Talk:The Buddha/Archive 14

RFC: Religion infobox line on Buddha
Should the infobox line for religion be omitted from this page, as with other major religious figures (two useful parallels being the pages for Jesus and Muhammad), given the inherent ambiguities in defining the religion of a 'founding' individual? (Not least since their upbringing will always have taken place in the context of a different corpus of belief and practice to that which they ultimately adopted.) (Yes/no) Iskandar323 (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes: This came to my attention because while this line has historically been present on the Buddha page, questions have recently arisen over whether the Buddha was himself Buddhist per se and whether he may be considered to have been part of a different religion before becoming the Buddha. I suspect it was this type of ambiguity that led the religion line to be left vacant on similar pages, such as those for Jesus and Muhammad. Since major religious figures tend to engender sweeping shifts in belief, faith and practice during their lifetimes, taking a body of religious practice from point A to point B, there is merit in avoiding crudely defining their religion as X or Y. In the case of Buddha, I feel it is enough and most accurate to simply leave in the infobox line that the Buddha is "Known for: Founding Buddhism" while omitting the religion line. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes: There's no sources claiming that Buddha intended to make a new religion or he said that his teachings will become a religion. So, I feel it good enough if we omit the religion line from the info box as there's no religion line in Jesus & Muhammad pages. Usoejw9 (talk) 06:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes: Per Iskandar323. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. It doesn't make sense to say that Buddha was Buddhist. But does this really need an RfC? I don't see any opposition to this proposal in the section above. Seems like you could just make the change. Dan from A.P. (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @DanFromAnotherPlace: Short of a clear discussion-based consensus, I can't think of an enduring policy-based justification for excluding this infobox template element. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you make a proposal on a talk page and nobody objects to it, you can assume it has consensus. RfC is a dispute resolution process, and it's kind of a waste of editor time to start one when there's no dispute. Dan from A.P. (talk) 08:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. This is kind of a no-brainer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment If anyone could share discussion on basis of which they removed religion column from Muhammad and Jesus that would help a lot in this discussion. Sajaypal007 (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is an FAQ on the Talk:Jesus page that explains why the infobox is so short and why no religion is shown for Jesus. It also links to an RFC at the village pump about religion in infoboxes that appeared to determine that religion should only be shown in biographies if that information is directly related to the subject's notability and there is consensus for its inclusion. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @DanFromAnotherPlace:if you have seen the history of Gautama Buddha's article then you'll see that User: Sajaypal007, पाटलिपुत्र & Bumbubookworm had opposed this decision. Even according to Jacob Kinnard's book which is given as a reliable source of the religion of Buddha, Buddha was a Hindu by birth. And according to Levman's journal it's indirectly written that Buddha was born into a family which followed Vedic & non-Vedic rituals. But I'll still stick with Iskandar323's decision. Usoejw9 (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I thought the previous debate was about what to put in the infobox, not about whether to remove the parameter completely. I think removal is best if its inclusion is proving controversial. Dan from A.P. (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose seeing the policy on inclusion of religion in infobox, I think it all depends upon consensus on case to case basis. My argument is religion being a big factor of a person who literally lived for it, this should not be removed from this page. Only Buddhism can be kept while other thing like in which religion he was born, whether we call it hinduism, brahmanism or vedic religion, it should be included in the main body and not infobox as infobox should contain very short information. Sajaypal007 (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sajaypal007: I would argue that there is a quite a significant semantic difference between being known for being a Buddhist and being known for founding the religion. And again, I'm not even sure the Buddha can, logically, be Buddhist ("an adherent of the religion based on the teachings of Buddha"), because it seems that this would somehow involve him following himself, doesn't it? In any case, it is precisely due to the endless discussion potential of such questions that I have suggested removing the religion line from the infobox altogether. And the infobox will still say: "Known for: Founding Buddhism" - Iskandar323 (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes sense. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes: as per requestor and other users' comments above. P1221 (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: although I don't have a problem with ommitting it. As the sutras say, the Buddha was a light unto himself. He literally followed himself. Although he may have previously been Zoroastrian or some Vedic sect, he consciously created a religion and he was that religion's first and most famous follower. The same cannot be said about Jesus, for example. Teishin (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Teishin there's no sutra which says that Buddha intended to create another religion. No religious leader intended to create another religion. They wanted to reform the religion in which they were born. Because the teachings of Buddha wasn't granted by many Vedic minded people, the students of Buddha started Buddhist council after Buddha's death. Buddha was indeed a Hindu according to Jacob Kinnard's book given as a reference with Buddhism in the info box. But according to Levman his religion was Vedic and non Vedic mixed before enlightment. Same goes for Rahula, Yashodhara, Mahapajapati Gotami & Devadatta.

