied by you. I see from your history you've done this before. I am a Buddhist scholar, and I will continue to edit pages dealing with Buddhism. Scottahunt (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Overview
As per 25 march 2017, this is an overview of the changes since 15 march 2017;
 * 1. Added: "(Sakya and Sakiya  )"
 * 2. "Some specialists in the this field" -> "Some scholars"
 * 3. "This conclusion is contrary to traditional views." - removed
 * 4. "The Shakyas formed an independent republican state known as the Śākya Gaṇarājya." -> "The Shakyas formed an independent oligarchic republican state known as the Śākya Gaṇarājya. "
 * 5. "The best-known Shakya was the prince Siddhartha Gautam Shakya" - "prince has been removed.
 * 6. "elected" -> "chosen"
 * 7. " leader of Shakya Republic." -> "Śākya Gaṇarājya."
 * 8. Removed: "Because Gautama Buddha founded a new religion and abdicated the throne, the lineage continued with his son Rāhula."
 * 9. Added: "Many notable scholars state that the Shakya republic was an oligarchy, ruled by an elite council of the warrior and ministerial class that chose its leader.   "
 * 10. Added: "By the time of Siddharta's birth, the Shakya republic had become a vassal state of the larger Kingdom of Kosala. The raja, once chosen, would only take office upon the approval of the King of Kosala. While the raja must have held considerable authority in the Shakya homeland, backed by the power of the King of Kosala, he did not rule autocratically. Questions of consequence were debated in the santhagara, in which, though open to all, only members of the warrior class ("rajana") were permitted to speak. Rather than a majority vote, decisions were made by consensus. "
 * 11. Added: "The Shakyas were by tradition sun worshippers.  In fact, they called themselves Ādicca nāma gottena ("kinsmen of the sun") and descendants of the sun. As Buddha states in the Sutta-Nipāta, "They are of the sun-lineage (adiccagotta), Sakiyans by birth."   It is uncertain whether, by the time of Siddhartha's birth, Vedic Brahmanism had been adopted to any significant extent by the Shakyans.  Scholar Johannes Bronkhorst argues, "I do not deny that many vedic texts existed already, in oral form, at the time when Buddha was born.  However, the bearers of this tradition, the Brahmins, did not occupy a dominant position in the area in which the Buddha preached his message, and this message was not, therefore, a reaction against brahmanical thought and culture." Purportedly, many Shakyans joined people from other regions and became followers of the Buddha during his lifetime, and many young Shakyan men left their homes to become monastics.  "

Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments
JJ: These changes are fine. maybe you can explain, explicitly, what your concern is with Scottahunt's additions? No insinuations, no comment about writing-style, just the content, and an explanation about the "personal agenda" you see at work here? Thanks. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ad1. Fine.
 * ad2. Agree.
 * ad3. Fine.
 * ad4. "Oligarchy" is fine; only this source, which was the only one which was retained added by Illuminaati, is not WP:RS. Scottahunt gave several good sources for "oligarchy." See also Google for alternatives.
 * ad.5 Fine.
 * ad6. ?
 * 7. Good.
 * 8. Agree with removal; "the throne" suggests a kingdom, which is effectively disproven by the multiple sources on oligarchy.
 * 9. Totally agree.
 * 10. Good.
 * 11. Sun-worshippers? Interesting; I'll check this out later.

Religion
There were several constructive comments about the Religion section needing to be further reviewed and revised. Toward that end, I thought it might be helpful to break the content into components so that editors might better identify with specificity the material they find objectionable. You might note that the source material itself seems to treat the two as one; that is the Shakya worshipped the sun from which they descended. (Kindly forgive me and guide me if the formatting of this section is not proper. I'll be happy to revise it.)  These are discussion notes, not recommended text for the article.
 * Discussion point 1: Shakyans as sun worshippers
 * a) Stephen Batchelor in After Buddhism (citation given previously) states plainly, "By tradition the Sakiyans were sun worshippers." In another passage, he refers to "the Sakyians' traditional object of worship (the sun)."  The parentheses are his.
 * b) James Bird, Historical Researches on the Origin and Principles of the Buddha and Jain, reviews the "solar and elemental worship, out of which arose Buddhism, and with which it seems to have been intimately associated on its first propagation as a creed." The original edition was 1847, but reissued in paperback in 2011. Note, Bird also states that sun worship (including "invocations to the sun") was incorporated into early Buddhist practice, as evidenced in part by cave inscriptions in western Indian.  One "cave of the saint Sakya" was called by early Buddhists the "Vihar of the radiant sun."
 * c) Prof. Tianshu Zhu in an anthology entitled Ērān ud Anērān Webfestschrift Marshak 2003, notes, "The image of the sun god appearing in the Buddhist context leads scholars to seek links between the Buddha and sun worship." She cites Benjamin Rowland "Buddha and the Sun God," Zalmoxis: Revue des Etudes Religieuses (1938), pp.69-84; Ananda Coomaraswamy 1935, La Sculpture de Bodhgaya, Ars Asiatica XVIII, Paris., p.44, n.2; Ananda Coomaraswamy Elements of Buddhist Iconography, Cambridge, 1935, pp.25-28. I have not yet examined those materials.
 * d) Just as a point of interest... Prof. Tianshu Zhu suggests that most of the sun-god images "including those images in the Buddhist context" can be traced back to the sun god Mithra that was worshipped in the area inhabited by the Persians / Scythians (Iran and Central Asia).  Only mentioning it because this Wikipedia Shakya article leads with a mention of the Scythians as a possible origin for the Shakya.  And if so, it would be further evidence that they traditionally worshipped the sun.


 * Discussion point 2: Shakyans other elemental rituals
 * a) At one point, I included a block quote on this aspect of the Shakyan religion but one editor removed it.  That's okay, of course, but I'm not sure why it doesn't qualify.  Perhaps we can discuss it by breaking the quotation into parts.  Batchelor:  "[Shakyan] folk religion also involved the propitiation and supplication of local spirits (yakkha) at moundlike shrines (cetiya) and the veneration of trees enclosed in wooden railings."  He cites: Majjhima Nikaya 4, Nanamoli and Bodhi (1995), p. 104
 * b) Batchelor: "They would have taken for granted widespread belief in a cycle of rebirth driven by the force of former acts (karma), which formed part of the indigenous beliefs of the people in the eastern Gangetic basin.  Their notion of rebirth would have been more the intuitive reflex of agriculturalists whose lives were tied to the cycles of rural existence than the kind of elaborated theory found in Jain, Hindu, and Buddhist literature that developed in subsequent centuries."


