Talk:The Buddha/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 19

Requested move 6 April 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 section.

Result:
Not moved. See below a large consensus against the proposed title. There is fairly strong support for "Buddha" and "The Buddha"; however, we can leave those for a possible new move request (at any time – no prejudice), since there is significant opposition seen below to any page move, which just means that any new move request might not be successful (there is a good possibility that those titles would remain primary redirects). Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 11:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha → Siddhartha Gautama – This article is a biography, and as such, it should be named after the proper name of its subject, without religious titles, like as for pages such as Muhammad (not "Prophet Muhammad"), Jesus (not "Jesus Christ") and Paul the Apostle (not "St. Paul"). The Buddha's name is Siddhartha Gautama, and this article is the biography of Siddhartha Gautama, the man. "The Buddha" is arguably also a name or a nickname for the man, but this has been rejected as a title in previous move requests over the alleged confusion this would create regarding Buddahood in general. (This seems like a spurious argument but it is what it is.)

"Gautama Buddha", however, is neither a proper name, nor a nickname. It is a hodgepodge of the Buddha's surname and the title "Buddha", making it a hypocritical article name with regards to Wikipedia policies and guidelines that have seen the terms prophet, christ and saint titles removed from other religious biographies. And this is the critical point, because whereas "Siddhartha Gautama" is a proper name with no apparent problems, "Gautama Buddha" is a sort of name-title hybrid that directly conflicts with the standard practice for religious biographies in other faiths, and I see no reason why the rules applied to the Abrahamic faiths should not be applied equally to Eastern religions.

In a pure toss-up between the names, there is little between "Siddhartha Gautama" and "Gautama Buddha" in Ngrams (- though again, incidentally, "The Buddha" leads). This is also after Wikipedia has been pushing out the name Gautama Buddha for two decades, so the results may also include Wikipedia-mirroring resources. I am unclear if any of the sources of the article use this name. It certainly appears in none of the notes or source titles. What little currency the name-title "Gautama Buddha" does seem to gain within certain circles seems to mainly be as a respectful title for the Buddha, particularly among Buddhists and deferential scholars of Far Eastern religion, just as Muslims or similarly deferential scholars might refer to "The Prophet Muhammad". It is not neutral, however, for Wikipedia to refer to a religious figure either with titles, in the preferred way of their followers, or with undue respect.

As with other religious figures, we should use the matter of fact proper name "Siddhartha Gautama" here too. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment I think the page should be moved to Buddha. It's clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In terms of useage, it goes Buddha>Siddhartha Gautama>Gautama Buddha, but since Buddha already redirects here I don't see why it shouldn't be at base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to Buddha per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. It already redirects here as the primary redirect and it's clearly the most common name for this subject in English. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Buddha as WP:COMMONNAME. Curbon7 (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support move to Buddha Siddhartha Gautama is rarely used for Buddha, also comparison with Jesus and Muhammad is not fair, they are WP:COMMONNAME unlike Sidhhartha Gautama. Hence page should be moved to Buddha Sajaypal007 (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose rename to Buddha, Support rename to Siddhartha Gautama per nom, or Shakyamuni Buddha or The Buddha. "Buddha" in only a title ("Enlightened"/"Enlightened one"), which is shared by many enlightened teacher of the past (the Simple English Wikipedia has it right: [1]), so naming this article "Buddha" would be both strange and inexact, and referring to him as just "Buddha" is sometimes, I think, considered offensive. If anything, "Buddha" should be a redirect to "Buddhahood". This article here is specifically about the (probably) historical figure Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha of our era: it specifically describes his birth, life and death, historical background, representations etc... and therefore can only be entitled Siddhartha Gautama. If WP:COMMONNAME is an issue, he could colloqially and alternatively be referred to as The Buddha, being by far the most famous one (again as properly explained in the Simple English Wikipedia [2]). "Siddhartha Gautama" is always correct, but is also generally preferred to refer to him before his enlightnement, and Shakyamuni Buddha after. For simplicity, the best solution for this article might indeed be The Buddha. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I think in English he is overwhelmingly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term Buddha, and despite there being tons of others Buddhas, it would most suit the reader for this buddha to be PRIMARY. Perhaps it's just my point of view, but it just seems intuitive.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
      I agree that it does seem intuitive, just as much as 'Gautama Buddha' seems intuitively wrong. I just didn't expect traction for Buddha after the rejected move in September. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to Buddha per WP:COMMONNAME.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to Buddha per WP:COMMONNAME. JimRenge (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Buddha. For the proposed move, I am neutral: the arguments for the move are correct, but on the other hand it will be surprising to many readers that "Buddha" is not in the article title at all. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose any move. This article was created at this name in 2005. The article has been stable at this location during the entire history of the pedia. Based on archives, over 17 years there have been a total of two RMs on this page, both closed as opposed, the first five years ago, the latest eight months ago. I don't see anything compelling which has changed inside the article or in surrounding culture to indicate a need for a new discussion after that brief a period. On the merits, since there are many Buddhas in history (frequently mentioned in the move discussions), disambiguation of some kind is required, per WP:PRECISION. The subject has been widely covered in world literature for thousands of years, in English for many hundred years. I'm inclined to agree with User:पाटलिपुत्र this move would produce a pagename "both strange and inexact" and possibly offensive. BusterD (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I disagree completely, in English he is primarily known as Buddha. When someone says Buddha, the first person 99 per cent of folk will think about is this Buddha. If someone searches Buddha, it will lead them to this page, so I don't see why a move would be a big deal. If they were looking for another Buddha, they'd go to DAB landing page same as they do now. And there's nothing at all offensive about having him at basename, I don't understand this accusation at all. As already stated, Buddha already redirects here.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
      • I believe your position is abundantly clear. I see no refutation in your comment. BusterD (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid just calling him "Buddha" is incorrect and rather offensive as "Buddha" is not a personal name: you can write "Jesus said" or "Muhammad said" but you write "The Buddha said..." (ie "The enlightened one said..."), almost never "Buddha said". If we insist on WP:COMMONNAME, I guess the page title should be "The Buddha".पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
        I agree that the more declarative "The Buddha" works better from the perspective of disambiguation. It is also the way in which I have personally seen and heard the Buddha referenced more commonly. At the same time, I have also seen plenty of sources that quite casually (and inoffensively) use "Buddha ..." without the "The" to talk about the individual as a matter of course. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
