Talk:Buddha (disambiguation)

message: I have been trying to find information on the fat buddha statue that I commonly see in cultural shops. I've heard it refered to as buddha, but does not at all resemble siddhartha so I assume it is a different person.  I hope im not being too vague in my description, and what I have in mind is recognised.  I advise that this person's article has a link when "buddha" is searched, if it doesnt already; or correct me if im mistaken. considering my ignorance - edit this at will
The 'Fat Buddha' in Chinese tradition is called 'Bu Dai Hu Shan', it's either of a certain monk in ancient China or of  Maitreya, the Buddha-to-be or the next Buddha. It's not Gotama Buddha (the historical Buddha). The historical Buddha at the time of his awakening would probably have still been extremely emaciated, as according to the scriptures he had only stopped his extreme fasting a week ago.
Also, I just changed "Nikaya" Buddhism to "Sravakayana" which is the polite name for Hinayana, of which Theravada is the most well known school. "Nikaya" means either a 'division' of the scriptures or a 'school' amongst the early schools. So "Nikaya" Buddhism could mean either: the Buddhism which relies on the Nikayas/ Agamas or 'sectarian' Buddhism, neither of which is probably exactly what whoever wrote it meant.
Bhikkhu Santi 09:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "fat buddha"; 3 Types of Buddha?

message: In the line regarding Amitabha, it references a "celestial buddha described in the scriptures of the Mahāyāna school of Buddhism."  Does "celestial buddha" here refer to those Buddhas described in the Five Dhyani Buddhas article?  If so, can we wikipipe "celestial buddha" to that article (and perhaps a redirect page would be of benefit)?  Thanks for any edification! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "celestial Buddha" is fat , lying there only one way thet jesus stop believing this....blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh yea  that right(tracy wrote this)a more generic term than that, and probably a somewhat vague, modern English term, with no direct equivalent in Sanskrit or Pāli. The contents of Jan Nattier's recent book on the Ugraparipṛcchā mentions both "celestial buddhas" and "celestial bodhisattvas". After I read it, I'll let you know if those chapters have something specifically to do with the five dhyani buddhas, but I suspect it normally just refers to the (typically Mahāyānic) concept of the buddhas as supramundane entities.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! Thanks so much Nat! & Happy New Year :-) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "celestial buddha" 

message: I have removed the option 
* Budha, in Hindu mythology, is the name for the planet Mercury
from the text, as this has nothing to do with Buddha. NikNovi (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm restoring such an entry, since it is a mistake that will occasionally be made: If you see "Budha" and intend to look it up later, there's an excellent chance you'll misspell it. And that's what "See also" sections on Dab pages are for.  --Jerzy•t 06:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There've been even worse mistakes. One bibliography on Buddhism includes a work on Buda, the city later amalgamated with Pest. Peter jackson (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budha 

message: This is just FYI; we would like that renaming be the last one, so we decided to ask more people. — Sebastian 07:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice: Requested renaming of [[Buddha (general)]] 

message: In the current two paragraphs of the accompanying prose article, i bypassed the Rdrs and unlkd the subsequent rdrs to Gautama Buddha, which should always be done in articles. Alert to sensitivities, i neglected two matters:
# The article bodhi is lk'd twice, once piped as "enlightenment". That is disconcerting at best to the user who follows both of them, but the remedy is not quite a no-brainer, and i wanted to stick to no-brainers. The natural solution is with no lk:
#: ... bodhi (meaning "enlightenment"), ... 
# The current piping Buddha (other religions) is the result of my converting the name of the Rdr lk to piping that hides the lk  to the target of the Rdr, preserving the displayed text. The displayed text is clunky, confusing, and (by using a Dab-sfx'd title) cryptic. The probably remedy is to reverse the order of the two lks in that sentence, and  change the piping from "Buddha (other religions)" to "Buddha in other religions" -- even tho what we're doing is presumably to hide either the fact that the target also covers Hindu views, or the fact that the target is mistitled. This is another non-no-brainer. 
--Jerzy•t 09:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Prose 