Although if you have any proofs that buddhist texts claim that Gautama Buddha intended to create another religion then you can show me in my talk page. Bharatiya283BC (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I was citing the Attadipa sutta. I did not claim that that sutra explicitly says that Buddha intended to create a religion.
 * I think your claim - "No religious leader intended to create another religion. They wanted to reform the religion in which they were born." would be pretty difficult to substantiate. That the Buddha was a Hindu, and that he aimed to reform Hinduism, seems to be a contentious claim, on both accounts. Teishin (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:SOCKSTRIKE — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Dozens of edits
A number of editors, especially user:Joshua Jonathan have begun to make quite a few edits, dozens in some instances. The WP community went through a lot of heartache attempting to achieve a rough and ready consensus in the lead in late April. The article was locked in that version for a while because of edit warrin. People are tired. We cannot unilaterally start editing the article, especially the lead, pretending nothing had happened, and it is fair ground to inflict our world views. I have therefore reverted the page to admin Abecedare's locked version of early May 2022. The fact that they are an admin has no bearing on the contents of the page as they were a neutral presence, but that is the version that had some form of consensus. So if you want to make significant edits, please propose them on this talk page first, and wait for a response, a sufficient one. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * By the way, I have not reverted edits in the later sections, but only in the lead, as that is where the POV- and other battles of April were fought. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * FYI, I've edited this page for years, and have dealt with Nepal-pov pushers for years; the extensive and nuanced note on his birthplace was my work. Your last edit before this mass-revert changed "Ancient India" into "South Asia"; the only edit of mine which you could possibly object to is my change of "South Asia" into a precise link: " ancient India " diff. But that's something you can easily change, or discuss at the talkpage, instead of mass-reverting, and accusing me of original research, as you did here: We can't come barrelling through the article and engage in our usual OR, Joshua Jonathan.. I re-ordered the info in the lead, condensing and grouping together biographical info diff; most notably, "Born in Lumbini in the clan of the Shakya" and "The Buddha was born into an aristocratic family in the Shakya clan" were condensed in "According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha was born in Lumbini in what is today Nepal, into an aristocratic family in the Shakya clan." You might have noticed this, had you bothered to take a good look, instead of jumping to unwarranted conclusions and the revert-button. You also reverted my formatting of note 3 diff, which I did to remove some of the clutter from the lead. But that probably also escaped your attention. You even reverted my addition diff of an extra warning regarding Nepal...  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Checking the talkpage, there seems to be consensus for "South Asia," so I've changed that back diff. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * So, now it is diff I'm sorry if you make major changes, introduce POV, turn a smoothly written lead into a halting, turgid, piece of text, I will revert per WP:BRD where were you during the time these issued were being debated here with great hearache? diff.
 * What are the major changes?
 * What is POV?
 * As explained above, I smoothed the lead by merging duplicate info; you're undoing that;
 * What issues were discussed in april which were changed by my edits?
 * And, to come back to your previous revert: what is original reserach in the edits you reverted? You can't cast aspersions without substantiating them, as the Arbitration Committee has made clear.
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  19:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * as usual, you are making things up I'm afraid. I don't think there was ever a "rough and ready consensus in the lead in late April": you mostly came in, made your preferred edits, edit-warred ad nauseam, and you are now trying to revert your way to your preferred version. The article was only "locked" because you kept edit warring against multiple editors, unambiguously breaking the 3RR rule in the process : there is not a shred of legitimity in the article as it was at the time of the frieze, besides the fact that it was fairly close in time to your preferred version. It is completely false to say that that version had "some form of consensus". Finally asking a major Wikipedia contributor that "if you want to make significant edits, please propose them on this talk page first, and wait for a response, a sufficient one" is blatant WP:OWNERSHIP and against the rules: we all contribute collaboratively, no preliminary vetting is required. Stop edit-warring and start working with others along Wikipedia rules for once. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding 'the issues debated', the note I formatted, turning it into this note is the note for the debated Buddha-statue at top; I placed it at the notes-section, so only the name of the note is there at the top; I also merged the second reference into the note, so that it conveniently provides the info, three sources, and quotes from these sources in one note, while the lead is better readable when editing it. Compare this to F&f's preferred version, with a note wihas the quotes hidden in the references, and an additional separate reference with qoute. I don't expect a "thank you" for making this info more accessible, but it would be appropriate, instead of accusations of original research. And I intend to do the same for the other extensive notes in the lead, doing the hard work of removing this clutter from the lead. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Let's examine your edits:
 * "aka" Was he a Chicago gangster? a Bugs Moran, perhaps? Where and when is aka applied to a spiritual giant? Christ aka Jesus? I mean seriously what are you doing?
 * Why are you persisting in pushing the India angle even after claiming to remove it as in the Wikilink: South Asia
 * and send an unsuspecting reader to an abysmally third-rate article on the History of India. If you are somehow offering the rationale that you can mangle this page because you have edited this page for years, I can say I have edited the FA India for years.  At least it is in much better shape than this one.
 * You have changed He was the founder of Buddhism and is revered by Buddhists as an Enlightened being to He was the founder of Buddhism and is revered by Buddhists as an awakened being
 * Do we say The Englightenment or The Awakening, the latter referring to two Christian revival movements, one Lutheran, the other American? Do we commonly say "the Buddha attained englightenment at Bodh Gaya" or do we say, "He awoke at Bodh Gaya,"  for attained "awakening" would be meaningless in English. See the Bodh Gaya page.
 * whose teachings sought a path to freedom from ignorance, ... that was obviously a typo-ish error. "whose teachings" was not meant but rather "who sought a path"  but you have turned it into an incoherent sentence, "whose teachings present and explain a path to ..." Why not "who taught a path to freedom from ignorance?"  Why the circumlocution? For teaching involves a lot more than presenting and explaining.
 * Do you really want me to continue? Each and every one of your edits has drastically damaged a difficult consensus, both by introducing POV and phrasing it in turgid sentences.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Response by JJ:
 * My edits did not introduce "aka"; if you object to that phrase, change it, but don't mass-revert;
 * I've changed back "ancient India" to "South Asia," as stated above;
 * "Awakening" is to be preferred above "enlightenement," since "enlightenment" has strong western connotations of, precisely, the Enlightenment and insight, whereas bodhi is closer to 'awakening, being awake', as scholars of Buddhism have noted. See Enlightenment in Buddhism, to which Bodh Gaya links. And, as you might have noticed, your preferred lead also states A couple of centuries after his death, he came to be known by the title Buddha, which means "Awakened One" or "Enlightened One". Sourced to Gethin (1998), Foundations of Buddhism. Also in the article: Carrithers (2001), The Buddha: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, as quoted in the article: "birth, maturity, renunciation, search, awakening and liberation, teaching, death". Schumann, The Historical Buddha: The Times, Life, and Teachings of the Founder of Buddhism: "does not lead to revulsion, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to knowledge, to awakening, to Nibbana". Keown, Damien, ed. (2003), A Dictionary of Buddhism, Oxford University Press: Buddha comes from the *Sanskrit root 'budh', meaning to awaken, and the Buddhas are those who have awakened to the true nature of things;