        Very interested in your claim that just Buddha is inoffensive. Not sure of the relevance here but I find the idea that it might be very interesting. So however this RM closes I think it would be worth a separate and dedicated discussion on this talk page. Andrewa (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
        Agree that The Buddha is an acceptable alternative. Very interested in the claim that calling him just Buddha is offensive, can you elaborate? It might explain a lot of the discussion both here and previously. The argument that it is incorrect is however a common misconception regarding our article title policy and invalid, I have commented on this elsewhere. Andrewa (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    Comment: I see little merit in the first part of your comment, which seems to channel nothing more than the voice of inertia. There are legion inappropriately named or poorly thought out articles on Wikipedia from the early days of its inception. Most of these, like this one, were created without references or sourcing. Subsequent discussions seem to have focused on why it shouldn't move, not why the current name SHOULD stay. Your prior example version (in addition to seeing the Buddha being called a "two dolla ho" in the opening line) does not even have a single external link that uses the name "Gautama Buddha". Iskandar323 (talk) 06:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to Buddha per WP:COMMONNAME. There is only one Buddha known with that name around the world. Second preference is Gautam Buddha. I strongly oppose the move to Siddhartha Gautama. Although it was his previous name, that is not his common name. Venkat TL (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose any move per discussion and the results of the recent RM. Many Buddhas exist. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
? No, it's true, {{28 Buddhas}}, there are many Buddhas. Many editors don't seem to realize this. "In Buddhism, Buddha (/ˈbuːdə, ˈbʊdə/; Pali, Sanskrit: बुद्ध), "awakened one",[1] is a title for those who are awake, and have attained nirvana and Buddhahood through their own efforts and insight," Randy Kryn (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan what is your opinion? Venkat TL (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
The Buddha is still primary ... none of these 27 other figures were called 'buddhas' until the Buddha turned up and people started writing religious literature in Pali. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to Buddha per WP:COMMONNAME. The subject is rarely referred by his previous name "Siddhartha Gautama" and Buddha is already a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article -- Ab207 (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there is nothing wrong with the current article title. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Skyerise (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Any move. The reasons provided by Iskander are compelling but for now statusquo needs to be maintained. AnM2002 (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    Might I ask why? This idea of 'maintaining the status quo' is popping up a lot, but no one has said why the status quo is beneficial versus the problems I've pointed out. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    It's not necessary to maintain the status quo, and that is policy, see wp:consensus can change. Andrewa (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Santideva's profound eighth-century meditation Bodhicaryavatara, the path of the Bodhisatva has the famous verse beloved of Mahayana Buddhists around the world, most notably the current Dalai Lama: I bow down to the bodies of those in whom the excellent jewel, the Mind, as arisen, and towards whom even harm will lead to happiness. To those mines of happiness, I go for refuge. It says those. The plural. The Mind that has arisen is Buddha, as distinct from the body in which it might have arisen, which is visible, and to which you might be bowing. "A Buddha," with the meaning, "any person in whom the Mind has arisen," is already a slight but popular abuse of the term. "The Buddha" is even more so, for the human to whom it is applied had profoundly desired to abnegate the self, perhaps more strongly than any before.
Now to the name. In a hotel room in Tokyo once, I spotted two books placed on the nightstand: Gideon's Bible and Life of Buddha. When I opened the Life, its first words were, "Sakyamuni Siddhatta Gotama was born in ..." I noted the Pali language spelling of the names, for that was the language, the popular spoken language of the day in which the first Buddhist canon was written—as opposed to the "finished," "polished," language Sanskrit. (sakyamuni = sage of the Sakyas; Siddhatta = given name; Gotama = clan name) The names "Gautama Buddha," or "Siddhartha Gautama," the Sanskritized versions, have come to be used all over South Asia, especially in India, especially as a part of the Hindu and Hindi regeneration movement of the late 19th-century. So, in concluding, where does this leave us? There are many names by which this human is called around the world. There is a Wikipedia precedent for the current spelling, which is also the Indian precedent. There is also the Buddhist precedent "Siddhatta Gotama" of the Pali canon. The canon is the reason that the Buddha is referred ot as South Asia's first historical figure. Precedents, especially longstanding ones, are important and should not be tampered with lightly. The page name should either remain "Gautama Buddha" or be changed to "Siddhatta Gotama," in that transliteration of the Pali, but not the Sanskrit "Siddhartha Gautama," for you can kowtow to nationalism once, but not twice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
PS It means, obviously, I also Strongly oppose "Buddha" or "The Buddha." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
That 'Life of Buddha' is the go-to book title for biographies of the man rather emphasizes the WP:PRIMARY nature of 'Buddha' as a name, doesn't it? And while the history of Buddhism's initial scribing in Pali and later translation into Sanskrit is interesting, it has little bearing on which is the more common transliteration in English. There is no contest between the two in literary usage. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
If you are going to go with n-grams then Gautama Buddha should remain. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Nope, as the Ngram I provided at the very start of all this shows, it should be "The Buddha". In any case I provided several reasons why "Gautama Buddha" is problematic. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Buddha. Clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    Said in a meaningless Haiku. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    What's meaingless about saying it's the common name? It very obviously is. Common name for him and he's the overwhelmingly primary topic for that name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    (Also not a haiku.) Iskandar323 (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    The same applies to you Iskandar, to walk off the street and waste everyone's time with tired simplicities. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    An encyclopedia is meant to be simple. It's a utilitarian reference tool. One of the big lessons I have learnt on Wikipedia over the past year is to be straight talking and not engage in pseudo-intellectual prattle, as that is the ultimate waste of everyone's time. And a segue from a simple discussion into historic Pali/Sanskrit linguistic injustices is pretty prime prattle. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    It is disrespect to tradition both Buddhist and WP's (Freud, Shakespeare, Einstein are all clear and common, but we don't change the page names). It's both insouciance and gall for someone who has given no evidence thus far of contributing to any Buddhism related pages to assume their random musing constitutes anything meaningful to the question of the name of a important historical figure who has remained in Wikipedia in a certain name for upward of 16 years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Your point about Freud, Shakespeare, Einstein, and I'll add Christ, should be taken into account. A 16-year stable name should have an overwhelming consensus to change and this RM doesn't come close to that. Someone should also alert participants of the recent snow-closed RM, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