message: I hesitate to remove them, but aren't these basically self-promotion? --Michael WhiteT·C 14:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: A recent anon edit — which appears to have been more mischievous than well-intentioned — replaced "Gautama" with "Siddharta."  Given the overall appearance of mischief (or perhaps nonsense? e.g., replacing "Buddhahood" with "Buddhism") and the anon editor's prior vandalism in another article, I reverted this change.  Nonetheless, I think the term "Siddharta" should be represented on this page given its high recognition value (e.g., based on my limited experience, I think that most Theravada/vipassana-oriented readers would likely recognize this name instead of "Buddha Gautama," not to mention the Herman Hesse crowd).  As an example of how it might be done, here's how the on-line Encyclopedia Britannica does it:
:Buddha
:founder of Buddhism
:clan name (Sanskrit) Gautama or (Pali) Gotama , personal name (Sanskrit) Siddhartha or (Pali) Siddhatta 
:(Sanskrit: “awakened one”) 
Pertaining to this item, we currently have:
:* Gautama Buddha or Buddha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism 
How'd y'all feel about something like:
:* Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, clan name Gautama (Sanskrit; Pali: Gotama) and personal name Siddhartha (Sanskrit; Pali: Siddhatta)
(I see we have something similar in the prior incarnation of this page here.)  I'm concerned that such a line might be considered too verbose for WP:MOSDAB.  Thus any other suggestions on how to incorporate "Siddharta"/"Siddhatta"?  Any objections from our MOSDAB experts on the suggested change?
Thanks!
Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a week and no objections have been raised, so I'm going to implement the above momentarily.  If anyone subsequently has any concerns, please discuss them here.  If there is a concern (e.g., due to the modified line's length), please attempt to identify an alternate manner in which the above desire for the inclusion of "Siddhartha" can be accommodated.  Thanks so much, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siddharta ? 

message: Now that there appears to be a consensus that Buddha should be a disambiguation page, that implies that most links to Buddha on other pages are ambiguous, and should be corrected.  Editors interested in and knowledgeable about this topic are invited to help correct these links to point to the correct substantive article.  For more details, see WP:DPL.  --Russ (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: this sucks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.140.84 (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ??????? 

message: The first inserted/reverted sentence reads:
:In Islam, the Arabic text Bath, Batha and Tabaath is found in the Qu'ran 62:2 Sura Al-Jumua The Qu'ran, Sura 62:2 http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/quran/06201.htm and is believed to be refering to Buddha.Maulana Abdul Haque Vidyarti, Muhammad in World Scriptures Vol 3 pg.1007
The (hidden) references are:
:# The Qu'ran, Sura 62:2
:# http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/quran/06201.htm
:# Maulana Abdul Haque Vidyarti, Muhammad in World Scriptures Vol 3 pg.1007
So, it appears to me that the reason that this sentence is pertinent to the word "Buddha" is because it identifies a possible referent in the Qu'ran to the Buddha (or a buddha?).  Since this article is about definitions of the word "Buddha" per se — and not about the historical/mythic Buddha or other buddhas — it seems to me that this sentence is inappropriate for this article.  It should go in the appropriate article (e.g., possibly Gautama Buddha or Buddhahood).  Right?  Does this make sense?  This dab page is about the word "Buddha" and contains pointers to articles that then provide meanings to this word.  The above sentence alludes to the meaning of "Buddha" as Gautama Buddha (or, again, perhaps Buddhahood, still not clear to me from the sentence :-) ).  Perhaps in terms of semantic cohesion, it would best fit in Gautama Buddha in world religions?  What do y'all think?  Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Bath, Batha, Tabaath'' 

message: If this is a dab, as the discussion above seems to imply, then most of this section should not be here. The word "Buddha" can be used in a general sense to mean "anyone who's attained Buddhahood". However, in the context of a dab, the current layout implies that "Buddha" can mean specifically
*Amitabha (probably true)
*Vairocana (possibly true)
*Bhaishajyaguru (almost certainly not true)
*...
Peter jackson (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesnt this Dab mean anything that defines Buddha ? If so then that Arabic content should be posted. Theres an book listed above and it states the word Buddha is acutally of Arabic origin. and says  The arabic word Buddha means he roused him, excited him, put him in motion or action. Baethun and Beath mean a man whose anxities or griefs awake him from sleep. and then 
The quran says about Muhammad " He it is who raised Ba'atha (Buddha) among the illiterates a messenger from among themselves who recites to them his messages and purifies them and teaches them book and wisdom, although they were before in manifest error, - Refers to Gauthama
Buddha also means the one who completed knowledge of righteousness. - In the Quran
and it further says the term Buddha is used throughout the Quran in various areas. 
My opinion is that the word Buddha has its own sense and terminology in Arabic. However the first prophecy "aroused and put in action" refers to an Sakya Muni Gautama
Theres another section that compares Muhammad and Gauthama Buddha and leads to the sayn in the Qu'ran " It is he who rose Baatha " etc ... so that probably defines the the sura 62 however Buddha is also used through out the Quran with its own meaning. --Mujahideen54 (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Buddhas 