 * Discussion point 3: Shakyans as descendants of the sun
 * a) The objection here might be that this is cosmogonic myth. However, descent from the sun was considered sacred; and can that which is sacred be separated from religion?  If so, should this go into a separate section?
 * b) Prof. Hajime Nakamura, Gotama Buddha, Kosei Publishing, 2000, p 124. Speaking to King Bimbisara, “Gotama continued, ‘By the clan they are Adicca, by tribe Sākiya [Sakya].  From that family I renounced the world, king, not seeking to satisfy my desires.’  The clan name Ādicca can be translated as ‘kinsmen of the sun,’ although the term itself only means ‘sun’ (the text has Ādiccā nāma gottena).” The quote is clunky, but it is not mine!  It was translated by Paul Groner, Ph.D, Yale.
 * c) Chikō Komatsu, Way to Peace: The Life and Teachings of the Buddha, Hozokan Pub. Co; 1st English ed edition 1989, p. 3, “On the western bank of the river was the territory of the Shakya tribe, and on the eastern bank, that of the Koliya tribe. … ... [The Shakyans] themselves believed that they were descended from the sun…”
 * d) Vishvapani Blomfield writes two instructive passages in his book, Guatama Buddha, 2016, (“Crowded Waters” section; need to count paragraphs). “Gautama was happy to say of his race: ‘In the foothills of the Himalayas live a people who are indigenous to Kosala.  They come from the race of the sun and they are Shakyans by birth.  That was the people from which I went forth.’  But the Shakyan nobility was notorious for a racial pride that Gautama himself sometimes echoed.  By ‘race of the sun,’ he meant the descent the Shakyans claimed from the ‘solar lineage’ of primordial monarchs and ‘Universal Rulers’ that culminated in the legendary King Okkaka.”  He adds in another section, “Shakyan nobles believed they were descended from the Sun God…”
 * e) Trevor Leggett’s translation from the Japanese of Quest for the Way, Cakken Co. Ltd, 1979, p 161, “As to family name, they are called the descendants of the sun; as to tribe, they are called the Shakya tribe.”
 * f) Sir Hari Singh Gour in the Spirit of Buddhism, Cosmo Publications, 1986, p. 77, writes, “[Buddha's] father Shuddhodan belonged to the Shakya clan of Rajputs, who claimed their descent from the Solar race of the Guatams founded by Ikshvaku.”
 * g) Daisaku Ikeda in Living Buddha, p. 6 (cited in the current article) notes that “texts in Chinese often refer to the Shakyas as the 'sun seed people,' a further indication that they claimed a special relationship with the sun…”
 * h)Prof. Joseph Campbell, renowned scholar, in his book in Masks of God: Oriental Mythology, Penguin Books, 1976, p. 255, first notes that myth has “little relevancy to fact,” but of course any claim to descend from the sun cannot be purely factual in any event. He then states, “There was, once upon a time, a good king Suddhodana, of the Dynasty of the Sun, who ruled in the city of Kapilavastu…”  We know he wasn’t truly a king, but the claim to be from the sun dynasty is relevant.
 * i)Batchelor in After Buddhism notes that the Sekha Sutta describes the new hall that was inaugurated by the Buddha; and in the hall, the Sakiyans of Kapilavatthu sat by the eastern wall facing west. “The careful description of the seating arrangements shows that the Sakiyans, like other agriculturalists the world over, revered the sun.  … Indeed, the Sakyans may have believed they were descended from the sun itself.  When, prior to his awakening, Gotama explains his origins to the Magadhan king Bimbisāra, he says: “There is a people, king, living on the flank of the snow ranges, endowed with wealth and energy, belonging to the land of Kosala.  They are the sun-lineage (adiccagotta), Sakiyans by birth.”
 * j)Batchelor: “Throughout his life, the Buddha was known as the Friend of the Sun (adiccamitta) or Kinsman of the Sun (adiccabandhu).” There are other sources for this too.
 * k) John Anderson, A Report on the Expedition to Western Yunnan, 1871, p. 206, "“It has always been the pride of all the kings of Burmah to trace back their progeniture to the Shakya or sun-descended rate of Indian kings.” Spellings are his.
 * l) Durganda (Rodney) Lingham, Traditional Yoga: Insights into the Original Yoga Tradition, 2016, Book 2, p. 35, “[T]he Buddha ...descending from the Shakya lineage was himself a descendant of the Solar-Kings from eastern India ...”
 * m)“Sōka Gakkai News”, Issues 54 107, 1977, p. 13, notes the Shakya claimed to be “descendants of the sun. ... [F]or Shakyamuni to claim that he was a “descendant of the sun” might simply have been a way of paying respect and honor to his ancestors.”

I hope this isn't too much, but one thing I've learned is that people here will not be shy in correcting me. Thanks for your kind consideration of this material. Scottahunt (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It is much, but convincing. I remember reading that in the time of the Buddha there was a belief that the soul left the body via the top of the head; knocking at this part of the body when somebody was dying aided the start of the journey, which went to heaven, via the gate of the sun. Sounds familiair, doesn't it?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the "Religion" section. Editors are invited to add (reliably sourced) alternative narratives, or opposing views. JimRenge (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Oligarchy
Okay, let's try.

Scottahunt's additions:
 * 1. 04:31, 19 March 2017


 * 2. 19:55, 23 March 2017:

My suggestion, which can be used to copy wholesale or in part:

I've re-inserted this info as notes. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   07:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Scottahunt's reply: Your changes Joshua Jonathan are very good and I thank you. For the record, my inclusion of the long list of citations in was not truly a problem with my writing abilities, but rather was due to the fact that Illuminaati continually deleted the word "oligarchy" and summarily dismissed the change as "junk", while steadfastly insisting on his sentence that Buddha gave up his throne and the lineage continued with his son Rahula. I have learned from you to use the Notes section instead. Thank you! Scottahunt (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Illuminati's reply:
 * 1) I am fine with current version.
 * 2) A few people need to review the Religion section.
 * 3) I did not approve of Scottahunt's way of writing. His way was confusing to an average user, who will just leave the article instead of reading through all the contradictions.
 * 4) Your method of adding it in notes section, I totally agree with that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminaati (talk • contribs) 21:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I am glad to see that everybody can live with the current version. "Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style." ([]) Moving quotes to the notes section was a good idea; thank you JJ. I have reduced the number of quotes in the notes section by summarizing. I hope this is no problem. JimRenge (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC about adding content I see as pertinent
Are my changes "junk" as Illuminaati states, or do I have a right as a Buddhist scholar to add content to this article? Scottahunt (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Overview of edits and reverts
Scottahunt made three large additions to the article:


