Talk:The Buddha/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Page move review

Interested parties are welcome to comment on the recent page move at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 October#The Buddha. --Yoonadue (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Thicket of parens in lead sentence

I agree with what I think User:Thylacine24 was going for in this edit to the lead sentence, trying to reduce the total number of parens in that convoluted sentence. I agree we should try to simplify this to make it more readable, but I reverted that attempt because it ended up leaving "better known as The Buddha" inside a parenthetical expression, as if it were just a detail, like a Pali alternative spelling, when in reality, it is central to the article. The main point of that sentence, scrubbed of excess detail, is this:

Siddhartha Gautama... better known as The Buddha... was a wandering ascetic

So the question is, how do we keep that sentence reasonably readable, while including such additional information to hand that is relevant? Partly that has been implemented so far by explanatory notes, and I think that's a fine solution, and maybe we want to go further with that. Not necessarily with more notes, but maybe fewer, with more detail, or maybe even bullet items listing alternate names or spellings. I think we can handle one occurrence each of the words Gautama, Siddartha, and [the] Buddha in the lead sentence, and everything else should be pushed to explanatory notes, or possibly even the second paragraph of the lead could be entirely devoted to alternate names, leaving the first sentence as:

• Siddhartha Gautama, better known as The Buddha, Gautama Buddha, and other names, was a wandering ascetic and religious teacher of South Asia who lived during the 6th or 5th century BCE.

Even just changing the explanatory notes from 'Note 9' to 'n 9' is a slight improvement visually, and imho, changing it to lower-alpha, would be even better. Also, I don't think Shakyamuni needs to be listed at all in the lead sentence, and can either be left to a second paragraph all about additional names, or placed in a note, as it is used much less often than the others. (See Talk:The Buddha/Tertiary sources.) Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Um, sorry.--Thylacine24 (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Thylacine24, nothing to apologize for; your version is defensible, and others may prefer your version, so it might end up carrying the day. You have the same right to present your views as anybody else. I think you did the article a service by making that edit and sparking the conversation about it. By all means jump in, if you feel like it. Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

'[The Buddha], [B]etter known as... Gautama Buddha' also is not what you want to convey, isn't it, given the recent title-change? These are the consequences of hsing an epithet instead of a personal name as an article title... And Shakyamuni is a relevant name in the Buddhist literature. I'd propose to get rid of the Pali names, and write "Siddharta Gautama, also known as Gautama Buddha and Shakyamuni among other names, commonly called/referred to as the Buddha'. NB: note the following from our article:

from the middle of the 3rd century BCE, several Edicts of Ashoka (reigned c. 269–232 BCE) mention the Buddha and Buddhism. Particularly, Ashoka's Lumbini pillar inscription commemorates the Emperor's pilgrimage to Lumbini as the Buddha's birthplace, calling him the Buddha Shakyamuni (Brahmi script: 𑀩𑀼𑀥 𑀲𑀓𑁆𑀬𑀫𑀼𑀦𑀻 Bu-dha Sa-kya-mu-nī, "Buddha, Sage of the Shakyas").

'Buddha' as designation for a specific class of exalted beings; Shakyamuni as the designation for this specific Buddha. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 01:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Joshua, maybe you're right; I was hurrying to get something out there quickly, and probably didn't pay enough attention. I'll be (mostly) away for a week, but will catch up after that if the situation hasn't resolved itself already. But what do you think about moving some of the parentheticals into notes, and shortening the^{[Note 3]} to^{[n 3]} to make them take less horizontal space and facilitate reading the main thrust of the sentence? Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Instead of more notes, I think we should maybe settle on birth name, article title, and maybe a third name but no more for the lede, and move the rest down into the article proper where they can be fleshed out and discussed in all their nuances, rather than trying to squeeze them all into the lede sentence. The current wording suggests that "Gautama Buddha and [Buddha] Shakyamuni" are variations of Siddartha Gautama, rather than variations of "the Buddha". "Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha, was..." seems perfectly fine as a lede. - Aoidh (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes to "move it down". That would definitely help, imho. And by "down", I'm okay with either another paragraph, or explanatory notes. Or also the body of the article (which is what I interpret as "article proper"?). Mathglot (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry yes, what I meant was the body of the article; The Buddha#Names and titles is a natural place for that content that could use more prose as opposed to more bullet points. But if we have to have a second sentence in the lede itself (just not the lede sentence) I'd be fine with that too, but the current lede is way too long and complicated with its 4 names and 5 explanatory notes within the first sentence. - Aoidh (talk) 06:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I already removed the parentheticals - but added new ones, [Buddha] Shakyamani. "Siddhartha Gautama, most commonly referred to as the Buddha, was..." is fine with me too. We could consolidate the notes into one note, and use letters for the notes.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for the tweaking and streamlining of the intro. Combined with the new WP:COMMONNAME for the article, this all seems so much clearer and natural... Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-legendary person

I've merged the sections on his 'biography' to one section under the header of "Semi-legenedary person," as the "traditional biographies" are hardly historical biographies, but 'sacred fiction'. As Wynne states: "Buddhist scholars [...] have mostly given up trying to understand the historical person." Yet, those accounts are also not totally ahistoric or legendary, as they refer to verifiable historical places, persons and areas. Hence the term "semi-legendary person," to mark the difference with the "Historical person," but also to couple the two sections by using partly different, partly the same terms. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

If you do, can we change the heading, please? There's a difference between a semi-legendary biography, and a semi-legendary person. Achilles might be referred to as a semi-legendary person, but the Buddha is a historical person with a semi-legendary biographical tradition, not at all the same thing. I think it's important to maintain that distinction, and a heading like "Semi-legendary person" might lead naive readers to conclude that maybe the question of the Buddha's existence is on the same level as that of Achilles, which would be a disservice to the reader. Mathglot (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Tyvm. Mathglot (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The morning after

So the Anglosphere had its way.