As I have pointed out, when this article was created under the name "Gautama Buddha", there was not a single reference and not even a single of the external links in the initial years of its inception justified the usage of "Gautama Buddha" as the common name. I also call bullshit on the "Christ" example: Jesus is clearly the common name. But also, as I covered in my opening comment, the standards for religious figures are different, i.e.: Wikipedia avoids titles: Muhammad, not Prophet Muhammad; Moses, not Prophet Moses; Jesus, not Jesus Christ; Paul the Apostle, not Saint Paul. Unless the plan is to indulge some sort of Eastern religion exceptionalism for unbeknownst reasons, I don't see a particular good reason to just throw all the usual NPOV rules out of the window. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Actually, it's the result someone arriving on this page, knowing enough about world history in general to be incredulous that anybody thinks "Gautama Buddha" is genuinely the common name for Siddhartha Gautama, a.k.a. The Buddha, when what it clearly is is some sort of deferential title intrinsic to Buddhism but not common to the outside world. Muhammad, not Prophet Muhammad, is a disrespect to Muslims. Wikipedia does not operate on respect and deference, but reliable definitions and linguistic commonality. Due East, Wikipedia has clearly lost the plot. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, really, such knowledge of such depth to have no thought to first broach the topic on the talk page? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
There was a move discussion in September, so the subject is already well broached. That's the high knowledge I get from actually reading the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: You clearly think that only those with in-depth knowledge of Buddhism should be allowed to comment on what is or is not the WP:COMMONNAME. You are just as clearly wrong. In fact, those without in-depth knowledge of the subject are probably best qualified to comment on the common name, as their opinions are not coloured by such considerations as "disrespect to tradition", which is irrelevant to Wikipedia. I claim no great knowledge of Buddhism, but I do know who I (along with most of the world) think of when I hear or read the word Buddha and who the common usage of that word refers to. So I suggest you dial back on the condescension. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Condescension is in the eyes of the beholder. To my sight and comprehension yours was by using ellipses beyond the tolerance of natural language. Yours is not now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree. Well put. Andrewa (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Rublov: Good friend, for Jesus' sake forbear, to dig the dust enclosed here, have you made the ngrams argument at William Shakespeare? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    Disingenuous. A surname alone would obviously have more search hits regardless of the individual. However, as multiple editors have pointed out, the Ngram for "The Buddha" can be run with the "The" left in place as part of the search equation to reduce such amibiguity, and it still yields an incredibly dominant result, even if to a lesser extent than "Buddha" without disambiguation. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    As others have mentioned, the comparison is not valid because "William Shakespeare" is covered by the WP:NCBIO convention of "first name, last name", while "Gautama Buddha" is not because "Gautama" is not the Buddha's first name. See also WP:MONONYM: Sometimes, mostly for names from antiquity, a single word is traditional and sufficient to identify a person unambiguously. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Also willing to support The Buddha per later arguments. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 12:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Interesting proposal, with compelling arguments. Yet, he's hardly known as "Siddhartha Gautama" (nor as "Gautama Buddha"), but simply as "the Buddha." Note that the article starts with the legendary "biographical account" of the Buddha; the only two historicals fact about Siddharta Gautama we may be certain of is that he was an ascetic, who became known (quite a while after his death) as 'the Buddha'. So, while the arguments are good, I think that the personal name is not the WP:COMMONNAME. Nor is "Buddha" a good title; the Buddha was one of a number of Buddhas. "The Buddha" might be the best name. Otherwise, I'd stick to the present name. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
NB: the present title is "Gautama Buddha", not "Gautama (the) Buddha" - "Buddha" is not used as a title for "Gautama," but Gautama is used to distinguish this specific Buddha from other Buddhas. And regarding "the Buddha": compare Adi Shankara, "first Shankara": "Adi" is used to distiguish "the" Shankara from other Shankaras. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: Isn't that just syntax? ... like the difference between saying 'Saint Paul' or 'Paul the Saint' - Buddha can either be used as a name for Siddhartha Gautama as the eponymous 'Buddha' or it can be used in eschatologically, as in 'Gautama Buddha', as a religious honorific, and if the latter, it should fall under the purview of the broader Wikipedia guidelines on honorifics. Saint Paul is 'Paul the Apostle' because of MOS:SAINT and more broadly the guidelines on avoiding POV religious honorifics. I think perhaps a more detailed style guideline for Buddhism needs hashing out at WP:NCINDIC. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. Siddharta Gautama's Buddhahood is an integral part of this article. It's not just about his life as a human called Siddharta Gautama, it's about his life as a Buddha as well. Buddha should remain as a redirect to this article, because he is by far the best known Buddha. There must be many people who don't even know other Buddhas eixst. JIP | Talk 19:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    @JIP: Do you in principle oppose the move to Buddha or The Buddha that some have suggested based on WP:COMMONNAME and this page being WP:PRIMARY? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    It's only a weak oppose. As I see it, the primarily understood meaning of "Buddha" is clearly Gautama Buddha as an enlightened one. This is what most people searching for "Buddha" are looking for. However, this article should still remain at Gautama Buddha to show the Buddha's full name and make it clear that there are other Buddhas. If the article were to be moved, I would very much prefer Buddha over The Buddha. JIP | Talk 19:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support move to Buddha as ngrams is crystal clear: Siddartha Gautama vs Gautama Buddha vs "the Buddha". Using "the Buddha" ensures it is specific, given the commenters who have mentioned others achieving Buddhahood, and unlike the ngrams in the original nomination post, this is case insensitive. Also note that Buddha already redirects here, and as discussed at talk:Buddha (disambiguation)#Requested move 2 September 2021 there is clear consensus that this is the primary topic for the term. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per JoshuaJonathan's well argued reasoning above. Siddartha Gautama definitely does not satisfy the "recognizable" part of our common name policy. The Buddha might work but we generally don't like titles with a "The" unless there is no other option and, apparently, we are at a perfectly good option. The move OPs reasoning is also imperfect. All of Muhammad, Paul, and Jesus are recognizable and included in the longer (Prophet Muhammad, Apostle Paul, Jesus Christ), common name. Siddartha Gautama is neither recognizable nor is it included in the the common name. The "Abrahamic" vs "Eastern" faiths argument is, thus, a mere strawman.--RegentsPark (comment) 22:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    Adding that I support a move to Buddha per WP:Common name (Britannica, for e.g., uses Buddha) and since that, apparently, has been a long standing redirect to this article. With, of course, an appropriate hatnote. The Buddha, imo, is an odd way to deal with this but, admittedly, I can't think of a policy reason that explains that away.--RegentsPark (comment) 13:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose any move. The current title is a reasonable compromise between those who prefer the proposal and those who prefer Buddha. I can see decent arguments for and against both. Srnec (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose move Siddhartha Gautama is not the WP:COMMONNAME. I also dont think Buddha alone would be specific enough as there is the issue of Buddhahood and the fact that there are multiple Buddhas, Amitabha Buddha, Kassapa Buddha, etc. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    You don't think there is a case for this article being the primary topic of Buddha? I don't like primary topic on principle, but this seems as clear cut a case for it as I have ever seen. And that is what the existing redirect suggests too. Andrewa (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    I do think that Buddha or The Buddha is better than Siddhartha Gautama, as it is more common. Siddhartha Gautama is like calling Pope Francis Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Buddha or The Buddha is certainly better than Siddhartha Gautama. However, I think Buddha alone is still problematic because it has the issue of not being WP:PRECISE due to the issue of Buddha being a title and there being multiple Buddhas. Its why the page on Jesus isn't named Christ (title). And even then there is a stronger case to name Jesus simply Christ because it is synonymous with Jesus Christ. Buddha is not synonymous with Gautama Buddha, even though he is often called simply Buddha because there are multiple people (albeit legendary figures) who hold the title. Such as Vipassī Buddha, Sikhī Buddha, Sumedha Buddha, as well as other figures found in northern Buddhism like Adi-Buddha etc. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    Now that I think of it, and looking at the rule posted by Ham II below. I do think that The Buddha is reasonable, as it is precise enough to differentiate the subject from other Buddhas, but I still oppose Siddhartha Gautama and Buddha alone for the above reasons. My vote is either keep the current title or move to The Buddha. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose this move per above. Ok with move to Buddha per WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose this move, but as with so many others above, I can see no reason that the page name should not be simply Buddha. The article itself currently says he is popularly known as the Buddha, and there seems no doubt that he is the primary topic of this more concise name. There is a long history of moves, unintended disruption, and page protections surrounding this naming issue. So maybe it's not worth revisiting... but then the NYRM fiasco lasted eleven years and I think it was worth it in the end. Andrewa (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    So Support Buddha undisambiguated as the article title. Just to make that clear and explicit. Andrewa (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to Siddhartha Gautama which is no where in the territory of recognizable names. No opinion on others at the moment — DaxServer (t · m · c) 07:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Amend: Oppose any move - (extended from above) While Ngrams portray a [possibly] undisputed statistics for The Buddha and/or Buddha; [after reading thru comment from AMorozov below,] Buddha is [more or less] a disambiguated title in East Asia [even if English not being their first language] and doesn't to refer to this subject. Ignoring such a large portion of readers would be a disservice to them. Ignoring the rest of the world [where (The) Buddha could be understood as this subject] could also be a disservice, but the redirect Buddha directs here, thus [hopefully] alleviating the concerns. Someone (not sure who) made a case to use Gotama, but the anglicised version is Gautama. A strong case is being made for WP:THE; however the current title Gautama Buddha seems to be the most WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Both suggestions per Wikiman. Throughout 2000s, the term "Buddha" largely reminded of Laughing Buddha. Agletarang (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    That is per Wikiman5676 above? So you think it's not the primary topic? And that for a significant number of others, Buddha still means Budai? I think you were always in a minority if that's what it meant to you. Interested in other views on that. Andrewa (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to Buddha or The Buddha per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. It already redirects here as the primary redirect and it's clearly the most common name for this subject in English. We Indians call him Buddha or Gautam Buddha, not Siddhartha Gautam. I think, the name of the article must be Buddha or The Buddha. Sidchandra78 (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, following arguments by those who actually know enough about Buddhism to recognise that Buddha is not an option (there are many Buddhas - and in many traditions there are many Buddhas right now), likewise The Buddha is confusing; Sakyamuni Buddha and Gautama Buddha are synonyms, and both are served by this article. I pretty much agree with User:Fowler and User:Joshua Jonathan among others. (20040302 (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC))
    I think this is indeed the key to much if not all of the opposition above to the simple title Buddha. Many of those with a keen interest in the topic see that article title as seriously ambiguous. But we are a general encyclopedia, and our article titles are chosen for the general readership. And in terms of this general readership, the unqualified name Buddha has a clear meaning and needs no disambiguation, and so in terms of our policies and practices it is the primary topic of that name. There may also be religious reasons for wanting another title, but they don't count here either. Andrewa (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
It is because we are an encyclopedia that many editors are pointing out the inaccuracy that would be caused by changing the article's name and explaining why the stable name is fine. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this is a common misconception regarding article names. Those editors concerned about this inaccuracy might read my essay at wp:correct, which attempts to explain the policy. So far as the stability argument is concerned, I have already referred to wp:ccc. Andrewa (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
It's a mischaracterization to say that keen interest is necessary to see ambiguity here. We usually avoid naming one thing after a general category it belongs to when that makes the title more imprecise. Of course different readers have different backgrounds, but surely there is also a large general readership in South Asia for the English Wikipedia that would be familiar enough with this topic to see the issue. In my case, I have only a passing knowledge of Buddhism and know more about Japan, but I know that in Japan the Great Buddha of Kamakura depicts "Amida", the Great Buddha of Nara is "Dainichi Nyorai", and Hōryū-ji, the oldest wooden building in the world, was dedicated to "Yakushi Nyorai". I had to look those figures up to see that they are on the English Wikipedia as Amitābha, Vairocana, and Bhaisajyaguru), but I definitely knew the first two were statues of Buddhas, and I knew they weren't statues of this Buddha. Dekimasuよ! 20:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
So, are you saying that this large general readership in South Asia for the English Wikipedia (and I think elsewhere) who don't find Buddha and The Buddha acceptable names for the article on this individual should somehow outvote the larger readership who do? Andrewa (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I am stating that I do not agree with your characterization of the general readership in this case, in which you claimed that "in terms of this general readership, the unqualified name Buddha has a clear meaning and needs no disambiguation." I believe it's possible that you made this assumption about the general readership partly because the "general readers" you are envisioning are outside of areas where Buddhism is common, whereas readers from such areas actually make up a significant proportion of the total readership. Dekimasuよ! 13:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I think that you are making a valid and important point but reject your speculation on my assumptions. Andrewa (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@Andrewa: Have you made this argument at Freud, Planck, Einstein, Faraday, Schrodinger, Churchill, Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George, Shakespeare, Keats, Byron, Tennyson, Dickens, Thackeray, Woolf, Gaudi, Picasso, Beethoven, Bach, Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Gogol, Lenin, Kruschev or Putin? Because if you haven't it might look like a case of all Buddhas look alike unless they live in the Western world. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: This is the oddest analogy. "Buddha" is not a surname, so there really is very little parallel with any of the suggestions here. If we were to contrive a parallel here, it might be to suggest we use "Gautama" alone, because that is the Buddha's family name - that would be closest equivalent to your rather tenuous line of reasoning. In contrast, the surname-role/title 'Gautama Buddha' is more like the equivalent of saying 'Minister Churchill' or 'Composer Beethoven'. 'Gautama Buddha' is also being masqueraded as a common name when it is nothing of the sort and never has been. ~ Iskandar323 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The average person does not know that, just as they don't know that Mahatma is not Gandhi's first name. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