 * "who taught a path to freedom from ignorance, craving, rebirth and suffering." would be fine as well;
 * Don't dramatize.
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  20:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You may or may not have made that particular edit, but you condoned it and then reverted to it. So, I supposed to fix that alone.  Count 1.
 * *You have not changed back ancient India to South Asia, you have only superficially changed it, letting the bogus History of India, a highly suspect overstatement of Hinduism's role in Indian history and of Hindu monarchs remain. Count 2.
 * >>>"Awakening" is to be preferred above "enlightenement," since "enlightenment" has strong western connotations of ...
 * Of course that is not true. In the English language, "enlightenment" comes much closer to capturing the sense in the Pali canon.  No point throwing sources at me.  Do you really think I can't do the same at you? Do you seriously think that even the first English translators, whose first editions sit on my shelves, were so ignorant that they did not know the difference between enlightenment and awakening in English?  "Awakening" in English has the meaning of (Webster's Unabridged): 1a literal, a rousing from sleep, which is not meant here. 2a: a rousing from inactivity, sloth, or indifference , also not meant here. b: a revival of interest in religion  not meant here. 3: a coming into consciousness or awareness : realization, recognition —usually used with following to , also not meant here.
 * or, the OED, which has not been updated, so not as valuable: A rising from sleep, or (in modern use, more commonly) from sloth, inaction, or indifference. 878  in G. P. Lathrop Masque of Poets 17   Dreams divine end in awakenings dull.  c1882   S. Stock Life Abund. 8   The spring, Nature's great awakening. (Obviously, that is not meant either)
 * Enlightenment, on the other hand, does have a meaning we are looking for:
 * OED revised 2010: 1. a. The action of bringing someone to a state of greater knowledge, understanding, or insight; the state of being enlightened in this way. Also: an instance of this. rare before 19th cent. 1621  R. Aylett Song of Songs i. iv. iv. 83   The Word, without the Spirits enlightenment, Is as good Seede sowne on vntilled ground. 1669   Le Blanc in C. H. Spurgeon Treasury of David (1874) IV. Ps. lxxxiv. 13   His lightnings, that is his divine enlightenments, are best seen.  (Not precisely our meaning but close.)
 * b. spec. Usually with capital initial. The action or process of freeing human understanding from the accepted and customary beliefs sanctioned by traditional, esp. religious, authority, chiefly by rational and scientific inquiry into all aspects of human life, which became a characteristic goal of philosophical writing in the late 17th and 18th centuries. Frequently in the Age of Enlightenment (This is not quite our meaning)
 * c. Buddhism. The state of spiritual insight or awareness which frees a person from the cycle of suffering and rebirth; = nirvana n. 1(a). Also in extended use. 1836  Jrnl. Asiatic Soc. Bengal 5 77   The ultimate scope and genius of the Buddist religion, of which the end is, freedom from metempsychosis; and the means, perfect and absolute enlightenment of the understanding, and consequent discovery of the grand secret of nature. 1869   S. Beal tr. Trav. Fah-Hian & Sung-Yun xxxi. 120   The town of Gaya, near which Buddha arrived at complete enlightenment. (The fact that from 1836 onward they were using "absolute" or "complete" suggests that they had some sense of Buddhism.
 * And what is nirvana n. 1 (a)? The OED says, "1. (a) Buddhism. The realization of the non-existence of self, leading to cessation of all entanglement and attachment in life; the state of being released from the effects of karma and the cycle of death and rebirth.
 * What then is the point of throwing strange sources at me? This is what I mean by OR.  You relentlessly cite obscure sources, and slant the articles to strange POVs.  I've been watching this for quite a few years.
 * No one has dramatized anything, not least I. We went through a lot of heartache in attempting to fix the lead.  It wasn't fixed obviously, but some kind of compromise was reached. You must have known about it as people pinged you.  Now two months later you have deigned to edit the article, pretending nothing had happened and you somehow have a carte blanche to add whatever poor source you'd like to.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Here I have to concur, if only on one point, that 'enlightenment' is the clearly dominant term in association with the Buddha over 'awakening'. This is consistent across a general google search and scholarly search (where the ratio of mentions is 4 to 1), and, as F&F has noted, in tertiary references, where there is a faith-specific definition. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Response by JJ:
 * South Asia: you're right, I retained the link; I just removed it diff;
 * Enlightenment versus awakening: citing sources in a discussion is not OR; it's standard policy. Oxford University Press publications is not what we regard as "obscure sources" or "poor sources." Nor are publications by Rupert Gethin. Scholars have clearly explained why "awaken" is the preferred term. Gethin, The Foundations of Buddhism, chapter 1: "The Buddha. The Story of the Awakened One." Page 8:
 * On the other hand, Buswell, Encyclopedia of Buddhism, p.82 entry "Buddha, life of the," uses both terms:
 * Of course, if multiple editors prefer "enlightened," then we do that. Thanks for responding, Iskandar323! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, if multiple editors prefer "enlightened," then we do that. Thanks for responding, Iskandar323! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, if multiple editors prefer "enlightened," then we do that. Thanks for responding, Iskandar323! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree that both words have sensible reasons behind their usage, and I fully understand the interest in 'awakening' as a concept closer to the literal meaning of bodhi - both are in fact just visual metaphors, but the key differentiator, aside from the historical preference, is that 'enlightenment' is more closely associated with knowledge, understanding and the coming into a state of greater awareness, whereas 'awakening', when used in this sense, tends to be clarified as 'spiritual awakening' since the primary topic of 'awakening' very much pertains to sleep and the mundane act of stirring oneself into consciousness. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "Greater awareness" and "stirring oneself into consciousness" are both apt descriptors for what bodhi means in Buddhism: being aware, being awake, that is, being aware of the workings and automatic responses of the mind, which makes it possible to respind in a non-automatic, wholesome way. Anyway, I've changed "awakened" back to "enlightened diff.
 * NB: a dictionary entry on "awakening" is irrelevant. What is relevant is what scholars of Buddhism say about the meaning and translation of bodhi, as Gethin does. Or Buswell, entry "Bodhi (awakening)": "The Sanskrit and Pa�li word bodhi derives from the Indic root √budh (to awaken, to know)." And no, I wasn't involved in the discussions about the caption for the Buddha-statue and the wiki-link, nor in the discussion about the Devanagari-script. It isn't relevant either; it's not what my edits changed, nor is it what we are discussing here.  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Common usage in English sources is however more relevant than purely scholarly discussions on the most literal translation. Again, both meanings are metaphors. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The remaining question for F&f is: why do you want to have all these details, which partly duplicate info from the second paragraph, into the first alinea of the lead diff? And why do you declare this to be non-negotiatable you can nitpick the details all you want in the remaining lead paragraphs but not the first.? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  09:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead & Nepal
There's a long-standing consensus not to mention Nepal in the text of the lead, to avoid the Nepalese/Indian nationalism. It seems this consensus was broken when F&f made these edits in april: Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  04:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * diff, edit-summary "shakya republic" really? a mahajanapada was not a republic in any conventional sense we know, just a former chiefdom of migrant pastoral people which had become a kind of oligarchy, which added Nepal to the lead;
 * diff, edit-summary changing to language and scale appropriate to a lead. this is not a graduate student term paper. you can nitpick the details all you want in the remaining lead paragraphs but not the first.. This added Nepal to the lead for a second time, plus India; duplicated the fact of being born in the Shakya clan, and added the unnecessary details of the supposed place of awakening, and the supposed place of the first sermon.