 * 1. 04:31, 19 March 2017, edit-summary: "Using many citations in support, clarified that the Shakya republic was an oligarchy, and that Suddhodana was not a king, the Buddha therefore could not be a prince. Citations given for each statement. Please do not undo!".
 * Scottahunt changed
 * "The best-known Shakya was Siddhartha Gautam Shakya (5th century BCE), who was the founder of Buddhism and came to be known as Gautama Buddha. Siddhartha was the son of Śuddhodana, the elected leader of Shakya Republic. Because Gautama Buddha founded a new religion and abdicated the throne, the lineage continued with his son Rāhula."
 * into
 * "The best-known Shakya was Siddhartha Gautama Shakya (5th century BCE), who was the founder of Buddhism and came to be known as Gautama Buddha. Siddhartha is often referred to as a prince, but this is a questionable title given that he was the son of Śuddhodana, an elected leader (not a king) of the Shakya republic. The Shakya republic was an oligarchy according the Encyclopedia Britannica ("Apart from the major states, there also were many smaller oligarchies, such as those of the Koliyas, Moriyas, Jnatrikas, Shakyas, and Licchavis"), according to Stephen Batchelor who refers to Shakya (using the alternative spelling of Sakiya) as "a proud oligarchic republic," according to Gyan Swarup Gupta ("Buddha was the son of the head of the Shakya oligarchy"), according to Jayant Gadkari (stating that the Kosala attack on Shakya "was to put an end to that oligarchy"), according to Professor Kurt Spellmeyer ("The best word, then, to describe the Shakyas’ government might not be 'republic' at all. 'Oligarchy' may be a more accurate choice: rule by the elite"), according to Pankaj Mishra ("the Buddha was most likely not a prince, but a member of a republican oligarchy"), according to Dr. Herbert Greoger and Luigi Tenkler ("oligarchic Republic of Shakya in North India"), and according to Kenneth Pletcher (specifically referring to Shakya and other named states, "the fact that representation in these latter states' assemblies was limited to members of the ruling clan makes the term oligarchy, or even chiefdom, preferable"). "
 * This was reverted straight-away by Illuminaati, edit-summary "@Scottahunt: removed 'prince', added oligarchy // provoide proofs via citations not via actual writing of unnecessary content"


 * 2. 19:55, 23 March 2017, edit-summary "In the spirit of cooperation, and without reply to my Talk post, I have tried to clarify what I think the contributor meant by Buddha abdicating his throne and passing the lineage to his son. I have also referenced the Buddhism section and quoted it."
 * Scottahunt changed
 * "The best-known Shakya was the Siddhartha Gautam Shakya (5th century BCE), who was the founder of Buddhism and came to be known as Gautama Buddha. Siddhartha was the son of Śuddhodana, the chosen leader of Śākya Gaṇarājya. Because Gautama Buddha founded a new religion and abdicated the throne, the lineage continued with his son Rāhula."
 * into
 * "The best-known Shakya was the Siddhartha Gautam Shakya (5th century BCE), who was the founder of Buddhism and came to be known as Gautama Buddha. Siddhartha was the son of Śuddhodana, the chosen leader of Śākya Gaṇarājya. According to one viewpoint, and hagiographic legend, Siddhartha had been a prince but he renounced his title and succession to the throne passed to his son Rāhula. The related Wikipedia article on Buddhism, also notes that "scholars such as Richard Gombrich consider this a dubious claim because a combination of evidence suggests he was born in the Shakyas community – one that later gave him the title Shakyamuni, and the Shakya community was governed by a small oligarchy or republic-like council where there were no ranks but where seniority mattered instead.  Some of the stories about Buddha, his life, his teachings, and claims about the society he grew up in may have been invented and interpolated at a later time into the Buddhist texts."  "


 * 3. 20:36, 23 March 2017, edit-summary "Added sentence on Shakya government and provided citations."
 * Scottahunt added:
 * ''"Many notable scholars state that the Shakya republic was an oligarchy, ruled by an elite council that chose its leader.


 * 4. 22:26, 23 March 2017, edit-summary "Added a section on the religion of the Shakyans."
 * Scottahunt added:
 * "The raja, once chosen, would only take office upon the approval of the King of Kosala. While the raja must have held considerable authority in the Shakya homeland, backed by the power of the King of Kosala, he did not rule autocratically. Questions of consequence were debated in the santhagara, in which, though open to all, only members of the warrior class ("rajana") were permitted to speak. Rather than a majority vote, decisions were made by consensus. "
 * "The Shakyas were by tradition sun worshippers.  In fact, they called themselves Ādicca nāma gottena ("kinsmen of the sun") and descendants of the sun. As Buddha states in the Sutta-Nipāta, "They are of the sun-lineage (adiccagotta), Sakiyans by birth."   As noted by scholar Stephen Batchelor:"Their folk religion involved the propitiation and supplication of local spirits (yakkha) at moundlike shrines (cetiya) and the veneration of trees enclosed by wooden railings. They would have taken for granted the widespread belief in the cycle of rebirth driven by the force of former acts (karma), which formed part of the indigenous beliefs of the people of the eastern Gangetic basin.  Their notion of rebirth would have been the more intuitive reflex of agriculturalists whose lives were tied to the cycle of rural existence than the kind of elaborated theory found in Jain, Hindu, and Buddhist literature that developed in subsequent centuries."It is uncertain whether, by the time of Siddhartha's birth, Vedic Brahmanism had been adopted to any significant extent by the Shakyans.  Scholar Johannes Bronkhorst argues, "I do not deny that many vedic texts existed already, in oral form, at the time when Buddha was born.  However, the bearers of this tradition, the Brahmins, did not occupy a dominant position in the area in which the Buddha preached his message, and this message was not, therefore, a reaction against brahmanical thought and culture." Purportedly, many Shakyans joined people from other regions and became followers of the Buddha during his lifetime, and many young Shakyan men left their homes to become monastics.  "

Illuminaati reverted then three times:
 * 03:45, 24 March 2017, edit-summary "ADDED - Sakya/Sakiya ; some scholars; / REMOVED - abdicated the throne / do not add unnecessary information; keep it precise and to the point. Provide proofs via citations rather than actual writing of junk data on page."
 * 13:23, 24 March 2017, edit-summary "User @scottahunt seems to be working on some person vendetta; addding unnecessary/junk data"
 * 15:32, 24 March 2017, edit-summary "Continuous vandalism by user Scottahunt. Reverting back to original version (02:44, 21 March 2017‎ Teishin) till Scottahunt is able to get consensus on his edits."

Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   15:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Explanation
Furthermore, I do not understand the criticism that this "is not a research paper." Please kindly look at the Talk section and my edits and help provide me another perspective on what is happening here. I'm very willing to discuss the merits of anything and everything that I add/change in this article. Thank you kindly!

