the beliefs of a man who has been dead for over years and whose teachings are attested to by a variety of variant traditions spread over an entire continent are never just 'obvious' and i am certainly not attempting to limit who can edit the article if there are scholarly sources that state that early buddhism included a belief in brahman as it is currently understood by hindus then attribute the statement to the source and indicate where it originates furthermore the place where that line is added so then still makes no logical sense in a paragraph where what is being discussed is the use of the same word to hold different meanings by the buddhist and hindu tradition presenting so the historical buddha believed in this hindu concept as a conclusion particularly without citation is an absolute non sequitur further you are still not understanding my point regarding altering cited text it seems though i don't have access to the source that we have one source that is saying that there is a consensus regarding the dating of the bhagavad gita if that consensus does not exist among scholars than surely there must be an academic source that states outright that such a consensus does not exist if you wish to alter the statement that provides dating for the bg you need to provide a source which demonstrates that the previous content is incorrect or under dispute we simply need to be clear about attributing both in terms of sources and in terms of who holds these particular beliefs the ideas in this article rather than adding sweeping statements that claim to present the 'true' teachings of buddha none of us have the 'true' teachings of buddha what we have are traditions that have been passed down and interpreted over the years each tradition has its own opinion on what the true situation is wikipedia's role and ours as editors is not to decide which one is correct but to present objectively the views of the different sides