There are others. Your own namesake of parinirvana 323 BC, Alfred the Great, Constantine the Great, Herod the Great, Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Cyrus the Great, Darius the Great, Abbas the Great, soar on unconquerable, but east of the Indus and Oxus, Ashoka, Akbar, Kanishka, Attila, and Timur have had their wings clipped. Have you made any downsizing drive-by page moves in the first group? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
This is ridiculous whataboutism, and another weak analogy. For one, 'the Great' is not a role-style title but an epithet. Also, for many of these it is clearly needed for disambiguation. 'Alexander the Great' is not clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for 'Alexander'. Names like Ashoka and Attila have the benefit of being instantly recognizable in relation to their primary topic. These articles haven't 'had their wings clipped'; they just have no issues with recognizability/naturalness. But please go ahead and argue for the restoration of 'Akbar the Great' and 'Attila the Hun' - have at it! Iskandar323 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
No I haven't. But I think that's an invalid argument. If you think that Sigmund Freud should be at Freud, feel free to propose that. Andrewa (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The Buddha is far from the only historical figure with a non-unique name; see George Washington (name), Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation), Winston Churchill (disambiguation), etc. But we don't have George Washington (president) or Winston Churchill (prime minister) just because some other still-notable but far less well-known person happens to share their name. Our policies dictate that in the case of an ambiguous name, the primary topic, if there is one, gets the un-disambiguated name. With regard to the Seven Buddhas, it isn't even close. There is nothing novel or controversial about the argumentation here; this is about as orthodox an application of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (not to mention WP:CONCISE) as I've ever seen for a discussion with so many opposes. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 22:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    "Our" policies? WP is just a bunch of amateurs winging it. The opposers probably think scholarly knowledge trumps policy at least by 8,820 to 2,100, which by the rules of ratio and proportion is at least four to one. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    Click on "Tools" for the numbers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    I don't know what that ratio is meant to prove as I was not arguing for Siddhartha Gautama over Gautama Buddha, but if you had clicked to the last page of results (as you must do to get accurate counts from Google) you would have found that the real ratio was 258 to 269. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 12:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    Not really. It just means that books that use "Gautama Buddha" were published in many editions over many years, which Google counts as one, disregarding the sign of continuing scholarly acceptance. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    It's because the initial results count is an estimate. See Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Google_distinct_page_count_issues. It has nothing to do with different editions. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 13:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    I've seen that, of course, but the estimate is higher because of that. The total citation index (indicating long continued use by scholars) is higher even if the number of books is a wee bit smaller. Multiple editions are included in the estimates, but not in the lists. A book published in ten editions over 40 years with citation index 800 will be counted as 1 in the displayed list. It just means that "Siddhartha Gautama" appears in more books but not in books that are widely read and cited. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    "Our" policies? WP is just a bunch of amateurs winging it. True. But our policies also represent a great deal of work by these amateurs to achieve consensus on them. And it is consensus, not policies, that is foundational. If you think our policies are wrong in this instance, then see wp:creed#rules and wp:IAR. Because the closer will consider valid references to policies as good arguments, even if you do not. Andrewa (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: In the context of Buddhism it is important to distinguish between the many Buddhas, even if Gautama is the most historically important. In East Asia, "Buddha" often refers to Amitabha Buddha in everyday speech, not Gautama. Gautama Buddha is usually not called Buddha, but Sakyamuni, to prevent confusion. This is how it's understood by the average person on the street, it is not a pedantic distinction only made by Buddhists or academics.
Granted, there is a case to be made for WP:COMMONAME, and non-Buddhist readers may not know or appreciate the difference. Even so, the distinction is well understood by a large part of the world: Japan, China, Korea, Vietnam, Nepal, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Mongolia if not South Asia and maritime Southeast Asia as well. To readers from those cultures, "Buddha" alone can feel like an oversimplification, especially on a website meant to inform, and the lack of a qualifier may prompt the question: "Which Buddha"? - AMorozov 〈talk〉 00:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@AMorozov: What is your position on the move to Siddartha Gautama? This is the original move request, which seems to have been overshadowed by some proposals to move to Buddha. Natg 19 (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I oppose the move to Siddhartha Gautama on common name grounds. He is rarely called by his birth name except in biographies. Sorry for going off-track. - AMorozov 〈talk〉 01:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
It is well to remember that the Sanskritized "Siddhartha Gautama," in contrast to the Pali "Siddhatta Gotama," was an affectation and rediscovery of late-19th century Indian nationalism, not a name found in living faith, liturgy or ritual, which had long disappeared from India by then. When in the 1860s the British began to rebuild the gutted Mahabodhi temple, originally built near the tree under which the Buddha found enlightenment, in Bodhgaya, Bihar, India, they received little help in India. Help came from Sri Lanka, where the Pali canon had been faithfully preserved, and from where a sapling from a descendant of the original tree was imported and Burma where the design of the original temple was found in a replica temple in Bagan. In India, there disinterest and even ignorance. Votive models of the temple, made for pilgrims of a millennium before, which after years of neglect and erosion, lay buried in the surrounding Bihar countryside, were occasionally found by peasants, confused for Shiva lingams and requisitioned for service in the home shrines. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@AMorozov What about The Buddha? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
And that jibes with the Sakyamuni of my Tokyo hotel nightstand. See my first post above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to The Buddha per WP:COMMONNAME; oppose Buddha per WP:PRECISE. WP:THE supports using the definite article to differentiate the Buddha from other Buddhas: "If a term with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same term without the article, the term with the article can be used as the name of a Wikipedia article about that meaning". Ham II (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Will ping The Wikipedian. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Support either The Buddha or Buddha. Either is better than the current name, and the argument that WP:THE allows use of the article here is valid. So no change of !vote regarding Buddha and still oppose Siddhartha Gautama as originally proposed here. Andrewa (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
And I will be requesting the closer so inclined to close to also change Gladstone and Disraeli to The Gladstone and The Disraeli.