UPDATE: I am pleased that this sentence above was removed altogether. As a result, there was no need for the following insertion from the article on Buddhism.
 * I asked Illuminaati to reply to the Talk topic and please clarify his statement that "because Buddha left to start a religion and abdicated the throne, his lineage continued with his son Rahula." Since Iluminaati failed to provide clarification, I kept his statement, trying to make it read more clearly,


 * I then added several sentences from the editorially-protected Wikipedia article on Buddhism. Specifically, I added these which are directly taken from the Buddhism article:

UPDATE: An editor removed this change above, and rightly so. It was no longer needed when the sentence above was removed.


 * I also included a new section on the Religion of the Shakya people, which I believe is relevant and useful. I'll put it here because he'll probably delete it shortly.

I also added more information about the Government of the Shakya people, which I also think is highly relevant:

I provided citations from top-notch scholars. But Illuminaati simply deletes my edits every time, now saying they are junk.

Scottahunt (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * Comment: User Scottahunt seems to be working on some personal agenda. Claiming yourself to be Buddhist scholar does not give you right to make one sided changes. I will review your other changes as well soon. The article on it's previous form (before you started vandalism) was based on consensus of all the contributors working on this page. Scottahunt ! since your are hell bent on proving that you are an acclaimed Buddhist scholar, why you don't you share your address proof, so that we can come and personally verify the legitimacy of your credentials !  Illuminaati (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: User Illuminaati I do wish you the best and once again ask for a discussion rather than harsh words and unwarranted accusations. I don't understand the need for your personal attack on me. The charge of "vandalism" is completely without merit. Please list your evidence supporting your claim. I have attempted to contribute content with adequate citations to notable scholars. Of course I cannot make "one-sided changes!" My changes can and should be improved by the community. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. In fact, the latest contributor seems to have done a very good job improving your contributions and mine. I tried to engage you in conversation about your statement "because Buddha gave up his throne to start a religion, his lineage continued through his son Rahula." That sentence to me was unclear, potentially misleading, and also not supported by the evidence that the republic was not a monarchy. You could have clarified and discussed. But any changes I made (including significant information about Shakya government and religion) you simply deleted without discussion, calling my content "junk". I never referred to your contributions with such rude characterization. Let's try to be factual here. Please provide your evidence that I am "hell bent on proving [I am] an acclaimed Buddhist scholar." Where did I ever demonstrate being "hell-bent" on anything, and where did I say I'm an acclaimed scholar? If you have no evidence to support your bold accusation, please retract your statement. Also, please clarify your request for me to "share [my] address" so that you "can come and personally verify" as this sounds like you are saying you want my home address so you can come and confront me, which would be in my mind a threat that violates standards and laws. Your harshness has made my Wikipedia experience a negative one, which is quite sad to me.Scottahunt (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think that Scottahunt's addition are properly sourced; yet, the phrasing is not optimal. Addition no.1 needs copy-editing; the long list of sources and quotes should be in a note, not in the text. Addition no.4, about the religions, begs for verification. Yet, the info on the oligargy seems fine now.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   18:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Joshua Jonathan for taking time to thoughtfully review this material. I appreciate your kind collaboration and suggested improvements.  Just so I understand, which is addition no. 1? Are the "long list of sources" still in the body of the latest version of the article?  Also, I'm very happy to improve the section on Religion.  Can you provide further guidance on the latest text in the article that you feel needs more citations or revisions?  I think every sentence in that section has a citation to a scholar.  But I can certainly add more! I can jump right on it.  Thanks again!  Scottahunt (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at the current contents.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Scottahunt, I did not spend much time looking into your edits but the content you added appears useful and the sources appear reliable. I agree with JJ, some corrections may be needed. I have seen neither junk contributions nor vandalism. JimRenge (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you JimRenge. I appreciate your time and guidance.  Please let me know which corrections are needed. I would be happy to make them so that we can improve the article.Scottahunt (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: User Scottahunt is working on propagating a certain specific agenda and providing references that support his viewpoint. Maybe he is doing this unknowingly or maybe he is just acting.
 * 1. The content for what he is arguing for has hundred different viewpoints available on google.
 * 2. Also, he keeps adding unnecessary details in the top intro section itself. His style of writing content is extremely bad, so much for being a scholar ! Instead of writing precise info and proving them with citations, he writes the whole citation itself. What will you do next, copy-paste a whole book ?
 * 3. His addition on religion section is another cunning tactic of propagating his personal viewpoint. Someone needs to review that.
 * 4. And Scottahunt ! regarding threat, I guess you haven't heard the word Sarcasm. If I would want something like that then I would just track your IP address and its router hops (and don't worry proxies are not so trace-less as their sellers make you believe) that's more than enough the info anyone would need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminaati (talk • contribs) 01:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)  Illuminaati (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What is this "certain specific agenda"? Either you explain, or stop being disruptive. The accusation of vandalism is misplaced.
 * ad1. Scottahunt gave verifiable info from reliable sources; if you think there is other relevant info, provide it, with sources, but don't just suggest that his info incorrect.
 * ad2. His writing-style is not optimal, but can be improved by some copy-editing by other editors.
 * ad3. Again: what is this "propagating [of] his personal viewpoint"? So far, you are the one who is in for review.
 * ad4. That sounds like a threat!
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please let me explain several things. Until 8 days ago, I was in holy Buddhist robes as a bhikkhu; until two weeks ago I was in a Thai forest monastery in Rayong, Thailand, where I was submersed in Pali and Thai. I had to give up holy robes to tend to family. With some free time I decided to try to contribute to various WP articles about Buddhism. I never could have imagined having this negative experience, but I thank Illuminaati for reminding me about dukkha and moha, and I return lovingkindness in place of his insults. This is just an article, words on a digital screen; there is no need for wild accusations, bullying, and threats. Such behavior is shameful, but of course it has become commonplace in the world. Thank you Joshua Jonathan for joining me in the call for evidence, and for stating what I hope is now plain to see: it is Illuminaati who is acting inappropriately.  Regarding whether I've ever heard of sarcasm, yes, I have.  And I do not believe it is useful or appropriate here.  And when you add bravado (we'll come to your house and check your credentials!) it is not simply sarcasm, it is classic bullying behavior.  Furthermore, he now states the specific means he could use to carry out some unlawful act, which is another bullying tactic. His emotional responses are not commensurate with the situation at hand, and are, in fact, excessive. I don't need to contribute to Wikipedia and subject myself to this unwarranted behavior.  Lastly, my alleged sub-optimal writing style was likely a reaction to having every contribution deleted by Illuminaati, and in any event does not warrant abuse.  Scottahunt (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate JJ stepping in and resolving the situation. Thank you, @Scottahunt, for your efforts to improve the article. @Illuminaati: in the future, I would urge you to avoid personal attacks and instead seek to cooperate with others to improve edits. This is intended in a positive spirit; I'm sure you have many good contributions to make.  Cl ea n Co py talk 15:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: From what I can see here, Scottahunt's edits appear reasonable and sourced, whereas Illuminaati's reversions and commentary appear to be bullying, obstructive, inappropriate and abusive. I don't know enough about the topic to give an informed opinion about the content in question but, as an uninvolved editor, I would suggest Scottahunt's edits be restored to the article and Illuminaati's behaviour be referred to an administrator for further action. — OwenBlacker (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC) via the Feedback Request Service
 * I looked at Scottahunt's sources and they were high quality sources (Yale University, etc.). . He is also cordial in his relations with others. I also found a number of search results of Google books indicating the throne in question was abdicated.   Therefore, I believe the benefit of the doubt should be given to Scottahunt and his version sould be allowed to stand. My only advice to Scottahunt is to avoid asserting personal expertise. Let your work stand by itself. If it is quality work, you needn’t mention any expertise you may or may not have.Dean Esmay (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Buddha shakya
Gautam buddha was best guru in the world Nikhil shakya (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