By this I don't mean any editors, but the viewpoints that were cited and promoted in order to rechristen a major religious figure in the language most accessible to the regions and traditions of faraway English-speaking worlds. But you would think that the morning after the article itself might show signs of clarity, lucidity, and coherence associated with the traditions of the Anglosphere. But you would be thinking wrong. For the relationship seems to be one of an inverse proportionality. I.e. the more that the talk page mavens dicker on the talk page, the worse the page becomes in communicating anything to anyone.

So please tell me what language—in the language traditions that began with the neurological mutation in Africa that enabled bipedal hominids to communicate—is the lead written in? For it seems to be nothing but a list of hooks to other articles each hook vying with the other for better positioning within phrases, clauses and sentences whose organizing principle is, "Grammar, style, and lucidity be damned." We have a text which is not only at variance with the organizing principles of communication, at least as envisioned by Boileau: What one truly understands clearly articulates itself. The words to say it come easily., but could also be seen to be disrespectful to the traditions of Buddhism, and religious traditions in general.

I am therefore adding a cleanup tag. I had broached this topic earlier once, even rewritten the lead, but it has gone back to a level of turgidity that is incompatible with the tolerance of natural language. Please rewrite the lead so that it reads like a coherent English language text without the reader having to click on the glut of WP:EASTEREGG links. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

There are also matters of simple logical incoherence which caused me to add "in English language sources" such as : "most commonly referred to as the Buddha, was a wandering ascetic and religious teacher who lived in South Asia during the 6th or 5th century BCE. He was the founder of Buddhism and is revered by Buddhists as a Buddha." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

So, what's he called in Chinese and Japanese? Frankly, I don't know. But I do know that several key BUddhist terms are deemed by scholars as best to be left untranslated (unfortunately, no example comes to my mind now). But "the Buddha/a Buddha" is a nice catch; I've merged the duplicity. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmm ... I don't really agree with the necessity of marring the article with a cleanup tag over this fairly minor issue, but yes, reduced piping would be better. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the "in English language sources" qualifier is necessary, because (1) the idea that this commonality is exclusive to the English language has not been demonstrated, and (2) this is the English Wikipedia, the wording is presumed English, and if a qualifier is needed it can be explained in the name section rather than the first sentence of the lede. It's inappropriate in the lede given that it is not a summary of the article itself. Can you give an example of another article (especially something like a GA or FA, where it's been under the microscope) where this kind of unnecessary "this is the name in English language sources" is given? - Aoidh (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

For want of obvious examples in other major languages, it's le Bouddha in French, El Buddha in Spanish, Y Bwdha in Welsh - so it's a least a European language thing. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Even that level of meta-analysis of the sources isn't something that (as far as I am aware) sources themselves have noted. If "the Buddha" is uniquely an English-language or even a Western-language usage, where are the sources supporting that conclusion? Reviewing a portion of sources and coming to that conclusion ourselves and inserting that claim in the article's prose as if it is a fact is WP:OR, especially to make that kind of sweeping claim in the very first sentence of the lede, which is supposed to be a very concise summary of what the article is, which is then further expanded upon. - Aoidh (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Names of the Buddha on other Wikipedias

The major languages? Here are the WP page names in some:

• Chinese: 释迦牟尼 = Shì jiā móu ní = Shakyamuni
• Hindi: गौतम बुद्ध = gautam buddh
• Español: Buda Gautama
• Français: Bouddha
• Urdu: گوتم بدھ = gotam budh
• Turkish: Gotama Buda
• Thai: พระโคตมพุทธเจ้า = Phra kho tm phuthṭh cêā = priest khotama phuththa ...
• Sinhala (Sri Lanka): ගෞතම බුදුන් = gautama budun
• Arabic: غوتاما بوذا = ghotama bud/zha
• Bengali: গৌতম বুদ্ধ = gotam boodh
• Scots: Gautama Buddha
• Japanese: 釈迦 Shaku Jia = Shakyamuni
• German: Siddhartha Gautama
• Italian:Gautama Buddha
• Dutch: Gautama Boeddha
• Sanskrit: Gautambuddha
• Portuguese: Sidarta Gautama
• The speakers above thus far, are more than half the population of the world. No evidence for "the buddha"

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

How other Wikipedia projects title pages in their articles has absolutely no bearing on this one, especially if that's the basis for the addition of the "in English language sources" wording. - Aoidh (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

F&f: WP:AT is policy, and states:

On the English Wikipedia, article titles are written using the English language.