The Churchill is already occupied, The Winston already run, The Bulldog already smoky, so perhaps Churchill could be moved to The Winnie.
There is no reason that the Anglosphere should have special immunity against being trivialized. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Are the existing article titles Physical characteristics of the Buddha, Relic of the tooth of the Buddha and Maya (mother of the Buddha) trivializations? Ham II (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps this is an attempt at humour. But it shows no understanding of the issues IMO. Andrewa (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
It is deadly serious. A consensus among males of the Anglosphere with backgrounds in the information technology fields, which is what WPs widely and repeatedly cited demographic is, the 16 years that I've been watching it, should be allowed to ride roughshod over any nuances that lie outside their narrow, blinkered, fields of view. There is a NY Times article just waiting to be written again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
So having failed to persuade with verbosity, your chosen tactic is to malign those that don't agree with you with puerile aspersions. A clear voice of reason! Iskandar323 (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
This is indeed a systematic bias of Wikipedia, and a potential problem. But I think that most Wikipedians, and particularly administrators, take it into account and allow for it in casting !votes and in closing discussions. I certainly try to, and think that most editors succeed. As to whether I myself succeed, that's a good question, and one that any disinterested party is welcome to answer on my user talk page. Similarly, I am taking an issue you raise up on your user talk page. Andrewa (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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

@BusterD: People are using various "searches" to measure the frequency of reference to what they think are the names of the "historical buddha". The historical buddha, the one that lived in the 6th century BCE, is whom this page is about. They cite COMMONNAME to arrive at "buddha," but if you examine, for example, The Princeton Encyclopedia on Buddhism, Princeton, 2014, 1,200 pages, its entry (paper encyclopedia version of our "article") on "buddha" begins: buddha. ... In Sanskrit and Pāli, “awakened one” or “enlightened one”; ... The term was used in ancient India by a number of different religious groups, but came to be most strongly associated with followers of the teacher GAUTAMA, the “Sage of the ŚĀKYA Clan” (ŚĀKYAMUNI), who claimed to be only the most recent of a succession of buddhas who had appeared in the world over many eons of time (KALPA). In addition to Śākyamuni, there are many other buddhas named in Buddhist literature, from various lists of buddhas of the past, present, and future, to “buddhas of the ten directions” ... So, this one paragraph alone will contribute "buddha" half a dozen times to the search, but none are to the historical buddha; the encyclopedia's page buddha is essentially a dab page. The historical buddha, it turns out, is SAKYAMUNI Buddha or GAUTAMA Buddah in the encyclopedia, the latter begin with:In Pāli literature, he is more commonly referred to as Gotama Buddha; in Mahāyāna texts, Śākyamuni Buddha is more common (Blockletters mean another entry in the paper encyclopedia)
So WP:COMMONNAME does not apply here as he is referred to by many names each of which has meanings other than names (and those are also notable). In my best estimation, you can call this page: "Historical Buddha," "Sakyamuni Buddha," or "Gautama Buddha," My first preference woud be "Historical Buddha" The probem here is that people appear, with no knowledge of Buddhism, only brandishing COMMONNAME like it could apply to anything and everything.
From the time this RM has begun, who do you think rewrote the abyssmal lead paragraph turning it into something readable? It was me. Yet it is the others, who appear, pronounce: support X name per Y editor per Z rule, but forget to add per W state (where usually W = ignorance) There is a drive-by editor who has the temerity to start an RM without the decency to have a discussion on it first. And this is a controversial topic with complex subject matter. I know, I wrote the history section of the FA India. Seriously what is going on here? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
All these are reasonable assertions. Thanks for sharing this expanded oppose assertion. A decent amount of discussion can improve everyone's understanding of opposing views and help everyone towards a consensus with firm purchase. More discussion does not necessarily clarify issues identified. When ANY wiki discussion bears into adjectives and adverbs describing users or user behavior, we've gone down the wrong thread. Make your point. Please. But I invite you NOT to be baited. BusterD (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I apologize. I was nodding off when I wrote the piece above. Have taken a nap, and thereafter made some minor corrections (mostly typos) but have also scratched out some intemperate remarks. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Status quo Buddha needs to be in the article title; after all it is "the Buddha" is his most recognizable popular name, however there are "other" Buddhas like Dipankara Buddhas, so would not suggest to move to Buddha article.--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to The Buddha, as best articulated by Ham II (and also reflecting on all of the above discussion), due to the WP:COMMONNAME (and WP:CONCISE) choice being a toss up between Buddha or The Buddha. Concerns over Buddha alone lacking precision with respect to the existence of other buddhas then lead one towards The Buddha, per WP:THE, which is exactly for this type of situation. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    Note to closer: Iskander323 is the nominator — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    Indeed. So this is a change of !vote on their part. Interesting. Andrewa (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    Hurrah for discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    Changing the name of this article to The Buddha would be a great improvement, being both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE, but it might require a new Move Request if anything close to a consensus is to be achieved. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    It would certainly not be an improvement. "the Buddha" is what you call him in the second or third sentence, once you have established which Buddha you are talking about. It would never be the title. Very similar to Mahatma Gandhi, who is often referred to as "the Mahatma," but never in the title of encylopedic entry (WP version of a page name). Gandhi himself alluded to it in "the woes of the Mahatmas are known only to the Mahatmas." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

    As noted above by RegentsPark, the Encyclopædia Britannica has its entry for the historical Buddha at "Buddha" (subtitled "founder of Buddhism"; there's an additional entry for "buddha", subtitle: "Buddhist title"). "Buddha" is also the title of biographical entries at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy the Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace, the Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, the Oxford Dictionary of World Mythology, the Berkshire Encyclopedia of World History, the Oxford Dictionary of Hinduism, Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable and the World Encyclopedia (listed here in descending order of their entries' size). The Buddha would be like these, but with WP:THE applied in addition to WP:COMMONNAME. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy actually does have "Buddha, the".