 * Really, a longstanding consensus? Based on what, sources or editors opinions?  How many sources would you like me to present, the best, which do mention Nepal?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. *UNESCO World Heritage List: "The Lord Buddha was born in 623 BC in the sacred area of Lumbini located in the Terai plains of southern Nepal, testified by the inscription on the pillar erected by the Mauryan Emperor Asoka in 249 BC. Lumbini is one of the holiest places of one of the world's great religions, and its remains contain important evidence about the nature of Buddhist pilgrimage centres from as early as the 3rd century BC." OK so this might not be a reliable source, but nevertheless it points to the universal acknowledgement of the fact of Lumbini being in the terai plains of Nepal  (Of course India-POV editors, Hindu-POV editors, that WP is chock full of, (not accusing you of being one) are allergic to any mention of any thing, Nepal, South Asia, that doesn't kow-tow to Mother India). More coming, so don't reply yet.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, a long-standing consensus, based on a consequent patterning of editing to remove the highlighting of Nepal, and multiple discussions at the talkpage. I have removed diff "[the Buddha was born in] Lumbini in what is today Nepal" and "[He spent the majority of his adult life] in what is today Bihar, northeastern India"; the lead already mentions "South Asia"; that suffices. I've also re-inserted "Nirvana," one of the major aspects of Buddhism. See note 3, which captures this consensus. See also these warnings, hidden inside the lead for years:
 * UNESCO is not the kind of source we prefer here, indeed, in this regard. Lumbini and India are mentioned in the body of the article, though:
 * But we don't mention this in the lead,to avoid the pov-pushing. NB: personally I have no problem whatsoever mentioning that Lumbini is in present-day Nepal; who cares?!? South Asia is perfectly fine; there was no nepal, nor state of India, at that time. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * UNESCO is not the kind of source we prefer here, indeed, in this regard. Lumbini and India are mentioned in the body of the article, though:
 * But we don't mention this in the lead,to avoid the pov-pushing. NB: personally I have no problem whatsoever mentioning that Lumbini is in present-day Nepal; who cares?!? South Asia is perfectly fine; there was no nepal, nor state of India, at that time. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But we don't mention this in the lead,to avoid the pov-pushing. NB: personally I have no problem whatsoever mentioning that Lumbini is in present-day Nepal; who cares?!? South Asia is perfectly fine; there was no nepal, nor state of India, at that time. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  05:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * What is it you do not understand? You not only change edits that have been replied to, but also ones that specifically say please do not respond yet. I am going back to sleep.  I had woken up.  It is the middle of the night here.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Sleep tight, my friend; just keep in mind you and me don't disagree here at at all: the Buddha was born in Lumbini, now in modern-day Nepal. But it doesn't mean he was a Nepalese. But that's not the point; it's also not about sources supporting our stance; it's about the practicality of not inviting pov-pushers to the lead. And for that, there's a long-standing consensus. See the talkpage archives, and, for example:
 * 24 February 2021 by Aoidh diff, edit-summary Undid revision 1008584446 by Ananta5421 (talk) See talk page discussions about this, there have been many.
 * 22 February 2021 by Teishin diff, edit-summary multiple editors have reverted this and directed the issue to the Talk page.
 * 22 February 2021 by JimRenge diff, edit-summary Please see talk page/talk page archives discussions
 * 21 February 2021 by Chewings72 diff, edit-sumary See article talk page.
 * 6 June 2020 by Joshua Jonathan diff, edit-summary The usual Nepalese pov-pushing
 * 9 July 2017 by Ms Sarah Welch diff, edit-summary rv persistent India / Nepal POV pushing
 * It's just not wise to mention it. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I see Lumbini is situated outside of the Kathmandu valley in a space quite readily contestable from a nationalist historical narrative-pushing perspective. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Really, something has to lie in the Kathmandu Valley to be truly in Nepal? Mustang is in China, then? and Newar in India also? Where did you receive you PhD in Nepal Studies my friend, by the the grace of Zeus at the Plato Academy in Athens, or by the grace of Ahura Mazda at Darius's academy near Shiraz, or perhaps in by the grace of Varuna at Panini's in Taxila? If you mean ripe for India-POV pushers to claim a historical figure of South Asia whose legacy has been annihilated in their country, then you should say so, but do not mix it with this pseudo-geographical mumbo-jumbo.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is Nepal the modern-day country and Nepal as the conception of an ancient space. And according to out article on Nepal, before its unification, only the Kathmandu valley was ever referred to as Nepal, and even then, only in unnamed 400 BC texts, a century after the supposed birth date of the Buddha. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Who cares what it was called then. He was born in Lumbini to parents who were in the Shakya tribe (there was no concept of Republic in India then) and Lumbini is in Nepal today.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to contest the whole republic thing then why don't you go do so on Shakya, where that information arises. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As to who cares what it was called then, I would say historians, people who like history, people who read encyclopedias. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? What is this then chopped liver:  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And this which seems to think that even Kapilvastu is in Nepal:  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And this:  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is the anachronistic labelling of ancient places as being within the confines as a certain modern-day nation-state that tends to cause contention, hence always better to say the precise location (if any) and the state like order of the day. I see no problem with 'Lumbini, Shakya Republic' ... adding (modern-day Nepal) is then somewhat optional given its low importance to the subject, and the fact that if readers really want the information they can already just click on 'Lumbini'. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Lumbini is a UNESCO Word Heritage Site for heavens sake to which Buddhists from around the world come to pay pilgrimage. There is a column of Asoka, planted sometime during the 3rd-century BCE in Lumbini proclaiming it to be the exact spot of the Buddha's birth. And you have the gumption to say it is optional.