What was the purpose of listing those foreign language names? Unless I'm missing something, they have no relevance to this discussion, which I thought you raised about the clarity/need for rewrite of the lead. Mathglot (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm all in favor of cleaning up a lead where it is warranted, but I admit to not understanding the tag content (since removed), which read:

|reason=Please rewrite the lead so as to make it a coherent and grammatical English language text without a glut of [[WP:EASTEREGG|opaque]] Wikilinks

On the contrary; like Pataliputra, I find the lead much clearer and more natural (regardless of article title) than it previously was, for most of which I credit Joshua Jonathan.

Above you mentioned missing "signs of clarity, lucidity, and coherence", but can you be more specific, and propose language which is better? I'd support your tag if there were something concrete behind it, but I just don't see it. For the moment, I support removal of the tag until we can identify a specific area that is so poor that it needs a "rewrite" because it is somehow not "coherent" or "grammatical". I just don't see what you are referring to; specifics, please.

Also, I don't see the point of adding "in English language sources"; this is English Wikipedia. The Sanskrit or Pali name could be included parenthetically per MOS:LEADLANG, but I doubt that would increase clarity or understanding for 99.9999% of readers, and in any case, could be covered more appropriately and more in depth in the first body section on § Etymology, names and titles, as indeed it already is. Mathglot (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Please tell me what sources are these, as the world's other major languages or Buddhist languages don't use this formulation at all on their Wikipedia, only the talk page mavens of the English Wikipedia have chosen to insult Gautama Buddha in such fashion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I did not say that was the reason, but obviously they have all reasoned in some fashion based on the sources in their respective languages. In none is there the insular grandiosity of the Anglosphere, the intellectual laziness. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

This comment addresses none of what was asked, and how articles are titled on other Wikipedia projects is irrelevant. Why is this template needed? I don't believe it is, since this current wording was the result of a talk page discussion in an attempt to improve the article. What wording is problematic? What wording do you propose? - Aoidh (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Would you like me to sample the other language sources? And what if I replicate the results? Will you revert back to the name the Historical Buddha is known by everywhere else, which in the English Wikipedia was Gautama Buddha for 15 years? Please put your money where your mouth is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Shall we argue about English syntax, coherence, and cohesion? Sentence by sentence? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The article is not going to play host to your WP:OR, and I am neither required to nor interested in disproving your unsubstantiated claims. We are far past the issue of the title, I am asking why you placed the tag, and what specifically is the issue? - Aoidh (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

F&f wrote,

Shall we argue about English syntax, coherence, and cohesion? Sentence by sentence?

If you believe that the lead is so bad that it is ungrammatical and incoherent, then, yes, we should discuss syntax, coherence, and cohesion; sentence by sentence if need be. Isn't that why you started this discussion in the first place? Or was it merely to generally complain about its current state without offering anything concrete that you claim needs attention? I see no actual movement in this discussion toward improving the article, or even concrete suggestions on how one might do so. As that is the principal reason for having a Talk page, I'd be tempted to list this discussion at Wikipedia:Closure requests, and get an uninvolved editor to assess whether this discussion should be closed as clearly going nowhere. Otoh, if you'll reread your own opening comment that started all this, and offer positive suggestions, I'm willing to discuss if you are. Mathglot (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• Let's start with sentence 1. Please tell me for starters how the Sanskrit noun श्रमण​: is a wandering ascetic.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to rewording that to something else, but wording Śramaṇa as "wandering ascetic" is not original research by any means. - Aoidh (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Nor am I. But if you would kindly reframe your discourse style, so that instead of simply railing about what utter crap the current article (lead/paragraph/sentence/clause/word) is, please instead propose something better, so that it can be discussed. If all you want to do is point out flaws, and not improve anything, then this is indeed going nowhere. So, echoing you: "Let's start with sentence 1," but instead of following up with what crap it is now, can we hear your suggestion for improving it? Otherwise, what are we doing here? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The prized doozy

• As a result of the frenetic back and forth, we now have: The Buddha thereafter wandered through the lower Indo-Gangetic Plain, teaching and building a monastic order.

• Please think about how silly this is. Middle school students know better. I have better things to do. All the best in reducing this article to shambles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• In case you missed it, the Indo-Gangetic plain refers to the combined alluvial plain of the Indus and Ganges river systems, it is the plain formed by the silt deposited by these Himalayan rivers and their tributaries into the trough formed by the subduction of the Indian tectonic plate under the Eurasian. The Indus and the Ganges empty into different bodies of water. Gautama Buddha was nowhere near the Indus. Please look at a map. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps follow the advice of the extended confirmed protection templates and make your suggestions in a "change X to Y" format. We might get somewhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Please ask your nearest middle school student to propose an improvement, since you seem either unable or unwilling to do so. The "better things to do" above sounds like refusal to engage to me; I'm going to request closure. Mathglot (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Amazing what the level of arrogance there is here. They are all Wikilawyering with the main author of the FA India; Ganges; Himalayas; the article Lion capital of Ashoka, the first artefactual evidence of Buddhism; and the leads of Sanskrit and Indus River. They don't even know what the Indo-Gangetic plain is. They are now calling it the lower Ganges plain, but it was the fringes of the small urban settlements of the newly deforested middle Ganges plain. It was a small area. Most of the middle Ganges valley was a forest. The are becoming huffy at my intervention, requesting closures, confusing rules-mongering on talk pages with a knowledge of the subject matter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: you should take a look where Gangetic Plain redirects to... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I know where it redirects to. But I am suggesting that people here do not understand the geography enough to write about the wanderings of the Buddha. It was a very small region. It could not have been otherwise. The middle Ganges plain in the mid-first millennium BCE had only recently been deforested, that too commonly only in the regions adjacent to the flood plains of the river or its tributaries. At this point, as I've stated before, I'm leaning toward rounding up the latest sources, both tertiary and secondary and rewriting the lead, watching precision and due weight. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