message: This article should soon be upto Wiki Standards by adding the Defintion of a Buddha and the Basic Prophicies to claim the title 'Buddha' . On top of the page could be the Buddha (DAB) that could lead to the other meanings such as Buddha Airline or other Buddhas. --Anandveer (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sort of material you're talking about belongs in Buddhahood, not here. Peter jackson (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even, Buddhahood is the term for companionship. The actual term 'Buddha' has its own meaning as well. You cant say Brotherhood means Brother the two have seperate meanings. --Mujahideen54 (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

text: "Brotherhood" and "brother" are two different words which would have separate entries in a dictionary. But, in an encyclopaedia, they are the same subject.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Define Buddha 

message: I've just deleted "Pronounced "boo-DEE", as in "Judy"." because it's nonsensical. Judy isn't pronounced "joo-DEE" by anyone as far as I know. Could someone who knows about this sort it out please? Peter jackson (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: As I've had no disagreement (or agreement) for over a week, I've gone ahead & deleted most entries. It seems highly unlikely that "Buddha" ever means any of these. It's like having a dab for king & including a list of kings. Pure Land Budhists probably use Buddha to mean Amitabha, & Shingon perhaps for Vairocana, so I've left those for now. Peter jackson (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since both of those are on the list of Buddhas page, I've deleted them and just left a link to that page Dakinijones (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Buddhas ctd 

message: ...but currently Buddhahood is a mess (it may be merged with 2 articles/sections).--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is a disambiguation artice. It's purpose is to direct readers to various other articles. It can be deleted or moved to another title, but it can't really be merged with another article. There could hypothetically be text on this page that belongs in a different article.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This should be merged with Buddhahood 

message: shouldnt this go to 'the' buddha's page directly as that is the most notable? There can be a link on the top from to this disambiguation page. Lihaas (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This topic was discussed extensively in the past. Here is the archive.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 21:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: and its time to bring it up again. This is clearly a disambiguation page, so at the very least we should make it look like a disambiguation page. Furthermore, I'm certain that most people, most of the time, link the term "Buddha" with Gautma Buddha. People who have more advanced knowledge will be able to think of the competing doctrines of multiple Buddhas, Buddhahood, the Buddha to come, and so on, but thats what the disambiguation link is for. Gautama Buddha is most certainly the primary topic.--Tznkai (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right. Actually, I gave the wrong link above to the original naming discussion. Most of it can be found here, in the archives of Talk:Gautama Buddha. The way that discussion transpired, it appeared that at first most people were in favour of simply moving Gautama Buddha to Buddha, but, as things developed, it was decided to make Buddha a disambiguation page. I would say that I don't really see the point of making Buddha a redirect; why not move Gautama Buddha to this title, then?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 15:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm thinking is this. Buddha Redirects to Gautama Buddha because that is the most appropriate title, this page becomes Buddha (disambiguation), and the top of Gautama Buddha gets the whole "Buddha redirects here. See Buddha (disambiguation) for other uses.--Tznkai (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, and if I may point out, in the immediately preceding entry, the seemingly knowledgeable (certainly likeable) WP editor Esteban Barahona wanted to also make this page a redirect ... but to Buddhahood.  In other words, there have been two competing strong currents of thought: one that "Buddha" refers to the protagonist of the Pali Canon; the other that it refers to all "buddhas" (as described in the Buddhahood article).  On-line dictionaries (I believe found at Nat's reference?) reflect this two-fold denotation.  I also suspect that Theravadins leans towards the former denotation while most or at least Mahayana practitioners tend towards the latter.  (Or at least this has been my experience in my own practices, first of Zen, now of Theravadin Buddhism.)  Just my two cents.  (Or, since I'm using an IP address, evidently a Buffalo nickle and an opening for ridicule.) 24.136.229.74 (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say when you come across popular literature on Buddhism you see "The Buddha says" which refers to Gautama Buddha. In complete from a neutrality perspective but indicitive of what most people think of when they see the term Buddha--Tznkai (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, on the one hand, I suppose that few popular writers in the Western world have much of a concept that there are different buddhas. So, if they say "the Buddha says", they don't really know whether they mean Shakyamuni or Amitabha, Dipankara, et al., and, if they did see a quote from another buddha, they would be very likely to still describe that as "the Buddha says". On the other hand, as far as I'm aware, few Buddhist scriptures are actually attributed to the words of another Buddha. Even the core Pure Land sutras, for example, are described as sermons in which Shakyamuni discusses Amitabha. Thefore, in practice, it would very likely be Shakyamuni Buddha who is quoted.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 23:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, what I was trying to express earlier is that if the usage of "Buddha" is so heavily weighted toward meaning Siddhārtha Gautama (which is plausible), then I don't see why "Gautama Buddha" is the more appropriate title. If people usually mean the sage Gautama when they say "Buddha" and they usually say "the Buddha" when they mean the sage Gautama, then let's just move Gautama Buddha to Buddha. I'm starting to think that would be the most straightforward solution and probably the best.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 14:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Then there's "popular" as in Lama Surya Das's "Awakening the Buddha Within" ... got me Gotama gut maybe? ;-) With metta and alliteration, 24.136.229.74 (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