pronunciation of "shakya"?
can you please give advice how the word shakya is pronounced? why is it written with "sh" at the beginning? one often hears the starting sound pronounced like "s" (like in "soft"); but "sh" would be rather like "sh" in "shaft"... thanks! HilmarHansWerner (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * In Sanskrit, it is pronounced with a hushed sound at the beginning, similar to "shaft". This is probably the most common English pronunciation. In Pali, all "sh" sounds become "s", so the Pali form would begin with "s" as in "soft". – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Ethnicity
I have read the given source, along with contrary views in the source, both of which is based on vague speculation and are not "conclusions". Yet, introduction emphasizes on their "sythian" Iranian origin, which is against the traditional views. We have actual Buddhist textual* evidence to refute such claims. Scythians were no-where near Eastern Ganages Basin in Vedic period. They appear only in North-West in post-Asokan era.

I have moved it to new section, along with additional source. MayurQ (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Teishin and MayurQ, I have reverted back to the original version as it was there. Please talk in facts as to why "scythian" origin can be added or cannot be added. I am leaving "scythian" origin view in the article as of now since Teishin has talked with other community members on this talk page for adding that. But I also believe that the provided evidence is not enough. Maybe MayurQ can shed some more light on this topic. Illuminaati (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, One of his source claims Sakya and Sakyamuni is not mentioned in Pali canon and that its later addition from bactria. However, Tripiṭaka (Pali Canon) mentions both Sakya and Sakyamuni various times. Tripiṭaka Palicanon texts are available online, here are few examples.
 * "pavaro manujesu, sakyamunī bhagavā katakicco; Pāragato balavīriyasamaṅgī, taṃ sugataṃ saraṇatthamupehi"
 * "ñeyyadhammaṃ paṭivijjhitvā sabbaññutaṃ patto sakyamuni bhagavā. Vuttañhetaṃ bhagavatā – ‘‘Na me ācariyo atthi"
 * "nappatirūpaṃ, yadime sakyā ibbhā santā ibbhā samānā na brāhmaṇe sakkaronti, na brāhmaṇe garuṃ karonti, na"
 * "saṃvāsakaraṇato lokamariyādaṃ chindituṃ, jātisambhedato vā rakkhituṃ sakkuṇantīti sakyā . Sākavanasaṇḍe nagaraṃ"

Another source has counter views to such claims as well but i would like point out here in talk page regarding the mound/stupa, as Buddhist "stupa" mounds is pointed out as Sythian origin. However, this mound-burial practice has existed since Vedic times, and has evolved. Vedic Satapatha Brahmana mentions round-mound "Smasana" burial being more common in Eastern region.

The mound-burial rite of the Vedic Aryans on the basis of Rigveda (10. 14-18), Atharavaveda (18. 1-4), Shatapatha Brahmana (13.8), and a number of later texts (Caland 1996; Pandey 1982: 190-210; Simirnov, Yu. 1997: 127-137).

Early Burial rites : Pitramedha barrow mound.
 * "The Vedic Aryans cemeteries were situated remote from the settlements. Around the grave a circular or rectangular stone enclosure was built, and above it a barrow was erected (the rite of Pitrmedha). A pit grave served as a home for the dead, and was sometimes supplied with a framework of logs. The Aryans used both cremation and inhumation. If inhumed, the dead were buried in the flexed position, with the head turned to the west. But cremation was the predominant custom (Puhvel 1981:409; Pandey1982; Jones-Bley 1997: 198; 2002). The ashes were brought to the grave in a vessel (Kumbha). After the cremation the bones were taken from the ashes and washed in water and milk: "We now leave thee here rest in peace with water and sweet milk", and then the remains were placed in clothes ; "may he enjoy the grace of gods when putting together the parts of his body" (Caland 1986: 104). Vessels accompanied both cremations and inhumations."

Two types of Smasana-mound burials, mentioned in Satapatha Brahmana. Parimandala (round burial) practiced by Easterners (Prachyah).


 * "It may also be noted that in referring to the ancient tradition of the funeral mounds the Satapatha Brahmana has noted two architectural, viz. square (Catuhsrakti) and round (parimandala) forms for a burial mound, and it is especially recorded that the monuments of the easterners (prachyah) were circular."

Buddhist Cetiya/Stupa is derived from Vedic Parimandala burial.
 * "It may be Surmised to have emerged from the earthen funerary mounds (Smasana) under which accordion to the Vedic ritual, the ashes of the dead were buried. It is relevant to note that the Satapatha Brahamana significantly says that the Prächya make their Smasana circular (Parimandala) in shape. Aapart from an identity in respective designs and uses, the connection of Buddhist stupas with the Vedic smasana mounds becomes further evident from the regular shafts of brick filled with clay that have been discovered in two or the earliest stupas known in India, namely those at Piprahwa and Bhattiprolu, such shafts being reminiscent of the wooden posts which were erected according to Vedic usage in the centre of funerary mounds."

Much of the views regrading Sythian origin are based on speculation, not textual evidence. It should be considered for removal.