 * No one really knows what the Shakya Republic was given India's abysmally ahistorical culture. The Buddha in any case is the best-known member of the Shakya tribe. You might as well call it the Buddha's tribe, as we don't know of anyone else as famous belonging to it, perhaps other than his parents of secondary fame. Do you? Was this pre-classical republic known for any political thought that has influenced modern notions of a republic, as ancient Greece and Rome have. We don't even know where the capital of this pseudo-republic was.  Why? Because the Buddha is India's first historical figure.  See the ancient history section of India.
 * So why not just say, "The Buddha was born in the pre-classical republic in South Asia into which the Buddha was born but the exact spot in which his mother Queen Maya delivered him is in Lumbini in what is today Nepal. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm really not as vested in this conversation as you seem to think I am. I don't really have an objection to placing Lumbini in the lead, as long as it is made absolutely explicitly clear that it is in 'present-day' Nepal, as opposed to imposing some anachronistic casting of modern nationhood back into the past. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But honestly, if there are real issues with the Shakya page and you think you know better, why not go and sort that out rather than churning out long-winded diatribes here? It would be infinitely more productive than these mountain out of molehill discussions about biographical minutiae. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, it had been saying, "in what is today Nepal" until someone removed it.
 * "present-day Nepal" has its own problems as some readers in this global encyclopedia think he was born in the present-day. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree regarding "in what is today Nepal"; nice grammatical nuance. See also diff (the second correction, not the first). Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  13:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 'in what is today' or 'present-day' are both in the sources, so take your pick. They are totally analogous, and I'm not sure that there's really any helping the people that can't understand that. This isn't simple English Wikipedia. We assume a basic level of English comprehension. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that Shakya clan is fine; the link explains the nuances of the state-form ("gaṇa sangha (an aristocratic oligarchic republic)"). As for Lumbini, I can live with that, but then there has to be a clear consensus on whether or not adding "in what is today Nepal," in the light of the persistent Nepalese pov-pushing. I mildly oppose adding Nepal, as it is mostly relevant for Nepalese nationalism; on the other hand, it gives specific information which may be helpfull to the readers. Can we restrict the further discussion in this section to the eventual inclusion of the term "republic," the name Lumbini, and the mentioning of Nepal? And await a clear consensus? That would be helpfull. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  13:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The whole 'republic' angle does seem to be tied to a single literary work, and one can certainly see how this might be a belated attempt to impress republican structures onto ancient tribal cultures in the image of India's modern governance or in parallel to ancient Greek republicanism. If this is contentious though, it would be best avoided, and Shakya clan would be fine. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That Lumbini is in what is today Nepal is non-negotiable.   How will Nepalese editors change it? I don't see the problem.  We should agree on: "He was born into the Shakya clan (with Wikilink to whatever) in (the village of, optional) Lumbini/Lumpini in what is today Nepal."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the three of us can agree on that, but let's wait for some more responses; it will give a talkpage-thread to refer to, when the unavoidable pov-pushing resumes. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  13:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Be warned though JJ, based on the scientific old saying (Two is company; Three is a crowd) we already have the basic ingredient of a crowd-sourced encyclopedia. And if you let another person in, it could go 4 to 0, or 3 to 1. So there are inbuilt dangers. Better in my view to implement it and let them attempt to take it down.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it's worth also throwing in "in what is today southern Nepal", since that component is mentioned in all three sources above for instance. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "southern Nepal" is A-OK. I personally do think, Maya should have chosen a more picturesque site such as below the Annapurna in lush Pokhara, Nepal, or beyond the Dhaulagiri in arid Mustang Nepal. Both are better than the mosquito-ridden swamps of the Nepal Terai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fowler&fowler (talk • contribs) 12 june 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, now we know why he left home! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a good one! Very relevant especially for someone who is shown bare chested in most iconography.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Born in Lumbini, now in southern Nepal," following a line in the body of the article: " Lumbini, now in modern-day Nepal"? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Then just say either "now in Nepal" or "in modern-day Nepal." Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, neither is optimal. "now in Nepal" seems to suggests that it was not once, sort of like, from a Tibetan-rights POV, "X was born on the northern face of Mount Everest, now in China," or from a Sikkim-nationalistic viewpoint, "X was born on the eastern face of Khangchenjunga, now in India." And born in "modern-day Nepal" causes the same problem allowing some people to pause at the thought, "really, he was born in the modern day?".  I think, "born in Lumbini in what is now Nepal" is best.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