F&f, you added the phrase "lower" diff; Iskandar 323 "depiped" the link diff, changing it to "Indo-Gangetic plain"; I changed it to Gangetic Plain diff in response to you; "Gangetic plain" links to "Indo-Gangetic plain." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Which, as we know redirects to Indo-Gangetic Plain. But that article I think doesn't even mention the separate concept of the plain Gangetic Plain, which I would have thought is actually the more common term among the two, surely in Indian usage, where they aren't too concerned about the mainly Pakistani Indus plain, but also in global English sources. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Ganges basin

Jb: I just remembered there is a page. It is called Ganges Basin and it has Pfly's fabulous map from the Ganges page. If you follow the Gandak up from Patna, then the Buddha's birthplace Lumbini is just inside Nepal; the site of his enlightenment is below Patna, about twice below the latitude of Varanasi; then he went to Sarnath which is today a suburb of Varanasi. He died in Kushinagar which his halfway up the Gandak from Patna. I don't think he traveled much beyond the area encompassed by these towns. Or at least there is no hard evidence that he did. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

And there is even a page, I have now discovered, File:Buddhist pilgrimage sites in India.svg which has 8 sites, but I'm not sure about the blue ones. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Ccing also Mathglot. I don't know how accurate the pilgrimage site is, especially the blue dots Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Lumbini

Bodh Gaya

Sarnath

Rajgir

Sravasti

Sankassa

Vaishali

Kusinara

class=notpageimage|

The Eight Great Places in Buddhism (Four Great Places are plotted in red.)

There's also this one. All the Eight Great Places in Buddhism are as well-attested as each other, I think; most have Ashoka pillars. There's also Kapilavastu (ancient city), where the two possible sites (one in Nepal, one in India, natch) would I imagine both be covered by the same dot. Contrary to the common perception, the evidence is that after his Enlightenment, the Buddha spent a good deal of time in or just outside important cities like Sankassa and Rajgir, not wandering in the jungle as he did before. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think he was at Sravasthi, though there is plenty artwork of his miracles there, but all dating to many centuries later. The miracles are at the level of primative ones such as the Buddha elevating himself in the air and spewing fire and water, or creating a copy of himself and departing to preach to his mother Maya in heaven. That sort of evidence, the magical imaginings of cult still un-Buddhist in principles, is problematic when you are attempting to chart the journeys of a historical figure of a reform religion. I remember Lars Fogelin (Archaeological history of Indian Buddhism, OUP, 2015) saying somewhere that there is no archeological evidence of pre-Mauryan Buddhism in Sravasthi or Kausambi (as there is in Lumbini or even Kausali). There is no archaeological evidence of early Buddhist asceticism in India as there is in other Buddhist lands (such as Sri Lanka ca 3rd century BCE). But stories abound of a disciple at Sravasthi who was given the freedom to become an ascetic by the Buddha, etc. etc. At some point, I remember him Fogelin saying, continual negative evidence begins to mean something. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

So the core areas (Lumbini, Kapilvastu, Gaya, Sarnath, Vaishali, and Kushinagar and the smaller urban settlements they might have encompassed), Yes.

But Sankissa/Sankassa etc. No one seems to know where that was.

Buddhist sources had pegged Sravasthi's population at 6 million; that is three times the population of Delhi today. Exaggerations abounded once the Buddha was gone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Closure request

I've made a request for closure of this discussion here. As there is a closure backlog, and normally formal closure is reserved for Rfc, Afd, RM, and so on, it's likely this won't be acted on soon, if at all. Also, if there's a change of heart and a demonstrated desire to engage, I'll cancel the request. Nevertheless, as things stand now, any further effort in this discussion is a waste of editor time, in my opinion. Let's move on, and improve the article as needed in other ways. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I honestly don't think a formal closure is needed, since it's not hurting anything being opened and there's no lack of consensus or anything needing closure. - Aoidh (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Not opposed to letting it die a natural death. The request was more a way of avoiding additional wasted effort. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Update: closure request withdrawn, by Mathglot (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Effort in aid of what? Producing content of undue weight and synthesis written in incoherent faltering English? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