Getting the ethnicity material out of the introduction and into a separate section on ethnicity seems fine. It is indeed not crucial to the introduction. However, there is not agreement with MayurQconclusions about ethnicity. One cannot just handwave "speculative" as a way of suppressing information. The sources cited are qualified and have supported their theories. Perhaps the solution is to add more information supporting the opposing theories? In this regard it would be useful to link to materials online readers could access. Illuminaati

if you're going to make claims, provide references to support them. My reading of the Buddhist sutras on the issue matches what Beckwith says. The description of Shakyamuni's appearance and the fact that his ethnicity is constantly being mentioned points to his being of Scythian descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teishin (talk • contribs) 14:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Illuminatti People come to Wikipedia to learn. Let them learn that scholars are debating the issue. It is inappropriate for you to decide for them. My view is that the traditional view is no less "speculative" that what you are objecting to. Teishin (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Teishin and MayurQ : Both the views have been moved to a separate section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminaati (talk • contribs) 00:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

You said : "The description of Shakyamuni's appearance and the fact that his ethnicity is constantly being mentioned points to his being of Scythian descent." That is your opinion, as nothing about his appearance points him to being "Scythian" in Pali texts but a Kshatriya. The fact that your Beckwith source claims earliest recorded evidence of Buddha is not Shakya or Shakyamuni but "His personal name, Gautama, is evidently earliest recorded in the Chuang-tzu, a Chinese work from late fourth to third centuries BC." already contradicts his own claims, considering "Gautama" is Vedic Brahamanical gotra, there is no going around that. Vansh/Gotra (clan/lineage) constantly being mentioned does not say much, it's common feature in all Dharmic religions. Only thing Indo-Aryans and Scythians have in common is origin in Eurasian steppes, but "Indo-Scythians" were not in Eastern Ganges basin in Vedic period, nor did they follow Buddhism when they first arrived to South Asia. Jayarava Attwood in source has already pointed out criticism of their claims, I have nothing more to add. MayurQ (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

No, that is not my opinion. That is Beckwith's evidence and conclusion. My opinion is that Wetzel's and Beckwith's analyses are relevant, important, and should be presented. I do not follow your argument about the Chuang-tzu. Why don't you come up with something from Attwood to add to the section to bolster the counter-position you support rather than trying to censor the position you dislike?Teishin (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Beckwith does not come to that conclusion based on his "appearance". Beckwith uses Hellenistic Greek sources (Pyrrho of Elis; Megasthenes etc) as better sources for understanding early Buddhism and Iron Age India than the Pali canon, the bedrock of Buddhist scripture. He is scholar in Chinese, not in Pali or Sanskrit. Additionally, he claims early Chinese texts (Chuang-tzu 4th/3rd BC) make no mention of Sakya or Sakyamuni but rather Buddhas personal name "Gautama" Buddha. As far as Vedic texts goes, "Gautama" is a Brahamin gotra. MayurQ (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, he only mentions Central Asia in context of Scythians, not 'Northern Iran'. You seem to have confused with his term North Iranic (dialect spoken by eurasian steppe nomads in Iron age) for geography in modern Iran. Adding Central Asia instead. MayurQ (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

You appear to have an axe to grind. You are misrepresenting Beckwith's arguments. I am not here to argue with you about the ethnicity of the Shakya; I am here to argue against your desire to censor scholarly analyses that you don't like. I am trying to work out an accommodation where this is recognized as a controversy and you get to cite the arguments sources you think are good, allowing Wikipedia users to see those and those of Wetzel and Beckwith so that they can make their own judgments about the controversy. Teishin (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Its not a controversy, you're making it out to be. It's Beckwiths words regrading (Chuang-tzu 4th/3rd BC) and how he dismisses Buddhist Pali Canon and instead relies on Pyrroho & Megasthenes, not mine. I'm done here. MayurQ (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

How was that Shakya/Gautama irrelevant? It's important to point out why Buddha is called Shakyamuni, referring his clan and Gautama referring to his lineage. Your edit of this sentence to "Indo-Scythians were known in South Asia in Middle Kingdome period" it makes no sense, yes we are aware they were here in Middle Kingdom, post-Mauryan empire. Indo-Scythians were not here during Vedic period. They also followed Scythian religion until their conversion to Buddhism in South Asia during post-Mauryan Middle Kingdome era. MayurQ (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Gautama is a descendent; he is not part of the origins. This section is about origins. That's not to say that it is not important. It's covered in the 3rd paragraph at the beginning of the article. The point is that it doesn't belong in this section. I note here that you joined Wikipedia as an editor specifically to make edits on this subject and you have provided no other edits to the project except for repeatedly undoing work here and inserting your own opinions and editorializing. I keep trying to find ways to accommodate the directionality of your intentions short of the censoring and editorializing that is repeatedly going on with your edits, but I do not feel this is being reciprocated. Above you said you were "done here", but you have continued with your efforts. Please dissist. Teishin (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I added the following, not realizing it was adequately covered earlier:
 * The Shakya consider themselves to be Kshatriya of Gautama lineage, descendants of the legendary king Okkaka (Ikshvaku), the grandson of Vivasvan (Surya), the solar deity . Pali canon traces Gautama lineage to Rigvedic sage Angirasa.


 * If any of this is useful, it could be merged with the appropriate section. Repeating it in two sections is unnecessary, as a recent editor noticed. Cl ea n Co py talk 01:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

1) Titled to be more relevant for the contents. 2) Made counter view to be more clear. I do not think this topic needs any further discussion. , your edits were welcomed, but the cited material is more of a analytical speculation made by just 1 or 2 people based on circumstantial data collected. This cannot be given more weightage than tons of other historical sources scattered around on google itself. Illuminaati (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * @Illuminaati: thank you for your efforts to find an appropriate title and wording, but in the midst of a discussion in which many points of view have been put forward, it's always dangerous (and a little cocky) to assume that one's own contribution to is the last word.
 * In particular, so far as I can tell, your claim of a contradiction is not supported by the book cited; it is your conclusion that the two pieces of information contradict one another. This is considered WP:Original research in Wikipedia, and is not acceptable as part of an article. I tagged the sentence accordingly. Cl ea n Co py talk 10:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * @Illuminaati: :@Clean Copy has articulated the issue well. You claim there are "tons of other historical sources" but you don't provide any. Teishin (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You said : "Gautama is a descendent; he is not part of the origins." Gautama refers to his gotra lineage, not his first name (Siddhartha). Do you know what gotra (Sanskrit: Gotra, Pali: Gotta) is? and how it works? That's why i dint bother discuss this with you since you assumed it simply refers to his name. Your primary interest is Pyrrhonism, not Buddhism, explains why you don't know what that would be.
 * That was not covered in other sections, neither Gautama or Agirasa. It should be pointed out in origins theory. Buddha is known as Gautaman Buddha for a reason. MayurQ (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * OK - thanks! Cl ea n Co py talk 23:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Then the way you formulated your sentence was misleading, as that's not how it would seem to me that most people would understand it.