So we have a spree of four heads in this coin toss. On such a full sea are we afloat, and we must take the current when it serves or lose our ventures, as a famous conspirator of the Roman Republic had declaimed before me in the reliable record of an Elizbethan dramatist. Now, I believe, you may implement this consensus and we can go back to our real interests on WP. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  19:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I already did. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Most recent reverts by F&f
I don't know what's going on in your mind, but you indeed mass-reverted twice diff diff a long series of accommodations to your preferences and suggestions, gnomish edits, additional sources, etc.:
 * I made several accommodations to your preferences diff, diff, diff, diff, diff; you agreed with that lead diff.
 * I moved the notes from the lead to the notes-list, to remove the clutter from the lead, as explained in the edit-summaries; you didn't object to this.

And now you're back to mass-reverting again. Your edit-summary diff

makes no sense. My lates edits of this morning diff added a note which explains that "awakening/awakened" is currently the preferred translation of Bodhi (what you seem to call bizarre and turgid English prose, and referring to publications from people like K.R. Norman (Professor Emeritus of Indian Studie and former president of the Pali Text Society) as 'unencyclopedic sourcing'), without even changing the text ("enlightened being"). Your attitude is outright disruptive. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  08:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

And this tag diff The article is written in turgid and incomprehensible English prose. It needs major reworking. needs a detailed explanation. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  08:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The evidence is in the interchanges below, a part, that is. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Can some admin help here?
We went through enough heartache last month when the page was locked. Is there no Wikipedia imperative to be halfway lucid, to write in an accessible manner? This is a major page, a vital one, yet when I attempted to improve the prose, after adding an "in use" template, it was turned back to the unreadable version, a platform for displaying intellectual fancies and vanities disguised in a sea of Wiki links in which an unsuspecting reader can easily drown. Can some administrator please help? It's not as if I don't know how to write broadscale history. Please. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  09:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC) Pinging  again. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  09:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You mass-reverted twice at june 11 diff diff; three editors made it clear that this was not-done diff diff diff. You mass-reverted today diff, undoing a series edits which accommodated the lead to your preferences, as explained at Talk:Gautama Buddha, [and] which also removed a series of gnomish edits which removed the clutter from the lead, also explained at that same talkpage-section (and explained to you before). Then you placed an in-use template at top, and made a series of edits, despite your insistence at june 11 diff that
 * Pat reverted your mass-revert diff, then you mass-reverted again diff. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Pat reverted your mass-revert diff, then you mass-reverted again diff. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The proof of the pudding is in the diffs, whether you made one thousand edits changing one word in each, or one large edit with a thousand changed words, damage done is damage done. I saw the final product. It was unsustainable.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * My edits of june 12 accommodated the text to your wishes and preferences, in response to our talkpage discussions diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. My other edits of that day removed the clutter from the lead. My edits from today added a note, without changing the text. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Again. That is your interpretation. We arrived at some kind of informal consensus after the article was locked last month.  You are pretending to disregard the consensus by making a thousand little busy edits. You have added sources in the notes, none of which are as broadscale as the ones that were in place.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Fowler&fowler. Again, you are making things up I'm afraid. I don't think there was ever a "some kind of informal consensus after the article was locked last month": you mostly came in, made your preferred edits, edit-warred ad nauseam, and you are now trying to revert your way to your preferred version (again). The article was only "locked" because you kept edit warring against multiple editors, unambiguously breaking the 3RR rule in the process : there is not a shred of legitimacy in the article as it was at the time of the frieze, besides the fact that it was fairly close in time to your preferred version. It is completely false to say that that version had "some kind of informal consensus". This certainly does not give you the right to revert any changes made since then, and to act as if only your own idiosyncratic changes to the article can be valid, much less to make disparaging remarks to other contributors in your edit summaries in the process . पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't think I can load up the lead sentence with "selections" such as:
 * 411–400: Dundas (2002), p. 24: "...as is now almost universally accepted by informed Indological scholarship, a re-examination of early Buddhist historical material, [...], necessitates a redating of the Buddha's death to between 411 and 400 BCE..."
 * 405: Richard Gombrich
 * Around 400: See the consensus in the essays by leading scholars in Narain (2003).
 * According to Pali scholar K. R. Norman, a life span for the Buddha of c. 480 to 400 BCE (and his teaching period roughly from c. 445 to 400 BCE) "fits the archaeological evidence better". See also Notes on the Dates of the Buddha Íåkyamuni.
 * Indologist Michael Witzel provides a "revised" dating of 460–380 BCE for the lifetime of the Buddha.
 * Those too were an aspect of gnomishness? (rather than sticking to tertiary sources such as the Princeton dictionary of Buddhism, or Oxford dictionary of Buddhism. The former has long articles.)    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding this are gnomish edits?
 * Gimello (2003, p. entry "Bodhi (awakening"): "The Sanskrit and Pāli word bodhi derives from the Indic root [.radical] budh (to awaken, to know) [...] Those who are attentive to the more literal meaning of the Indic original tend to translate bodhi into English as "awakening," and this is to be recommended. However, it has long been conventional to translate it as "enlightenment," despite the risks of multiple misrepresentation attendant upon the use of so heavily freighted an English word."
 * Norman (1997, p. 29): "From the fourth jhana he gained bodhi. It is not at all clear what gaining bodhi means. We are accustomed to the translation "enlightenment" for bodhi, but this is misleading for two reasons. First, it can be confused with the use of the word to describe the development in European thought and culture in the eighteenth century, and second, it suggests that light is being shed on something, whereas there is no hint of the meaning "light" in the root budh- which underlies the word bodhi. The root means "to wake up, to be awake, to be awakened", and a buddha is someone who has been awakened. Besides the ordinary sense ofbeing awakened by something, e.g. a noise, it can also mean "awakened to something". The desire to get the idea of "awakened" in English translations of buddha explains the rather peculiar Victorian quasi-poetical translation "the wake" which we sometimes find."
 * Bikkhu Bodhi objects to this shift: "The classical Pali text on grammar, Saddanīti, assigns to this root the meanings of “knowing (or understanding),” “blossoming,” and “waking up,” in that order of importance. The Pali-Sanskrit noun buddhi, which designates the intellect or faculty of cognition, is derived from budh, yet entails no sense of “awakening.” Further, when we look at the ordinary use of verbs based on budh in the Pali suttas, we can see that these verbs mean “to know, to understand, to recognize.” My paper cites several passages where rendering the verb as “awakens” would stretch the English word beyond its ordinary limits. In those contexts, “knows,” “understands,” “recognizes,” or “realizes” would fit much better. The verbs derived from budh that do mean “awaken” are generally preceded by a prefix, but they are not used to refer to the Buddha’s attainment of bodhi." (Bodhi 2020; Abrahams 2021)
 * Buddhadasa (2017, p. 5) gives several transalations, including "the knowing one": "This is how we understand "Buddha" in Thailand, as the Awakened One, the Knowing One, and the Blossomed One." Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edits are sneakier, and more POV than I had originally thought. The revert was entirely justified. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