By the way I have no interest in changing the name of the article. The point of my intervention is that content has become much more unencyclopedic during the heat and light of the name change. I will rewrite the lead in one fell swoop when I have all the latest sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that you discuss such a "fell swoop" at the talkpage before implementing it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that you don't rewrite the lead in one fell swoop without discussion here first. WP:CONSENSUS is policy, and the major route to consensus where content may be at issue is through discussion at the Talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course I will on the main page per WP:BOLD and WP:DUE. I have seen the level of knowledge you all have. We'll see how you revert my edits, with what knowledge and what sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Someone making the kind of pointed edits and basic grammar mistakes that you have been making should not be so quick to criticize the edits of others. That you have to rely on attacking the characteristics of others betrays a comment that is otherwise without merit; such an attitude is a crutch to lean on when your comments cannot otherwise stand on their own, and what do you have to show for it? Not a single editor has once been swayed by your appeals to a self-asserted authority, and unsurprisingly no one has been swayed by your criticisms of them. In fact, consensus after consensus has been against you. No one cares what level of knowledge you personally think you or others have, if you can't show your work, it means nothing. If your comments had evidence to back up the claims rather than this "trust me guys I'm smarter than you" attitude, and you presented them without attacking others, maybe things would go your way? Just something to consider, because what you've been doing to this point has not worked, and if it continues I don't expect that will change any time soon. Like it or not, Wikipedia is collaborative; that you think you're right is not sufficient. - Aoidh (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I have interest in rewriting the lead and nothing else. That is because this is a vital article which is Wikilinked in the lead of the FA India, the flagship article for India-related content.

And when I rewrite the lead in poorly written articles, I write it as a template of sourcing with which to rewrite the rest of the article; it is obviously not a summary of inferior main body. We don't want Wikipedia's readers clicking out to shabby content. Has anyone here written the leads of South Asia-related articles with the range of Indus Valley Civilisation, Lion Capital of Ashoka, India, Sanskrit, Moghul Empire, the FA Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), Great Bengal famine of 1770, Timeline of major famines in India during British rule, Indian rebellion of 1857, Partition of India, Dominion of India, Raksha Bandhan, the FA Darjeeling, Mahatma Gandhi, Bhagat Singh, Subhas Chandra Bose, Shalwar kameez, Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, spanning 4,500 years of South Asian history? When I am ready, I will add an "inuse" tag and in the course of a day or two rewrite the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Your comments here betray the claim that I have interest in rewriting the lead and nothing else; your ongoing comments about other editors have nothing to do with rewriting the lede. Be aware that if your edits are of the same quality as previous ones that they will be reverted, so how you proceed with that is entirely up to you. Also, every time you point to other articles you have worked on, you may as well just say "please look at my past work rather than the merits of what I'm saying and doing now, because I don't want you looking at what doesn't stand up to scrutiny". It's at best a distraction from what matters, and is an appeal to an authority that does not exist. - Aoidh (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

When you have sunk arrogance in work, you may presume to teach me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Good luck then. - Aoidh (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean belie the claim. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Only if you mean "English-language sources". You continue to snipe from unsteady ground. - Aoidh (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot 2020 Delhi riots, and I'm sure quite a few others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; if you think that the article is not good, start with the contents of the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

JJ, you beat me to it; I was going to make the same remark. The only thing I'd add, is to make the links to MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY explicit. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

If you all know the rules, please try to undo the edits at 2020 Delhi riots or Mughal Empire. Those had admin supervision. Or do so at Subhas Chandra Bose or Bhagat Singh, which still do, or Indian rebellion of 1857 or Sanskrit, or Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus even short leads such as Caste had administrative supervision. In none of them is my lead a summary of the poorly sourced and written article content. They've survived for years. They've been used by the OED, which modeled its definition of the British Raj on ours. Given the general POV-promotion in South Asia topics (which have already brought WP:ARBIPA), people have often requested me to edit the leads of controversial pages with admin supervision. I've been doing this for years going back to user:Nichalp admin and arb who was the driving force behind early SA-related featured content on WP. Forget the lead, in instances, I've even crafted the first two sentences of the leads of a group of articles. Witness the format in Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir or Aksai Chin. All with admin supervision. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I've added {{section sizes}} to the header section at the top. If there's going to be an effort to adjust the lead, we might as well have the data we need about the relative content size of the body sections, so that the lead can take its cues from that distribution. Mathglot (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. A disproportionally large part is devoted to his 'traditional biography', that is, sacred fiction c.q. mythology. This might as well be split-off to a stand-alone article. Another large part is devoted to his teachings; this, of course, repeats contents from other pages. That leaves little about an historical person: 'he lived in the 5th century, taught a way to nirvana c.q. vimutti, and founded a monastic order'. What's missing is the perception/reception of 'the Buddha' in the later Buddhist tradition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

At 71kB, the readable prose size is not at a particularly obnoxious size at this point, certainly not for a major religious figure, so splitting is optional, but not essential. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: thank you for that, I did not know that template existed and it would have come in handy over the years, so I've learned something today. It's too bad it can't also show the size of the prose rather than just the total bytes which includes refs and formatting, but it's a lot better than nothing. - Aoidh (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Great; if it stimulates discussion about how to improve the article body, and/or the lead, that would be terrific. Will follow brainstorming about possible split-offs or other arrangements with interest (possibly in a new section?). As far as suggestions for prose bytes, that might be doable in a third column; try a proposal with {{Request edit}} at the Template talk page; I'd be happy to endorse if you ping me from there. Mathglot (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between talk page verbal gymnastics and the creation of encyclopedic content. Big difference. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

And if I find there is too much OR in the article, I will bring it up at WP:AE. It is a South Asia-wide problem on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree, introducing WP:OR into the article would not be an improvement, though fortunately that's something we can all keep an eye out for. - Aoidh (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Sramana

