This article falls within the scope ofWikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing withBuddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit theproject page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofplants andbotany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofIndia-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit theproject page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
"This tree is a frequent destination for pilgrims, being the most important of the four holy sites for Buddhists." Could we get a link to the other three of the four most holy places in Buddhism? -Heartofgoldfish03:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The entire Historical Events section sounds like an excerpt from the Tripitaka. If anyone is better qualified than I am to make it sound like an encyclopedia article, please, go ahead.Colin01:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'veboldly retitled this section "In Buddhist chronology" which I believe is a more neutral title that neither affirms nor rejects the historicity of the traditional accounts used as sources. I'm also adding language identifying this content as according to traditional Buddhist accounts.WP:NPOV permits reporting the traditional Buddhist point of view (which is clearly a significant one) so long as other viewpoints are not excluded. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk)01:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it repeats a tradition and greeting that I believe are specific to Japan as though they were universal to all Buddhists- Bodhi Day, as far as I know, is definitely not celebrated by Theravada Buddhists and is primarily a East Asian Mahayana festival. --108.69.226.112 (talk)07:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dharmalion76: Hello, i have simplified the sentence. Please read it, these were edits in good faith.
This article is about Bodhi tree found in the temple. Peepal is generic term for scared fig in South Asia (already mentioned in sacred fig page) but tree found in temple is known as Bodhi/Mahabodhi, not peepal.
This article specifically talks about theancient bodhi tree of bodha gaya and the one found in temple today.
The given reference states "peepal" and that is more verifiable than the opinion of an IP address. Your "decluttering" moves the references around so they aren't accurate anymore.Dharmalion76 (talk)20:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is very silly, Peepal is generic term for sacred fig tree in South Asia, not Bodhi tree found in the temple. It is known as Bodhi or Mahabodhi tree specifically.117.192.210.51 (talk)23:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my opinion - Is Bodhi/Mahabodhi tree in Nepal and Bhutan? If this was in reference to "Peepal" then it is wrong. Peepal is generic term in SA, Bodhi/Mahabothi specifically refers to tree at Gaya temple, where people go for pilgrimage.117.192.202.240 (talk)18:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence says the term Peepal tree is used in used in Nepal and Bhutannot that the tree itself is in Nepal and Bhutan. Please stop removing referenced material. At this point it is bordering on vandalism.Dharmalion76 (talk)19:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except,Peepal is used inall south asia not just in Nepal and Bhutan which is inaccurate, theDevanagari sript itself covers it. if you really want to add it then it should be South Asia. It's not vandalism to correct inaccuracies.
This is not a accurate sentence "in Nepal and Bhutan, was a large and very old sacred fig tree (Ficus religiosa) located in Bodh Gaya".
It should start with "Bodhi tree was a large and very old sacred fig tree located in ancient Bodh Gaya, under which Siddhartha Gautama, the spiritual teacher later became known as the Buddha "
The sentenceisn't "in Nepal and Bhutan, was a large and very old sacred fig tree (Ficus religiosa) located in Bodh Gaya". There is a beginning to that sentence. "The Bodhi Tree (Sanskrit: बोधि) also known as Bo (from Sinhalese: Bo) and "peepal tree" (Devanagari: पीपल)[1] in Nepal and Bhutan, was a large and very old sacred fig tree...." shows that Nepal and Bhutan know it as peepal tree. You are taking it out of context and pretending it says something different so you can delete it.Dharmalion76 (talk)03:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking it out of context.
SeePeepal terminology in various south asian languages, it's generic term. Like sacredTulsi for example.
In India, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lankapeepal isgeneric term for scared fig. Bodhi or Mahabodhi is not generic term for all peepal trees. Peepal trees worshiped by Hindus in Nepal or India is not known as Bodhi tree for example.