That My edits of june 12 accommodated the text to your wishes and preferences is not "[my] interpretation"; they did, as can be seen from the edits themselves, the edit-summaries, and the talkpage discussions. We don't disagree about the dating of the Buddha. We disagree about the preferred translation of "bodhi/Buddha." "Awakening/awakened" is currently the translation preferred by scholars, as the Bodhi-note makes clear. The note also says that not everyone agrees with shift, in line with WP:NPOV. The Bodhi-note which you cite here is exactly that, a note; the gnomish edits I'm referring to is the removal of the clutter from the lead, as I've said now several times. Your preference for "enlightened" does not warrant mass-reverts. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  11:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Buddha as title
This edit diff, edit-summary

changed

into

The title Buddha indeed came into use only several centuries later; the preferred term in the sutras seems to be Tathāgata. And, again, "awakened one" is the preferred English term nowadays; see Abraham Matthews (2021), "In Defense of "Enlightenment". "Awakening" has become the preferred English term for the Buddha's attainment. But has something gotten lost in translation? Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi in conversation with Matthew Abrahams", TriCycle link. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  09:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Of course I know that. A paragraph should not begin with a pronoun. That is why I had: Several centuries after Siddharth Gautama's death the title Buddha was ..."  or "Several centuries after the Buddha's death, the title itself, "the Buddha," was applied to him.  We have already used "the Buddha" several times earlier.  I noticed several of my edits did not take as a result of user:Pats incorrigible edit warring.  This is the problem with incorrigible edit warriors.  I reverted your edits, yet you are engaging me on the talk page, user:Pat did nothing but revert in a knee jerk fashion.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Try incremental improvements, instead of mass-reverts; it works better. Note that I agree with some of your suggestions, as stated above; ""Several centuries after the Buddha's death, the title itself, "the Buddha," was applied to him." is also fine.
 * And please try to understand that when you mass-revert, you also revert my removal of the clutter from the lead. When you feel the urge to re-insert your preferred text, at least try to copy-paste it, and retain these notes. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You should try incremental cumulative changes as well. Your cumulative changes at one sitting are unsustainable, they violate Wikipedia injunctions to be NPOV and lucid.
 * Perhaps you should explain on the talk page first what you will be attempting to do, in jargon free simple accessible language Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to go now, but be warned that your absence during and in the immediate aftermath of the previous dispute is not a carte blanche for repeating the errors that led to that dispute. And I'm not about to remove the cleanup template because the lead remains poorly written, very poorly.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to remove it. And you made several appreciated suggestions for improvement. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, agree with your version of this sentence. We don't have to mention 'enlightened/awakened being' twice, when the first appearance has the note the translation of 'bodhi'. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  11:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I've removed diff "he came to be known by the title Buddha, which means "Awakened One" or "Enlightened One.", as you proposed. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

"Turgid and incomprehensible English prose" tag

 * Do you think Fowler&fowler's recent tag at the top of the article has to be this vexatory and inflammatory?: "The specific problem is: The article is written in turgid and incomprehensible English prose. It needs major reworking."  If we keep the tag (which I'm not convinced, given its obvious WP:POINTiness, ie precisely "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point"), I suggest we at least use more professional language: we don't have to impose the temper of an individual on the whole community of Wikipedia readers.  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd formulate it in a different way, but I'm not F&f. And I appreciate some of their suggestions. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am also pinging Admins, as I am afraid it is a community issue, affecting the standing of Wikipedia on a major article . पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Standing of Wikipedia? Seriously? How much lower can you get than the bottom of the barrel? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I forgot you have already raised the standing so high (by your cottage industry of OR in copying and pasting text and images from Creative Commons publications) that like Icarus of old we are in danger of melting our wings by flying too close to the Sun. Need I point to Talk:Neolithic of what the community thinks of your prolific soaring?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What Johnbod had said there had said about you, "Frankly, using your methods you add so much content that checking probably takes longer than adding it. It tends to unbalance articles. Detailed stuff like this is better in lower-level articles, but your additions are nearly all to very high level articles."  to some extent applies to this article.  The gnomish edits add so much content that checking takes longer than the addition.  All are being made to the lead of a high-level article.  The only difference is that Joshua is someone I can have a conversation with, ... have long had them.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The gnomish edits did not add content, they moved content. And moving all those notes to the notes-list actually takes quite some time, as one has to be carefull not to make faults in the HTML-codes, and check every edit. May I invite you to take a look at the present lead in the edit-mode; you may actually appreciate the tidyness of it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  13:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * More verbal abuse, personal attacks, article ownership and temper tantrums from Fowler&fowler... Admins, can we just deal with the page-defacing tag, please? This is disruptive, and we don't have to impose it on the community of readers.  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK Joshua I’ll take a look at the end of the day. We’re soon to take off for an outing. Best Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