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

    From this sample of encyclopaedias "Buddha" is clearly prevalent in titles of entries on the person, and I've argued that "The Buddha" best fits Wikipedia policy on article titles. Ham II (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

    It might require a new move request but might not. If the closer assesses rough consensus here to move to an alternate name, then that is exactly what should happen, with no further discussion required. And it is often done. Andrewa (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    Indeed. The main aim of all talk pages is to work towards consensus. Andrewa (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • :::  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment user:Andrewa has asked me on my talk page if I really planned to carry out my threat to reqest a move of Gladstone (which redirects currently to William Ewart Gladstone to The Gladstone and the same for Disraeli? I can actually do better and more concisely. I can lump them in British people and ask for that page to be changed to The British. The redoubtable ngram would bear me out When done with that, I could request a change from Indian subcontinent to The subcontinent on this basis. Both are very similar to "The Buddha." They are terms used once the longish formal term ("British people," "Indian subcontinent," "Gautam Buddha = Gautama, the Awakened,") has been employed for disambiguation. I'm pretty sure I can make a longish list of such page names on WP. The point is we don't go around changing names to what strikes as the most common, or troop by pages that we have never visited making comments such as "clear common name," from which a WP policy has to be wheedled out. I very much do think this is a paradigmatic example of systemic bias. A closing admin will need to be very careful in how they judge, and I say that as someone with a great deal of knowledge about South Asia. In 2013, the British people page used to have "and archaically Britishers in the lead sentence." It has now gone. But in South Asia, "Britishers" is not archaic at all. It is used neutrally without malice. If in an RfC in some (perhaps future) scenario, South Asian editors were to troop by the page and support "Britishers" back in, how will a closing admin be judging? Fowler&fowler«Talk» At the site museum in Sarnath a number of years go, where the Buddha gave his first sermon and the Buddhist community began and where the statue that currently graces the infobox of this page resides, I was being shown around by the director. I was enthralled by his knowledge and he perhaps welcomed my attention. This went on wonderfully for a while. Then I began to get text mesanges on my phone from the people I had come with who wanted to go shopping. I began to get irritated. He must have noticed my irritation. "Let it go," he said, "That is what the Buddha would have done." And folding his hands and said goodbye. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    Neither of those examples are very good analogies (aside from not being simple terms for individuals, in one case a collective and in the other a geography). "the British" obviously mops up any mentions of "the British ... (insert anything)", people or otherwise, while in your subcontinent example, the Ngrams difference is in any case marginal, and alone could never serve to demonstrate anything. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    They are terms used once the longish formal term ... has been employed for disambiguation — This would be a good argument, if you can prove it. If you can show that a majority of English-language reliable sources use "Gautama Buddha" first, and that the apparent preponderance of "(the) Buddha" is only because of the large number of subsequent uses of the shorter term, then I will happily strike my vote. But I don't think you will be able to demonstrate that. Let's take a look at the 140-odd sources that this very article cites. Not a single one of them uses the term "Gautama Buddha" in the title. However, many of them do use "Buddha" or "the Buddha":
    • Anālayo, Bhikkhu (2006). "The Buddha and Omniscience". Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies. 7: 1–20.
    • ——— (2014). "The Buddha's Last Meditation in the Dirgha-Agama". The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies. 15.
    • Armstrong, Karen (2000), Buddha, Orion, ISBN 978-0-7538-1340-9
    • Asvaghosa (1883), The Fo-sho-hing-tsan-king, a life of Buddha, translated by Beal, Samuel, Oxford: Clarendon
    • Bareau, André (1963), Recherches sur la biographie du Buddha dans les Sutrapitaka et les Vinayapitaka anciens (in French), Ecole Francaise d'Extreme-Orient
    • Bechert, Heinz, ed. (1991–1997), The dating of the historical Buddha (Symposium), vol. 1–3, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
    • Bhikkhu, Mettanando; von Hinüber, Oskar (2000), "The Cause of the Buddha's Death" (PDF), Journal of the Pali Text Society, XXVI: 105–118, archived from the original (PDF) on 9 April 2015
    • Bodhi, Bhikkhu (2005), In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon, Simon and Schuster
    • Carrithers, M. (2001), The Buddha: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-02-865910-7
    • Dhammika, Shravasti (n.d.) [1990s]. The Buddha & his disciples. Singapore: Buddha Dhamma Mandala Society. ISBN 981-00-4525-5. OCLC 173196980.
    • ———. "Dating the Buddha: a red herring revealed". In Bechert (1992), pp. 237–259. Harvc error: no target: CITEREFBechert1992 (help).
    • ——— (2009), What the Buddha thought, Equinox
    • Hartmann, Jens Uwe. "Research on the date of the Buddha: South Asian Studies Published in Western Languages". In Bechert (1991), pp. 27–45. Harvc error: no target: CITEREFBechert1991 (help)
    • Mahāpātra, Cakradhara (1977), The real birth place of Buddha, Grantha Mandir
    • Mohāpātra, Gopinath (2000), "Two Birth Plates of Buddha" (PDF), Indologica Taurinensia, 26: 113–119, archived from the original (PDF) on 4 October 2012
    • Ñāṇamoli Bhikkhu (1992), The Life of the Buddha: According to the Pali Canon, Buddhist Publication Society
    • Penner, Hans H. (2009), Rediscovering the Buddha: The Legends and Their Interpretations, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-538582-3
    • Prebish, Charles S. (2008), "Cooking the Buddhist Books: The Implications of the New Dating of the Buddha for the History of Early Indian Buddhism" (PDF), Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 15: 1–21, ISSN 1076-9005, archived from the original (PDF) on 28 January 2012
    • Ruegg, Seyford (1999), "A new publication on the date and historiography of Buddha's decease (nirvana): a review article", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 62 (1): 82–87, doi:10.1017/s0041977x00017572
    • Shults, Brett (2014), "On the Buddha's Use of Some Brahmanical Motifs in Pali Texts", Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, 6: 106–140
    • Strong, J.S. (2001), The Buddha: A Beginner's Guide, Oneworld Publications, ISBN 978-1-78074-054-6
    • ——— (2007), Relics of the Buddha, Motilal Banarsidass
    • Swearer, Donald (2004), Becoming the Buddha, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
    • Tripathy, Ajit Kumar (Jan 2014), "The Real Birth Place of Buddha. Yesterday's Kapilavastu, Today's Kapileswar" (PDF), The Orissa Historical Research Journal, 47 (1), Orissa State museum, archived from the original (PDF) on 18 March 2012
    • Waley, Arthur (July 1932), "Did Buddha die of eating pork?: with a note on Buddha's image", Melanges Chinois et Bouddhiques, 1931–32, NTU: 343–354, archived from the original on 3 June 2011
    • Walshe, Maurice (1995), The Long Discourses of the Buddha. A Translation of the Digha Nikaya, Boston: Wisdom Publications
    • Weise, Kai (2013), The Sacred Garden of Lumbini – Perceptions of Buddha's Birthplace (PDF), Paris: UNESCO, ISBN 978-92-3-001208-3, archived from the original (PDF) on 30 August 2014
    • Willemen, Charles, transl. (2009), Buddhacarita: In Praise of Buddha's Acts (PDF), Berkeley, CA: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, ISBN 978-1-886439-42-9, archived from the original (PDF) on 27 August 2014{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    A handful use other terms, mostly "the historical Buddha" or some form of "Sakyamuni":
    But not one uses "Gautama Buddha". Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 21:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for your efforts compiling this added damning indictment of the current title. Yes, 'Gautama Buddha' has never had a good WP:COMMONNAME case, hence why so many of the points being made here FOR it rest on justifications such as 'it's the status quo' (ignoring WP:CCC), 'it's a good compromise' (not a policy), and 'people will get confused with other buddhas' (doubtful). Iskandar323 (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    There is much wisdom in this. But there is also wisdom in obeying the laws of the land where that does not compromise some higher good. And the rules here include discussing such issues on user talk pages rather than on article talk pages such as this one. And there are good reasons for this. Andrewa (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose any move. The term Buddha is used to refer to one who has attained the final insigths, so I oppose moving to Buddha too. Akshaypatill (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to Buddha per WP:COMMONNAME. It's what the overwhelming majority of readers will be looking for; and that's what matters. "The" is very rarely a distinguishing qualifier; I can only think of a couple of examples (The Guess Who, The The and The Who); and it often gets wrongly added or omitted (The Buzzcocks, The Pixies, Beatles, Rolling Stones; all mistakes). We should not use it as an honorific (e.g. The Bible and The Quran both redirect to single-word titles).