The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove 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:(non-admin closure)NOT MOVED. There is consensus against adding "The" to the article title. There is no consensus on some other move; either to change "Tree" to lowercase, or to add parenthetical disambiguation (and presumably havingBodhi tree become a DAB or redirect to some other article).User:力 (power~enwiki,π,ν)02:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bodhi Tree →The Bodhi treeThe Bodhi tree – The inclusion of "The" can be used to distinguish between the one particular tree under whichGautama Buddha is said to have attainedbodhi and the other trees that are called bodhi trees, e.g., all trees of the speciesFicus religiosa or the trees that are direct descendants (e.g., theMahabodhi tree or theAnandabodhi tree) or clones from cuttings (e.g., theSri Maha Bodhi Tree or theBodhi Tree in Honolulu) of the particular tree under which the Buddha sat. (SeeWP:THE: "If a term with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same term without the article, the term with the article can be used as the name of a Wikipedia article about that meaning.") Also, the sources are mixed about capitalization of "tree". So is the Wikipedia article. In fact most of the sources that I have checked use lowercase for "tree".Brittanica uses lowercase. The CNN article cited in the first sentence does too. In a web search, many instances that capitalize the word "tree" are doing so for the names of institutions and enterprises rather than for the name of this particular tree (e.g.,Bodhi Tree Bookstore, Bodhi Tree Salon & Spa, Bodhi Tree Yoga Resort, Bodhi Tree Juice Co., Bodhi Tree Massage and Skincare, Bodhi Tree Guesthouse & Studio, Bodhi Tree Educational Foundation, Bodhi Tree Cafe). When sources are mixed, Wikipedia generally prefers lowercase. But "Bodhi tree" (without "The") is more ambiguous, as it could refer either to this article or the article about the species of tree or one of the other individual trees. — BarrelProof (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)—Relisting.Elli (talk |contribs)16:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sureWP:THE is applicable here. It seems to me that in "Bodhi tree" versus "The Bodhi tree", the definite article is simply performing its usual function of picking out a unique referent, and not changing the meaning of the term as it is in, e.g., "crown" versus "The Crown". I agree that lower-casing and further disambiguation seems necessary from your evidence, though. Perhaps "Bodhi tree (Buddha)" would be better?Rublov (talk)16:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The quote fromWP:THE above cuts off an important portion of the quoted sentence. The full sentence is (omitted portion in bold):If a term with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same term without the article, the term with the article can be used as the name of a Wikipedia article about that meaning, and the word without article can be used as the name of a separate Wikipedia article. Unless it's being proposed thatBodhi Tree redirect somewhere else (which doesn't seem to be the case), then this clause ofWP:THE doesn't apply.Colin M (talk)22:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move toBodhi tree (Bodh Gaya) - I agree with BarrelProof on capitalisation here, but don't think "(Buddhism)" works to disambiguate since descendants of that tree and even otherF. religiosa trees are all relevant to Buddhism. This particular tree is called the "(Śri) Mahābodhi tree" to distinguish it from otherF. religiosa trees that are called bodhi trees, however, some of the descendants of this tree share that name too since the cuttings may be viewed as continuations of the original tree and not as distinct descendants. Similarly, "the" could be accurately applied to any particular one of the descendants so that doesn't work for disambiguation; therefore, I don't agree with the original proposal.