If you have references for additional origin theories, do add them with citations. This is the section for *the* theories. There is no other section on this page for theories. Therefore this section is not for "other" theories. Adding "other" is editorializing. Teishin (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you are blind, maybe biased or maybe just flat-out retard. The whole article talks about solar lineage, ikshvaku etc with citations. - GlynClarke
 * Please keep it civil and (re)read Wikipedia's policy on Personal attacks. Cl ea n Co py talk 01:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your change of the section title to "Ethnicity". It was that previously, as it is here in on the Talk page, but if I recall correctly it was MayurQ who objected to it. Teishin (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicity is not appropriate term here, they were not an "ethnic group". But, a Shakya CLAN (Sanskrit: Kula) of Kahsatrya Gotama lineage. "Origins theory" is appropriate with Pali Shakyan textual views, along with Scythian scholarary views as neither of those texts and theories have general consensus among scholars.MayurQ (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, please refrain from calling others names, that was inappropriate.MayurQ (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Take note of their repeated vandalism of the page.MayurQ (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps there needs to be one section on lineage and one on ethnicity. One can find sources that agree with GlynClarke that the Shakya are a race, which makes them an ethnic group. Here's an example: http://www.archivum.kcst.hu/studies/articles-05.pdf Teishin (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Shakya = Clan (kula). Gotama = Lineage (gotra/gotta). Nothing in Sanskrit or Pali literature translates these two terms as "race", not an appropriate term either. Also, "solar race" is not a term in Sanskrit or Pali, it's "Suryavansha", which literally can be brokwn down into Surya(sun) + Vansha (clan-dynasty). Your archivum source is a tibetian legend, not pali. MayurQ (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Additional sources supporting GlynClarke's view http://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/sakya. It does seem that GlynClarke has a point about separating the lineage discussion from this material. There's also the issue about whether they should be called a "tribe" rather than a "clan" as some sources say that they were a tribe that was subdivided into several clans. Teishin (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Jati = Tribe, Gana=Tribe. Kula = Clan. Nothing in texts suggest they were "Jati". We know what these terms translates to exactly from Vedic to Buddhist texts, differentiates between clan (kula) and Jati (tribe). MayurQ (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) The view of aligning Shakya with scythian is just a speculation based on circumstantial data, as anyone reading the cited material could easily tell.
 * 2) the title should more appropriately use the word "other" as in "other theories of origin", because the most widely accepted notion of solar lineage has already been stated and cited multiple times in various sections of the article
 * : stating the widely accepted notion and then countering it with half-baked scythian theory gives scythian theory equal opposing weightage which it does not deserve. That's why I added your comments on gotra in correct section.  GlynClarke

re #1 you are editorializing. Why don't you find some sources that support your opinion rather than engaging in this edit war? Re #2, this has already been discussed. You can't have an "other" without there being an "other" in the first place.

And regarding "other" as I said N number of times, at main body of article itself contains citations of the most widely accepted notion of solar lineage  and hence there is no point of saying that again with your full-of-speculation theory. GlynClarke

I understand that there's the legend about mythical solar deity origins, and I agree that this is worthwhile information, but mythological stories about descent from gods are not qualitatively of the same order as scholarly research. Teishin (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

We had something similar to that title before and was discussed ex: "other theories" etc but wait for others to pitch in. Yes, the mythical solar deity dynasty also appears in Hinduism/Jainism and is still common claim among Kshatriyas in South Asia etc but Gotama gotra and it's ancestor Angirasa is not deity but finds mention in Rigveda texts, in 'family' books. MayurQ (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I have filed a request for dispute resolution. Dispute_resolution_noticeboard, , , , ,  Teishin (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Moderated Discussion
A volunteer moderator is conducting moderated discussion of the content dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Please take discussion of the content dispute to DRN. Be civil and concise (whether here or there). Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of the discussion is to resolve the content differences and improve the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of reliably sourced content
I see that after nearly 3 years off of editing Wikipedia you have come back to this topic (one of only a handful you've ever edited) twice now in the past 24 hours to revert my edits, that you ignored my request that you take your issue to the Talk page ("all of this content also appears at Gautama_Buddha#Historical_context . No justification for deletion here. If one wishes to try to justify this, it should go on the talk page"), that you have said about me, "content added by Teishin in biased and uses unreliable sources" and "No justification of adding biased content by Teishin, this person has a history of adding biased and prejudiced content , he has some personal agenda". As I previously pointed out in my edits of 19:59, 25 February 2020‎ and 01:37, 9 March 2020 this material already appears in Wikipedia, in Gautama_Buddha. It wasn't put there by me, and it appears to have been there a long time. If you object to it here, why do you not object to it there? If you criticize me for "bias" and "prejudice" for copying this content into this article, why have you not criticized the editors who there how created this content? These sources are mostly academic journals, such as Buddhist Studies Review. How can you substantiate your claim that the sources cited are "biased," "unreliable," and "prejudiced"? Teishin (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that into my notice. I will have to dispute that as well. Now, coming to what you have added. 1) Manusmriti was written around 2nd century BCE to 3rd century CE, after the great decline of Buddhism and is highly prejudiced against Buddhism. Nothiing written in it can be treated as factual. 2) Ambaṭṭha Sutta: this guy was disrepected by Shakyas because at that time vedic customs and their practioners weren't considered as high status as they later came to be considered afer Gupta Empire. 3) Regarding incest : The Shakyas considered themselves high status and pure and to preserve the purity of their blood they used to marry within their tribe or associate tribes. 4) If you are considering Hindu texts then consider other Hindu tests also, as per Bhagavata Puran, canto 9, chapter 12 as well as Vishhu Purana (Book 4, Chapter 22).Shakya are descendants of Lord Rama http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/09-15/editorials13152.htm http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto9/chapter12.html In short, i m not completely against what you have written. There is some truth to it and I understand why would you think like that, but its half baked truth and doesn't cover all the points. And due to this you end up seeing Shakyas from the prespective of Brahmin writers who were born many hundred years later when Shakyas were no more and social dynamics had changed, rather than from the perspective of time and people who were present at the time when Shakyas actally existed. And regarding coming back after 3 years. I am always here and will be here till atleast next 60 years. I didn't make any changes earlier because there was no need to fix what isn't broken.

It's important to note that I did not create the text you object to; I copied it from Gautama_Buddha. Editors there created it. If you object to that content here, it would seem that you would need to object to that same content there, too. And since the editors there created it, it would seem more productive to take the discussion there.Teishin (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, this discussion should be moved to talk/Gautama Buddha. JimRenge (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * As the discussion was not pursued, I'm putting the content back up.Teishin (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Everything is already discussed. I know you are working on a personal agenda. But that won't work. Do NOT USE biased unreliable sources as historical facts.

edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring reported by User:Teishin (Result: )]] Teishin (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

aren't you going to remove the content from Gautama_Buddha, too? If not, why not?Teishin (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

as said at User_talk:Illuminaati "The steps of WP:DR are open to you." One of the first steps of WP:DR is WP:NEGOTIATION. and I invited you to talk about this issue on 11 March at Talk:Gautama_Buddha as this content also appears at Gautama_Buddha and you have also deleted this same content there [] which was reverted by in edit []. See above. Teishin (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Block illuminati he is indulged in vandalism in order to change reliable sources and rewrite history Editor wikip6 (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Manu Smriti
Moved from user talk:Joshua Jonathan: 1) Manu Smriti doesn't specifically call out Shakya. Adding that here would constitute to improper editorial synthesis : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material 2) Regarding Ambatta Sutta, As per Johannes Bronkhorst, "Brahmins, did not occupy a dominant position in the area and time of Shakyas",,, so Shakyas had no concern for Brahnanism nor any reason to respect Ambatta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminaati (talk • contribs) 11:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You removed diff the following info:
 * edit-summary
 * The info you removed was sourced to Levman. Levman (2013) p.154-155:
 * You've edit-warred on this before; and been warned on this before; stop it. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The info you removed was sourced to Levman. Levman (2013) p.154-155:
 * You've edit-warred on this before; and been warned on this before; stop it. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You've edit-warred on this before; and been warned on this before; stop it. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You've edit-warred on this before; and been warned on this before; stop it. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Romila Thapar sources, Sakha/Sakhi and connection to totemic/Sala Tree
Possible totemic, tree-derived name reference is missing, which is also supported by Romila Thapar and others. The Pali texts Ambatta Sutta makes this connection as well regrading origin of Shakya name directly to the tree. It also important to note that Maya held on to saka tree branch while giving birth to Siddharatha too. Below i have provided several sources :-


 * 1. Douglas Q.. Adams :- (from Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture by Douglas Q.. Adams, page 80) https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Encyclopedia_of_Indo_European_Culture.html?id=tzU3RIV2BWIC&redir_esc=y see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakha


 * 2.Concise Pali-English Dictionary and Sutta : The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary : -


 * 3. Romila Thapar :- (Ancient Indian Social History: Some Interpretations By Romila Thapar) https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Ancient_Indian_Social_History.html?id=fK3VTUrWsD0C


 * 4. Christopher Hrynkow :- httpd://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-94-024-0852-2_289


 * 5. K M Srivastava :- (Excavations At Piprahwa and Ganwaria April 1, 1996 ) https://www.worldcat.org/title/excavations-at-piprahwa-and-ganwaria/oclc/37032275


 * 6. J. F. Fleet :- :- The Inscription on the Piprawa Vase J. F. Fleet https://www.jstor.org/stable/25210223

All translations about Ambattha Sutta make connection to the tree and Sakya (regarding how they got their name) as J.F fleet above explains this above from Ambattha Sutta.

, - these above sources should be considered for expansion of entomology. Thank you. 117.198.119.220 (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Shakya caste
A user recently restored misleading information that falsely correlates the Shakyan tribe with the caste that goes by the same name and the only "proof" for that is a government website, not peer reviewed journals. Has it ever occurred to this user that the people belonging to that caste could be entirely unrelated to the ethnicity of the Buddha and that they could have "adopted" that name for their caste some point in time ? Historical ignorance is quite amusing. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Munda ancestor
Expanding Munda ancestor sources 117.198.118.95 (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

https://journals.equinoxpub.com/BSR/article/view/17899

Levman on Witzels Scytian theory
Levman on Witzels Shakya and Sakas.

'''

https://journals.equinoxpub.com/BSR/article/view/17899 pg 166.

I have included this source under Sythian source now. 117.198.118.95 (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Hello, I want to bring to your attention that this page has been completely reformed by someone. Please take note of this. 117.198.115.170 (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

- Hello. Your use of old source "Sharma 1968" on several pages and with claims of Vaidehas, Licchavikas, Mallakas, Shakya whos "original homeland was in the western regions" is very bizarre since even by textual sources of Sanskrit/Pali literature they are mentioned/grouped as "Easterners". There is no "original homeland" in the western south asia of these tribes. Recent works by Bronkshorst, Romila Thapar, Levman do not place their origins in the west either.

We are aware of Indo-Aryan migration but these names and tribes emerged much much later. These tribes are native eastern Indo-Aryans as noted by Bronkshorst and Romila Thapar, their tribal identity and culture emerged in the east, reason why they are seen as "easterners" by western Indo-Aryans in literature.

This is same as claiming Pitsh, Gauls, welsh tribe as "original homeland" in eastern europe steppe, when they are from western europe and their tribal identity formed there.

Bronkhorst, Thapar have addressed these issues repeatedly in : "Greater Magadha Studies in the Culture of Early India By Johannes Bronkhorst · 2007" and "The Past Before Us By Romila Thapar · 2013"

Entire Videha page is sourced from "Sharma 1968" with brahmanical legend of Videah king Māthava - Recent work by Bronkhorst and Witzel have pointed out regrading Videha Mathava legend :- "This is not a legend of the Indo-Aryan settlement of the east in (early post-Rgvedic) tribes but it is a tale of sanskritization, of the arrival of Vedic (Kuru-Panchcala) orthopraxy in the east" (page 7)

, - Hello, please look into these edits. There is considerable use of old source and odd claims of "original homeland" in western south asia for these eastern indo-aryan tribes. 117.198.116.172 (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I will correct these pages as soon as I can. Antiquistik (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I also noticed the source; placing the Buddha in the sixth century BCE is outdated. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 14 June 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: not moved. Evidence provided doesn't support the move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Shakya → Sakya (tribe) – The Pali name Sakya is used in the majority of contemporary writing, both academic and non-academic, pertaining to this tribe, while the Sanskrit form Shakya is less often used. This is visible in the list of sources used for this article, where the majority spelling is the Pali rather then the Sanskrit one. The name of the entry should therefore accurately reflect this use of the tribe's name. This would also facilitate searches by individuals, given that they would likely be more familiar with the Pali spelling that is the most prevalent form of the name used in contemporary writing. Antiquistik (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support: The article is only titled 'Shakya', but goes on to use Sakya in the body copy. Tertiary literature and its sources seem to be supportive of a move. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Iskandar323, "Tertiary literature and its sources seem to be supportive of a move" is about Sakya, the Buddhist school. The IAST Śākya or the English equivalent Shakya


 * Britannica uses Shakya in its Buddha article
 * Government of India site
 * UNESCO
 * Dallas museum of art
 * Sharma, J. P. (1968), Attwood, Jayarava (2012) and Gellner, David (1989) use the IAST form v/s Levman, Bryan G. (2014) that uses Sakya. Luders, Heinrich (1963) uses both forms (rest could not check).-- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, oops, my mistake. In any case, my point remains about usage within the article. Sakya is also closer to the Pali and a more authentic transliteration. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Iskandar323Refer to 11 May version Shakya was consitently used. The article was WP:BOLDly moved to Sakya (tribe) in June for some time. At that time, Sakya was changed to Shakya. I am changing it back to Shakya for consistency. Redtigerxyz  Talk 15:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with that Sakya is also closer to the Pali and a more authentic transliteration too. Antiquistik (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.