I still prefer to use the word sramana in the first sentence, with a wiki-link, as this is in essence what the Buddha was. As for the translation, we could also use "wandering mendicant," but I'm not sure if "mendicant" is such a well-known word for the average reader. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Nor is wandering. Nor yet ascetic. The Buddha was not an ascetic, but a renunciate, as is well known. The former performed their death rites before abandoning family and caste and thereafter living in isolation; the latter abandoned family and caste but did not perform their death rites as they took on new obligations to the community or sangha, living in the margins of urban settlements where charities were aplenty and donations for monasteries feasible. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I definitely think that if we're going to use the word śramaṇa in the lede that it should be wikilinked, no matter how its further elaborated upon, per MOS:UL. - Aoidh (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Ha, nice! I just wanted to add that "renunciate," as used by you above, would also be fine. Just like "middle" was a good correction. You're referring to Romila Thapar. Reginald A. Ray (1999), Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and Orientations, Oxford University Press, p.65-67, also explains this distinction, but argues that the Buddha (first) was an ascetic, or "forest renunciate," while for the later sangha "town-and-village renunciation" wasnormative. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I think he is an historical figure only after Sarnath. The enlightenment bit which many post-polytheistic religious thinkers had in different forms (e.g. prophet Muhammad has his revelation in the cave at Hira (gharr-e-hira in Farsi and Urdu; not sure about the name in Arabic) is in the realm of legendary histories. In encyclopedia articles, in my view, the socio-cultural histories of such figures should have prominence.

As a general principle of collaboration people should aim at heuristic arguments rather than presenting sources, for even when they are not precise, they show maturity of understanding and digested knowledge. Also, it is best not to waste too much time on illustrations. They are always secondary; they are not a replacement for prose that might be problematic in the first place. Anyway, I have to run. Will check again in a couple of week's time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to make a plea that we not include Sramana in the first sentence. Per the MOS guideline MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE:

The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English.

The term sramana clearly doesn't qualify as "plain English", and a non-specialist, such as your average university student will have no prior exposure to the term. If we must include it, it should be parenthetical, following the roughly equivalent English expression, or be in an explanatory note, but I'd prefer to postpone use of the Sanskrit until the second paragraph, where it already appears. Mathglot (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The word renunciate as a noun (or adjective) is rare in English, as Wiktionary correctly points out. (I could not find it in my 2-volume Webster's Unabridged, or in NOAD; online, neither M-W nor AHD have it.) The only place it is not rare, is in discussion of Hindu, Buddhist, or other religious philosophy, where by far the majority of usage is found, so anyone not already familiar with the topic is unlikely ever to have encountered the word before. I think it could be okay in the body (especially if wikilinked) but in the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH or especially in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE it will obscure much more than it illuminates. Mathglot (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It is in line, though, with Great Renunciation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Is he most known for being a renunciate though? Why not use a phrase already in the article's body, and say "was a South Asian teacher who founded Buddhism." If we have to call it religious teacher or something I'd be fine with that, but I think if you asked someone to be super concise about what he was known for, they'd say (1) enlightenment and (2) his teachings. The Buddha and his teachings are two of the three jewels, and it would reflect the lede of the Buddhism article, and there are certainly sources that describe him as such. - Aoidh (talk) 08:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, good argument. But please not "spiritual"; that's a modern western euphemism! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The lead should be constructed backwards from the last paragraph. The lead sentence should be the last. You are all wasting time on a sentence or two that will end up being revised after the rest of the lead has been written. The lead sentence is the most distilled summary, and thus the hardest to pin down at this stage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

A similar word is renunciant. Obviously, the OED is the final arbiter.

Webster's Unabridged has a token line (see at the end); and Wiktionary is crowd sourced.

The OED Third Revised Edition (2010, last updated 2022) has both renunciate (n and verb) and renunciant (n and adj) and the attested examples. They are not by any means limited to Hinduism or Buddhism.

renunciate (n):

A person who renunciates or gives up something; esp. a religious person who has renounced a secular way of life. Cf. renunciant n.

1899 G. Jha' tr. Chha'ndogya Upanishad & Sri Sankara's Comm. ii. viii. Comm., in Upanishads IV. 355 Paramahansa—Renunciates, who have renounced all desire for the external world.

1971 Philos. East & West 21 285 McKenzie then points out that when the several orders of friars..arose from the thirteenth century on, the work of religious renunciates spread into the ministry, teaching, and scholarship.

1977 N.Y. Times Mag. 4 Dec. 43/2 ‘I had a Mercedes Benz, a Triumph 500, a Cessna 172 and an MG,’ he told me, with the inverse pride of the renunciate.

1993 Gnosis Winter 49/2 For a long time I was a renunciate, which was pushing away ‘these’ for ‘those’.

2007 Yoga Mag. Oct. 35/1 There has never been any need to be a hermit or ascetic, to live life as a renunciate, to practice clever contorted asans or even to grow dreadlocks!

renunciant n and adj:

A. n.

A person who renounces something; esp. one who renounces ordinary life for spiritual purposes or (Law) who renounces his or her citizenship.

1745 Suppl. to Reply in Vindic. Kindred Mr. T. v. 33 The Renunciation of an Inheritance, under the Condition that it came to the Renunciant, must be deprived of all Effect, by the Renunciant's Profession.