text:  I vote with Tznkai. Buddha should redirect to Gautama Buddha, and this page becomes Buddha (disambiguation).eu.stefan (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect 

message: Recently, in combating an apparent vandal's efforts to make "Buddha" a primarily Arab word, a good-willed WP editor changed
:Buddha (pronunciation: ) means "Awakened one" or "Enlightened one"; in Arabic ...
to
:Buddha (pronunciation: ) ("Awakened one" in Pali and Sanskrit) ...
At the moment, this line reads
:Buddha (pronunciation: ) ("Awakened one" in Sanskrit) ...
I sincerely applaud and deeply appreciate User:Tznkai's repeated efforts to ward off vandals!  
If I may though, I think it would be worthwhile inserting two things that have been lost in the current incarnation:
# "Buddha" has been translated into English as both "Awakened One" and "Enlightened One."  
# "Buddha" is in fact both Sanskrit and Pali.
Here are a few well-regarded sources that support the use of either "Enlightened One," "Awakened One" or both:
:(1) Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary (PED), p. 488, last two entries:
::Buddha1 (adj.) [med. -- pass. pp. of bujjhati, cp. Epic Sk. buddha] 
:::(a) understood S i.35=60 (su -- dub -- buddha very difficult to understand).
:::(b) having attained enlightenment, wise A iv.449; PvA 16 (buddh' ādayo), 60 (=ariya). Usually appld to the Bhagavant (Gotama) M i.386 (one of the adj. describing Gotama to Nigaṇṭha Nāthaputta); Sn 993.... 
::Buddha2 [=buddha1] 
:::A. one who has attained enlightenment; a man superior to all other beings, human & divine, by his knowledge of the truth, a Buddha. At A ii.38 the Buddha declares himself to be neither a god (deva) nor a Gandharva, nor a Yakṣa nor a man....
:(2) Monier-Williams' Sanskrit-English Dictionary (MWD), p. 733:
::buddha mfn. 
:::awakened , awake MBh. ; 
:::expanded , blown Sa1mavBr. ; 
:::conscious , intelligent , clever , wise (opp. to %{mUDha}) MBh. Ka1v. &c. ; 
:::learnt , known , understood A1past. MBh. (`" by "' , usually instr. , but also gen. according to Pa1n2. 2-2 , 12 ; 3 , 67 Sch.) ; 
:::m. a wise or learned man , sage W. ; 
:::(with Buddhists) a fully enlightened man who has achieved perfect knowledge of the truth and thereby is liberated from all existence and before his own attainment of Nirvana reveals the method of obtaining it , (esp.) the principal Buddha of the present age (born at Kapila-vastu about the year 500 B.C. his father , Suddhodana , of the Sa1kya tribe or family , being the Ra1ja of that district , and his mother , Maya-devi , being the daughter of Raja Su-prabuddha MWB. 19 &c. ; hence he belonged to the Kshatriya caste and his original name Sakya-muni or Sa1kya-sinha was really his family name , while that of Gautama was taken from the race to which his family belonged ; for his other names see ib. 23 ; he is said to have died when he was 80 years of age , prob. about 420 B.C. ib. 49 n. 1 ; he was preceded by 3 mythical Buddhas of the present Kalpa , or by 24 , reckoning previous Kalpa , or according to others by 6 principal Buddhas ib. 136 ; sometimes he is regarded as the 9th incarnation of Vishn2u Hariv. Ka1v. Var. &c.) ; 
:::n. knowledge BhP. (B. %{buddhi}). [Red added for emphasis.]
:(3) Capeller's Sanskrit-English Dictionary (CAP, see):
::buddha a. awakened (lit. & fig.), completely conscious, enlightened; m. the Enlightened One, the Buddha, E. of Gautama of the Cakya tribe.
So, based on the above citations (which I assume would be inappropriate to list on a dab page but are sufficient here?), I'm going to change the current intro line (or at least when I last checked a few minutes ago) to:
::Buddha (pronunciation: ) ("Awakened one" or "Enlightened One" in Sanskrit and Pali) ...
Since I'm on wiki-break, I won't get into an edit war over this but offer this information, would like to suggest the edit and accept whatever follows subsequently.  Best, 24.136.229.74 (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch--Tznkai (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddha (intro meaing) 

