Talk:The Buddha

Requested move 31 March 2023

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• Strong oppose - I'm not sure what the rationale for the RM is. The RM proposal does not say why the current title is problematic, nor why the proposed title should be used, nor is any evidence provided to show why the article should be renamed. Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it is cited, yet the RM is an attempt to fix something that isn't broken. As was made clear in the previous RM that changed the title to its current one, English-language sources do not support "Gautama Buddha" as the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject, and this subject is the overwhelming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this title. Apples-to-oranges comparisons to articles like Dwayne Johnson (who perhaps was as one point more commonly known by The Rock but his career as an actor has overshadowed that) are not a sufficient rationale to try to overturn a recent move simply because the proposer "fail[s] to understand". Consensus can certainly change, but we just had this discussion and it's only been a few months. The nom brings forward no novel argument that would warrant reopening this topic so soon. - Aoidh (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Every other Buddha's in this portal has similar naming structure, so I don't see how this needs further reasoning how or why English-language sources do not support this. Eg- Kassapa Buddha, Sumedha Buddha, etc.

  Also, this is relating to a cultural and religion topic, why you are looking for English-Language sources only, is quite ignorant and probably very offensive to people who are not primarily English speakers, hence why, I have read many people citing other Wikipedia language pages for Gautama Buddha as the preferred naming structure.

  I compared with a wrestler and fictional superhero as that's what this naming structure has brought Siddhartha Gautama down to. You are treating him like fictional character, a superhero or a person trying to go by the stage name for a profession. He is a person yet his article is referring to him by the title that was most associated to him. Let's not forget this article is related to Siddhartha Gautama. Please give example's where title has only been used to refer to a person.

  A few examples for my reasoning.

  1) Mahatma Gandhi - Mahatma is a title not a name yet the title is mostly if not only used for Mohandas Gandhi.

  2) Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother - First of all, Queen Elizabeth is the most popular queen at this age and according to the logic of why The Buddha should be used, perhaps Elizabeth II should have her page renamed to The Queen. Anyway, to avoid confusion with Elizabeth II, Queen Elizabeth is most popularly known as The Queen Mother and her page reflects that. But somehow, here we are trying to create confusion than trying to educate people and remove confusion.

  3) Mansa Musa - Same reasoning as above.

  4) Jesus - No one could say, if Christ is more popularly known or Jesus. And, while Christ is a title that is only used to refer to one person, it is not the name for the page. In fact, the title has a separate page - Christ (title).

  It is quite ignorant and blasphemous to make light of the subject. People need to know about the person in this article not the title. According to me, this naming structure is encouraging a mindset that this is a fictional or mythical person. I could then understand why some people would be against the idea for change to create confusion and spread misinformation or rather the lack of proper information. The core principle of Buddhism is that every person can and probably someday will achieve the state of Buddha, so referring to Siddhartha Gautama as The Buddha is quite against the idea of what Buddhism is about or what he taught. Which from a religion standpoint I presume is very offensive to non-English speakers, some might see this as a win but I consider this as a disrespect to the person behind the title and mystifying title itself. CaseNotClosedYet (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: What Aoidh said. Overall, a somewhat baffling RM. The message seems to be "Siddhartha Gautama" would be best, which is consistent with the Dwayne Johnson material further up, but failing that, since it was already tried last year, a default back to the previous poorly supported page title would suffice ... hang on, what? Setting aside the general comparisons with fictional super heroes and pro-wrestlers, umm, sourcing? "Gautama Buddha" went the way of the dodos because it was a total flunk of a common name. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Kindly refer to the above comment for any confusion you have. Also, Gautama Buddha is quite a common name in non-English speaking communities or people who actually follow Buddhism. It gives respect to both the person and also his status as a Buddha. Hence, the case with Mahatma Gandhi. CaseNotClosedYet (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: per the above, and previous discussions. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose move and snowclose. This request is nonsensical. O.N.R. ^(talk) 18:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and WP:SNOWCLOSE per other editors comments. – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 19:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral. It's not inherently wrong or bad, but it makes infinitely more sense to me to have this page at BuddhaBuddha, following Britannica. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:47, 31 March 2023 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2025

2407:5200:400:3028:A1E0:38C9:DF0B:5BCD (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Make Lumbini, Nepal you indian dogs

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

One page says Indian religion. This page say something else.

In the article about Buddhism, it clearly says in the first paragraph that Buddhism is an Indian religion. And later in the article it writes Ancient India. And these two are correct. Yet here for some odd reason they took out India and Ancient India, and replaced it with South Asia, Lumbini, and Nepal. Any logical explanation as to why? And just so you knwo I have many other poitns I want to make. And I have many other questions I want to ask. But everytime I write these things, no one addresses anything, and everything gets removed. So I won't waste my time writing all those points and writing all those questions. 76.90.160.66 (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The traditional facts are not in doubt. He was born in modern Nepal (an easy bike ride from the modern Indian border), probably grew up and certainly lived his religious life in modern India, and died there. Of course these borders did not exist then. It's all in the article. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

But when the question comes to where Buddhism developed as an organised religion, it is certainly India in its very modern meaning. Even the missionaries who sent the message of Buddha around the world, were overwhelmingly from whatever we call India today, in spirit and meaning. So dismissing the "Indian" origin of Buddha and his message for whatever reasons, and creating a needless confusion around it by using modern geopolitical words like "South Asia" doesn't do much sense while conveying the message. 158.144.106.191 (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

About Buddha's birthplace

Nepal existed at the time as small kingdoms which is completely different to indian princely states. NEPAL's existence as baise rajya and chaubise rajye is unique to Nepal since centuries. Juddhasumsher (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2026

1. Change "Although Muslims had only rudimentary knowledge about Buddhism, they attempted to integrate the Buddha into their own religious history." To "Some Muslim writers attempted to understand the Buddha was through an Islamic lens." Because the following sentences don't indicate integration of Buddha into a certain history. Rather, it seems the writers were trying to interpret the Buddha according to their Islamic knowledge.

2. Remove "Ibn Hazm defines the Buddha as a person who is not born, does not eat or drink, and does not die." I have not found any direct source of Ibn Hazm claiming this, not even in Arabic. Furthermore, it would be theologically absurd for an Islamic scholar to say that a person doesn't eat or drink and doesn't die, as it's sternly believed that Allah is the One who doesn't die and anyone besides him dies [Quran 28:88], as well as humans are always in need of sustenance. 07MD (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: I was able to access the cited source for both of the sentences this request changes through The Wikipedia Library, and it does back up those claims. pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Ascetic ?

The lede says he was an ascetic, someone who denies himself all worldy pleasures. I thought he choose the "middle path", between asceticism and excess. That is, moderation in all things. Ascetics are often depicted as skin and bones, due to starving themselves. Buddha is often depicted as quite plump, implying he had a healthy appetite, ~2026-47321-42 (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Budai, the monk with a great appetite, is often confused with The Buddha. JimRenge (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree "ascetic" is the wrong word for the first sentence - I've adjusted. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks ! ~2026-47321-42 (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

....but why did you leave 2nd usage of "ascetic" in ? ~2026-47321-42 (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2026 (UTC)