1827 T. Carlyle tr. J. W. von Goethe Wilhelm Meister's Trav. in German Romance IV. 33 (title) Wilhelm Meister's travels; or the renunciants [Ger. die Entsagenden].

1843 Times 1 Dec. 4/2 It is, indeed, in spirit a free translation of a certain technical disclaimer well known to the venerable renunciants themselves, ‘Nolo episcopari’ &c.

1848 T. Arnold Let. 2 Jan. (1966) 216 Even now there is a little band of Renunciants scattered over the world.

1931 E. Wilson Axel's Castle viii. 257 All were pessimists, renunciants, resignationists, ‘tired of the sad hospital’ which earth seemed to them.

1946 Far Eastern Surv. 15 109/2 Floods of petitions from renunciants who have sought to cancel their renunciations of citizenship.

1973 R. Ellmann Golden Codgers 110 Each of them is a renunciant, who gives up contentment for the sake of his art.

1997 J. Bowker World Relig. 77/2 The Hindu ideal of four stages of life, or ashramas, which are student, householder or family person, forest-dweller, and renunciant.

Here's Websters Unabridged. It doesn't have renunciate, only renunciant:

re·nun·ci·ant

noun \ rə̇ˈnən(t)sēənt \

inflected form(s): plural -s

one who renounces (as the world)

Origin of RENUNCIANT

Latin renuntiant-, renuntians, present participle of renuntiare to renounce — more at renounce Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know about Sramana. My suspicion is that the Hindu-POV promoters among historians of religions of India tend to use of the word and posit the widespread existence of that group of ascetics and renunciants in mid-first-millennium BCE India. I believe that viewpoint was a reaction to the British discovery of Sarnath in 1905 and the widespread awe in which Buddhism came to be held as a result. Most bluntly, the "sramana" usage is a Hindu (and party Jain) reaction to India's first religious reform movement (Buddhism) and the first historical figure (the Buddha after Sarnath) being upgraded in value and a way to bring Buddhism down a notch (by have all three Buddhism, Jainism, and Upanishadic Hinduism trace their roots to the Sramana). I vote against its use in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

And I mean in any form, overtly or in Easter egg. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

By Hindu-POV promoters I don't mean Hindu-nationalist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Mathglot to some extent: renunciant is probably more common that renunciate as nouns which is how we are using it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: that's a very interesting view, on the use of the word "sramana" by Hindu-POV promoters. Usually, such promoters portray Buddhism as an off-shoot of Hinduism. Could you elaborate on this possibility, that is, is there any source which could back-up this view? And I don't mean that in a polemical way; I'd like to know more on such a possibility. In the same line of thought, maybe you could add a few lines to Sarnath on those archaeological excavations, and "the widespread awe in which Buddhism came to be held as a result"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean the more sophisticated nationalist historians or art historians, not the outright reductionists. I think even Coomaraswamy might have been of that ilk. Will look. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks; looking forward to it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The word "sramana" (samanna) was already used by the early Buddhists: Samaññaphala Sutta. I don't get the meaning of "reform religion"; it reminds of the out-fashioned notion that the Buddha 'reformed' 'Hinduism' (which didn't exist at that time) or Brahmanism. The Buddha used terminology from the Brahmins to convey his message, but gave it his own meaning; see the publications of Johannes Bronkhorst and Richard Gombrich. Sramanas have a prominent role in the suttas; they are the peer-group, so to speak, of the Buddha, who is portrayed in the suttas as critizising the views of other sramanas.
On a further note: maha sramana is one of the epithets of the Buddha; it was already known by 19th century British explorers. See Janice Leoshko, Sacred Traces: British Explorations of Buddhism in South Asia, p.39. See also this publication from 1856, referring to " "Maha Sramanah" at the "Sarnath slab." And Donald Lopez Jr., The Scientific Buddha: His Short and Happy Life, Yale University Press, states at p.24: "Those names and epithets were few; he tended to be known as either Buddha or Sakyamuni in China, Korea, Japan, and Tibet, and as either Gotama Buddha or Samana Gotama (“the ascetic Gotama”) in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia." So, the use of the term "sramana" is as old as Buddhism itself, and deeply rooted and accepted in the Buddhist tradition. And the translation "ascetic" is used by on of the top scholars of Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You are engaging in the same undigested dropping of names and sources without qualitative arguments that I've warned you against. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

How was it not a reform movement? Did the Buddha accept caste? There are discourses of him and disciples rejecting heredity as a determinant of social standing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"Undigested" is an unnecessary, offensive qualification. You've been asked many times to refrain from such qualifications; it's not helpfull at all in improving the article. Instead, come up with sources which substantiate your line of reasoning. As long as you don't, it's no more than your personal opinion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The main point is that in a lead you cannot present links that are not obvious ones. The term sramanas whether or not it existed in the Buddha's time, is applied today to forms of rejection of the prevalent ritual practice which had encouraged family life in favor of abandonment of family, forest dwelling, and internalized practice. The sramanas were mostly kshatriyas. The 29-year-old Siddhartha Gautama abandoned his sleeping wife and newborn in the dead of night and wandered off into the forest to become a seeker. That act of cruelty cannot be simply papered over with "renounced lay life." It has to be described precisely per the tradition. This was not a man who did not enter conjugal life, per later Buddhist renunciants, but someone who abandoned individuals, very likely vulnerable ones, who had no choice in the matter. I am not advocating original research, only rejecting the use of cliched terms to mask biographies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

summary style is just as needed for talk pages. When talk page communication becomes a form of engaging in list making, true communication is being obscured. This form of obsurantism can be equally offensive to those who make the effort to summarize. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you; that's a usefull reply. NB: I agree with your assessment of Siddharta's home-leaving (though this is not a factual account, of course, but a 'mythological'/'pedagogic' account): cruel indeed. There are suttas which address the anquish of young men having gone forth, but deeply missing their family... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed graphic showing range of Buddha's wanderings