✅ Thanks to User:Bumbubookworm for the common-sense rephrasing of the tag. पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Pari-nirvana
F&f's mass-reverts also restored the statement that he achieved nirvana when he died. Augh.... that's called Parinirvana, as someone else had already corrected. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  09:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No, when you say, "He died, achieving nirvana," the death is the main clause, achieving nirvana the subordinate, a participial clause with adverbial meaning). You could have said, "Achieving nirvana, he died." But "He achieved nirvana when he died." the nirvana is the main clause. There is a difference of emphasis.  That is even before we get to the mysterious link parinirvana that no ordinary reader will be aware of.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * F&f, nirvana is attained during life; final nirvana after death is referred to as parinirvana. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Really, the nirvana after death is not called nirvana after death, ever? Because that is what an uninitiated reader understands.  The lead is chock full of such jargon.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You can't say that he attained nirvana when he died; dead people don't attain nirvana. Parinirvana is the Buddhist term. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: "by achieving paranirvana" should be ""and attaning parinirvana," or a synonym, like 'final release', with a hidden link to parinirvana:
 * Mahaparinibbana Sutta, translation Bhikkhu Ānandajoti: "attained Final Emancipation."
 * Mahāparinibbānasutta, translation Bhikkhu Sujato: "the Buddha immediately became fully extinguished."
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Awakening
Regarding this edit, edit-summary I don't know what to do with such bizarre text, which does a disservice to Buddhism; everyone and their brother is having a go at stuffing their insufficiently understood and disastrously expressed titbits into the lead. That is obvious., "according to Buddist tradition" is correct. According to Buddhist tradition, he gained awakening/enlightenment "after several years of mendicancy, meditation, and asceticism." What he actually gained, we don't know; we have to rely on faith-based documents, which are not historical sources. See Norman (1994), A Philological Approach to Buddhism, p.29-30:

Nevertheless, the formulation he achieved a profound insight into rebirth, suffering, and how they can be overcome, traditionally termed in the Buddhist tradition as "enlightenment" or "awakening." is fine, except for "achieved"; I'd prefer "attained." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  09:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * That's fine. My point is that you already know I'm particular about words.  Why then don't you post your proposed changes to the lead's prose here first? It will save us both a lot of time, and keep user:Pat's unhelpful interjections at bay.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I moved it from
 * to
 * somewhere in this serie of edits. Being born in Lumbini is not problematic; the story about the awakening is "according to." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: thanks for sharing this comment: My point is that you already know I'm particular about words. That's insightfull and helpfull; thank you. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As I've already explained below, "renouncing lay life" is nonsense. He abandoned his wife and new born baby (on the day of the baby's birth).  His concubines were unable to pleasure him on this last day.  Lay life?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mean this in a pejorative way, but only to imply that this is not the commonplace notion of renouncement. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. I do have to go. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mean this in a pejorative way, but only to imply that this is not the commonplace notion of renouncement. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. I do have to go. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The point is here where to place "according to"; we can discuss the meaning of renoumcement elsewehere. Regarding the rest of this edit (see the diff):
 * I prefer "attained";
 * "enlightenment" or "awakening." thanks for giving in to my concerns. We can add the Bodhi-note here;
 * Meditation: change into "meditative practices; the removal of dhyana etc. is okay;
 * "denounced" and omitting "Brahmin priests": much better than "critiqued." I can live with this addition in this way.
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  11:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  11:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Addentum: apart from the details, the sentence you propose is very good; it captures the meaning of "bodhi" as knowledge of the way to be followed, and knowing that this way works. That's a nuanced difference from kensho, a first insight into one's 'true nature', also commonly translated as "enlightenment"; and from "vimutti," release from the asavas. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I've implemented diff most of your formulation diff on his awakening, and the practices he taught. To retain the mention of "full awakening," I've changed "revered by Buddhists as an enlightened being" into "revered by Buddhists as an fully enlightened being" ("an" is a typo, I see now), and added the Buswell and Gethin references, which were first used in the third alinea, for the title of Buddha. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * In addition, I've also removed diff "ancient Indian philosopher," which also wasn't in your last roll-backed version. It was added 17 june 2022 diff. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Royal family
According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha was born as a prince. Historically that's incorrect, of course, but it is what the Buddhist tradition says. If we follow the Buddhist tradition, "According to" should precede "born," and state "royal family." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Can't tribal nobles be akin to royalty in the eyes of their tribe? I agree 'prince' may be a little misleading in a tribal context, but it could just be a semantic issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking of, assuming that it can in fact be determined that his family held high status within the Shakya tribe, might 'tribal prince' be a reasonable fix? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That wod be a mixture of fact and narrative. "According to" indicates it's a point of view, not necessarily a fact. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So, has no scholarly consensus emerged as to the details that can actually be teased apart from Buddhist tradition? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, sure: born into a family of the ruling elite of the Shakya-clan, later understood as a royal family by the Buddhist tradition. See also Cakravartin and Digvijaya (conquest) for the connotations of 'wheel-turning monarch' ("setting the wheel of dhamma in motion"). But I don't mind "aristocratic family," actually; it's just a matter of emphasis: history, or religious narrative. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * NB: see also note 5, Buswell Jr.& Lopez Jr. (2014), The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism:
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  09:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  09:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Blessed One
apologies for my revert, but "Enlightened One" is a repetition from "fully enlightened being," while "Blessed One" is WP:UNDUE, as the article lists at least ten different names. And you didn't provide a source for 'Pali scriptures written by his disciples' (can't recall the exact phrase). Again, apologies. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  16:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No worries Jonathan :) Lordzenberg (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Adding Bodh Gaya to the infobox was actually a good ieda; I think we can move Kushinagar there as well. But, adding this diff
 * was not a good idea. It reads like a modern point of view; I can't recall sources which say this (though the Buddhist tradition portrays the Buddha as 'self-awakened', but that's bot what you are referring to). The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; it's not the place for unsourced additions which are not threated in the body of the article. See WP:UNDUE, WP:VERIFIABILITY,  and WP:RS. Regards,  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * was not a good idea. It reads like a modern point of view; I can't recall sources which say this (though the Buddhist tradition portrays the Buddha as 'self-awakened', but that's bot what you are referring to). The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; it's not the place for unsourced additions which are not threated in the body of the article. See WP:UNDUE, WP:VERIFIABILITY,  and WP:RS. Regards,  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)