message: are u kidding
this must be a joke
so i had this project on buddha my partner didn't show up.....soo yea peace  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.220.16 (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  boo how 

message: where do u think the name word  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.220.16 (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  yokes 

message: This is a foolish argument if I've ever seen one.
Buddha is essentially a Sanskrit nickname, applying to anyone who is buddh, "awake". This entry should start with that fact. Why can no one see that is the definition of Buddha? Simple enough!
Next: the 'historical' "Buddha" as recognized today was a crown prince from circa mid-6th centruy B.C., Nepal, by the name of Gautama Siddharta. It is pure idiocy what has been done with the man's name, which is simple enough to find almost anywhere! Also note that they followed the custom of putting the surname before the given name.
Gautama was in a way a private family name, for when he became a monk, the Buddha was called "Monk Gautama" (Gautama bhikksu) by the Hindus. His later nickname, Shakyamuni, gives his clan: Shakya, relative of the Mauryas, and -muni is yet another sort of nickname, meaning "sage". Thus the Buddha is also recognized as "the Sage of the Shakya Clan". It is one of His recognized Names.
Buddha is pronounced and probably has always been pronounced as "POOH-tah". Anyone who happens to have an Indian friend can ask about this! It is known from ancient coins that Europeans knew him as something like "BODA" or "BODDA". We can only guess how they pronounced the name, but probably the way the Aryans pronounced it.
This brings us to the simple (?) disambiguation which should be to one side: the Lord Buddha is sort of a patron to anyone who strives to attain, attains or has otherwise reached the same state of consciousness; remember, he's AWAKE. If you want to refer to "Buddhahood" then refer to that-- that is what it means. Then any proper facts can branch from there.
Honestly, you people don't know an encyclopedic entry from an entry wound!
A Buddhist Among Baptists Wishes You Well....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some simple corrections, some suggestions 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Buddha (disambiguation) →  – A few years ago at talk:Gautama Buddha/Archive 10#Requested move 6 March 2018, it was proposed that Buddha should become a disambiguation page, but noone acted on the proposal. Hence this discussion. The rationale was roughly that there are many well known Buddhas, such as Maitreya and Vairocana (see also List of Buddhas). Onceinawhile (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2 September 2021 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gautama Buddha which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 00:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. There is consensus to keep the page at it's current title. (note: Talk:The Buddha#Requested move 25 November 2022the RM at The Buddha has ended with the result of no consensus.) (closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Buddha (disambiguation) →  – As has been discussed at previous move discussion at The Buddha, perhaps most pertinently here, there is a strong community sentiment that "Buddha" without the "the" has a multiplicity of potential meanings beyond that of "The Buddha" - the most prominent being the general sense of "buddha" lower caps, or "buddhahood", that draw into question the primacy of "buddha" alone (in the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC sense) as a term to mean first and foremost "The Buddha". Iskandar323 (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And how does this relate to our policies? Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: By requiring the title to be sufficiently WP:PRECISE to identify the sought topic unambiguously. Here there are at least two topics of particular WP:Long-term significance for adequate Wikipedia:Disambiguation. I somewhat resent being poked about expressing my views in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I think it's a pretty obvious point that should not require a lot of Wikilawyering to understand. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Christ, the Greek translation of messiah, redirects to Jesus. cookie monster 755 07:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the English Wikipedia, not the Greek one. I suspect that a very low percentage of English-language Wikipedia readers could provide that etymology of the word Christ. I also notice that you used pipes in both of the above links. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What I am trying to get at is why is there a difference between Buddha redirecting to Buddha and Christ redirecting to Jesus. If we are going to removing Buddah redirecting to the Buddah, maybe it should be said that Christ should not redirect to Jesus. cookie monster 755 03:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is actually not that uncommon for dictionaries to place the generic meaning of Christ first. See: Wiktionary and Merriam-Webster. This is obviously because Christos, the Greek translation of messiah, is also used throughout the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, where the concept first arises/is expounded. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, perhaps  shouldn't redirect to . —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 November 2022