I had an idea for a graphic that I would find personally useful myself at the article, and I wonder what others think. Assuming that List of places where Gautama Buddha stayed is accurate, or that we could find more or less the range of Buddha's wanderings during his life, a map centered on these locations and pinpointing or labeling the principal locations might be interesting and informative for our readers. Clearly birth, death, Bodh Gaya, and a few others would rate among the principal locations. I've had very good experiences with the map mavens at the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop on a variety of topics, and if we can come up with a description of an illustration or map that would be useful in this article, the folks at the Graphics Lab could create it for us. (As an example of something they created upon request, see for example File:Oradour-sur-Glane massacre.jpg.) Any thoughts about an image or illustration that would help readers visualize and understand the geographic range of the Buddha's perigrinations? Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It would be a sterling example of the OR to which I am referring. We are talking about India's first historical figure, or more accurately the first historical figure in a traditionally ahistorical culture. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The tenuousness of anything reliable can be gauged by the British recreation of Buddhist history in the early years of the 20th century. See my Lion capital of Ashoka#History. It was recreation of the first recreation c.a. 250 BCE, some 200 years after Gautama Buddha's death. Until the turn of the 20th-century, evidence of the Buddha's sojourns as a renunciate on the fringes of new urban settlements, was pretty much non-existent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

From the article:

According to Schumann, the Buddha's wanderings ranged from "Kosambi on the Yamuna (25 km south-west of Allahabad )", to Campa (40 km east of Bhagalpur)" and from "Kapilavatthu (95 km north-west of Gorakhpur) to Uruvela (south of Gaya)." This covers an area of 600 by 300 km. His sangha enjoyed the patronage of the kings of Kosala and Magadha and he thus spent a lot of time in their respective capitals, Savatthi and Rajagaha.

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll come back in a couple of week's time and assess where things are at. Obviously, I'll be respectful of preexisting reliable and due content. And I'll be happy to present the edits at the talk page as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate this comment, thank you very much. If your proposed changes are as thought out and well written as India's lede, I'm sure the end result will be an improved article, which I have no doubt all of us are after. - Aoidh (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Unless you have magical powers, it's impossible to label something "a sterling example of... OR" when it doesn't exist yet. Rather than condemning the idea a priori, why not join in and discuss what might be a useful addition to the article? Let's remember that WP:Verifiability does not require that something is provably true beyond the shadow of a doubt (otherwise we couldn't have an article about Achilles) just that the content we include is a faithful summary of the preponderance of reliable sources about a subject. A great deal of the information in this article cannot be authenticated as true, down to the years or even century of his existence, but that does not mean the entire article is OR; as long as we follow the sources, it is not OR. A map that would cover the places most commonly referred to in reliable sources about the Buddha would be helpful imho to readers trying to understand where the events of his life took place. The caption could even be footnoted, if that would assuage your concerns.Mathglot (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

So do you have any Buddha-related content to offer here, or will you be acting officiously busy polishing the bells and the whistles of content that does not exist? How silly is this? Relentless talk page sophistry; no knowledge displayed thus far of the Buddha. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind this, so long as it is presented as "by tradition" rather than as fact, and is conservative and well-sourced. The list at Buddhist pilgrimage sites in India#Places_associated_with_the_life_of_Buddha probably accurately reflects local traditions but is probably much too long. I don't think scholars are inclined to believe in the visits to Haryana and Andhra for example. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I've replied to a part of this post somewhere else, Jb. I think a brief mention of "by tradition" wanderings is fine for the main body. But the lead should have only the main four pilgrimage sites and a brief general mention of the northern- (or north- and central) mid-Ganges Basin. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I endorse Mathglot's suggestion a graphic be created about the wanderings of this subject. This is a sensible idea to help visualize and contextualize information about a contentious subject. "By tradition" is a useful viewpoint (although distinctively marking locations with various ranges of importance/authenticity should be an easy thing for cartographers to accommodate, even if multiple maps are required), and if such is drafted for discussion, it might be wise to establish consensus in some venue (perhaps here) before 1) submitting the request and 2) publishing a final version 1.0. I endorse F&f's caution about creating our own problem, OR-wise. Such a map would certainly help understand the chronology, which I'll concede is difficult to follow for someone not readily familiar with physical or political geography of the area both at the time in question and in the present day. BusterD (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that some valuable suggestions, including a proposed map with map pins, have been proposed in response to points raised in this discussion, but for some reason were posted to section § The prized doozy above. (Moving those comments here might be a good solution.) Mathglot (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)