Yes, Buddha is a title; but so is Christ; there have been many of both, but both are clear primary topics. (A Christ is someone who has been anointed with chrism, holy oil; so that technically Queen Elisabeth II is a Christ, though only scholars and pedants know that, or care.) Narky Blert (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Buddha is not just a title, but a title applied to different individuals, human and celestial, such as Gautama, Sakyamuni, Amitābha and quite a few in the Buddhahood#Lists_of_Buddhas; they matter to the people of Tibet, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Korea, Mongolia, China, Hong Kong, Japan, and Nepal who for various reasons do not constitute the English WPs major demographic of sourcing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Why would you list Gautama and Sakyamuni separately? Those are both 'The Buddha'. And still, none of this combats the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument. All of these details can be readily disambiguated via the usual means. Amitābha, a mythological creation coming half a millenia or so after the life of the Buddha, is hardly a rival in terms of the primacy of the Buddha's title. All of these buddha-esque deities can only be dubbed 'buddha' because 'The Buddha' eponymously set the terminology. Despite having a multiplicity of buddhas, Mahayana Buddhism still defers to the primacy of 'The Buddha'. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
It's irrelevant that there's many other Buddha's, obviously Gautama is PRIMARY - the redirect for Buddha already points here. The other Buddha's would be found at the DAB page, same as right now. Your arguments don't refute that Gautama is primary in English, which is all that needs to be proven for a page move.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Good point that only scholars and pedants know that, or care. You left out the purist. The difference is, the pedant is sometimes right, they just express it badly. The purist has a different mental process, and is almost always wrong. See User:Andrewa/purism. Andrewa (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to Buddha per WP:COMMONNAME. Almost no one knows about the current name, and not many people know about Siddhartha Gautama. However, Buddha is extremely recognizable, and is the name nearly everyone uses. --interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 22:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to Buddha. Almost everyone knows about Buddha, as Interstatefive and others have said. Векочел (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. Among the first things one needs to learn about the Buddha are that (1) Buddha is not a name and (2) he wasn't the only Buddha. The current title is an aid to the reader in this regard and no different from preferring full names in other cases. In fact, this title is a perfect parallel of Mahatma Gandhi. Both combine a family name with an honorific in a PRIMARYREDIRECT situation. Srnec (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Srnec: Where the parallel breaks down here is in the key difference that Gautama Buddha has never been an English language WP:COMMONNAME. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    Per what you link, "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" – Aza24 (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    Inaccurate or ambiguous ... hmm ... are you saying that you don't know who the Buddha is? I don't think there a single one of the individuals spouting arguments about the confusion caused between "The Buddha" and the numerous and various eschatological buddhas of Buddhist myth actually struggle to understand who "The Buddha" refers to. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    I'm saying that referring to Siddhartha Gautama as the "Buddha" is a pop-culture Westernization and simplification of a term that has many meanings—and a word with "multiple meanings" is "ambiguous". The current situation is a live-able compromise, but of course, the opinions of Wikipedians with no background in Buddhism are unduly weighted. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
    What do you make of the fact that numerous scholars of Buddhism cited in this article happily use what you describe as a "pop-culture Westernization"? A fairer summary is that the opinions of Wikipedians who claim a background in Buddhism but are unfamiliar with the actual conventions of English-language Buddhist scholarship are being unduly weighted here. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 23:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
    I make of it that the situation is complex and multifaceted, but too many users here (particularly the group my earlier comment refers to) will just link to WP:COMMONNAME and act like they've done their duty. This has been debated over and over again so it is clearly not as simple as straight forward as some would like to make it. The terms "Buddha" and such already link to this page, so there is no navigation issue—I don't know how this conversation was even allowed to happen, there should have been a preliminary discussion over whether the question should be opened again. Aza24 (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Aza24: As @Rublov has noted, academic works that use "Gautama Buddha" are few and far between. In fact, why not produce the best source you think supports it? "Gautama Buddha" is essentially intrinsic Buddhist pop-culture - as in the way his name is popularly styled among some, but far from all adherents of Buddhism. In that sense, it is also has neutrality issues. What about all the Buddhists that refer to him as "Shakyamuni Buddha" - this is not a fringe position, but Wikipedia is currently preferring "Gautama Buddha" based on little to no basis in high-quality sources. As for the argument about it being ambiguous, let me ask, as an anaology: does anyone get confused in the US about the difference between "The President" and all the minor presidents of corporations? No. Because ... context. And when anyone says "The President" in isolation, they know it means the big cheese. Also, its either Joe Biden, or "The President" ... no one goes around saying "Biden President", because that's simply not English syntax. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
    Syntax is different from collocation, my dear dancing Wu Li master of Buddhism and English syntax. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Buddha/Archive_13&oldid=1117186459"