It seems, then, that the distinguishing feature is not the religion, the title given to the tree, or a definite article but the geographical location of this tree: "located inBodh Gaya,Bihar,India"; this is how that first line of the article itself disambiguates this tree. This issue with geographical identifiers is that the original tree is dead and has been replaced by cuttings planted at the same location, however, the article itself already covers this history of the tree at Bodh Gaya, and in-fact most of the content of the article is a history of the cuttings of the original tree at Bodh Gaya including subsequent generations at Bodh Gaya and cuttings transported elsewhere. Therefore, I don't think it's problematic to disambiguate this article geographically.Scyrme (talk)15:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove 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. Consensus is: disambiguation of a primary topic article at the base name is unnecessary. If nom wanted to argue that this topic is not primary for “Bodhi Tree”, well, that argument was not presented.(non-admin closure)В²C☎01:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bodhi Tree →Bodhi tree (Bodh Gaya) – The previous requested move for this article (now closed) raised several issues which were unresolved, specifically regarding capitalisation and ambiguity; there was a general agreement in favour of a lowercase "tree", but this makes the title ambiguous. As I argued in that discussion, the distinguishing feature of this particular tree is not the religion ("Buddhism"), the title given to the tree ("Śri Mahā-"), or a definite article ("the") but the geographical location of this tree: "located in Bodh Gaya, Bihar, India"; this is also how the first line of the article itself disambiguates this tree. "Bodhi tree (Bodh Gaya)" is the only accurate, unambiguous title for this article.Scyrme (talk)23:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh: There is a need to disambiguate it from other bodhi trees (F. religiosa) in general, and other descendants of the historical tree at Bodh Gaya, which includes trees which aren't even in the same country yet share that same name and share the same significance for local Budhhist communities because they were cut from the tree at Bodh Gaya. If primary topic guidelines allow these other trees to just be ignored, then please demonstrate this rather just saying it.Scyrme (talk)23:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's not though; this is the primary topic. Thus, there's no need for a parenthetical disambiguation. There is zero reason to add a parenthetical disambiguation when it's already at the primary topic. It's creating a problem rather than solving one. -Aoidh (talk)23:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The following is a closed discussion of arequested 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 amove reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bodhi Tree →Bodhi tree – The name is relatively generic, so there's no need to capitalize "tree".Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)This is a contested technical request (permalink).Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. ASUKITE 18:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)— Relisting.Sophisticatedevening(talk) 18:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)From what I can understand, it is not, in fact, about one individual tree. The tree that Gautama supposedly meditated under died, and all others, including the one at Bodh Gaya but also the one at Anuradhapura, are "Bodhi trees"; the only one that would require capitalization is the original one.Revirvlkodlaku (talk)13:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the long-term properly page is about Buddha's individual sacred tree, the Bodhi Tree, its history, its significance in Buddhism, and its direct "descendants" (i.e. plants grown from parts of the tree). Nothing generic about it.Randy Kryn (talk)13:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, while the speciesFicus religiosa is commonly known as bodhi tree and that's relatively generic, this article is about a very specific tree as noted by Randy Kryn.Eucalyptusmint (talk)01:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, since the Bodhi tree, a very particular tree, is most often referred to in sources using lowercase "tree".See n-gram stats. And there are tons of recent books with "the Bodhi Tree" in their titles, and many (most?) of the capitalized occurences are mentions of those titles, e.g. as inthis book. Other modern books with "the Bodhi Tree" in title use lowercase for that tree in sentences, as inthis book. Caps are clearly not "necessary" in light of how reliable sources use this term.Dicklyon (talk)08:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dicklyon's evidence. The earlier arguments don't really address title policies/guidelines. With this much lowercasing, the current title goes againstMOS:CAPS ("consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources"), though it could be justified if needed for disambiguation. However, this article seems to be aprimary topic forBodhi tree. (It is currently aWP:PRIMARYREDIRECT.)SilverLocust💬23:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Dicklyon and SilverLocust. Wikipedia's MoS and usage in reliable sources both support Bodhi tree over Bodhi Tree. -Aoidh (talk)00:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to readers who may have forgotten, the article is about a specific tree which has a significant place in Buddhism. It is a proper noun, the name of a specific tree, which is uppercased, and not aboutthe species of plant, which would be lowercased.Randy Kryn (talk)01:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the subject of the article. The issue is that the majority of reliable sources do not support the claim that this article's subjectis uppercased, and so sources and our MoS support moving this article's title. -Aoidh (talk)04:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not if it is a proper name (which it is, both in subject and in the Buddhist context). Sources may be lowercasing the species name, this is the name of an individual tree.Randy Kryn (talk)05:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources referring to this specific Bodhi tree (and not, for example, the Mahabodhi tree) use lowercase.[1][2] In fact reliable sources use "Bodhi Tree" to refer to ones other than this article's subject, like the Mahabodhi tree[3] orany bodhi tree,[4] so it's not accurate to say that "Bodhi Tree" is always capitalized for this particular tree, or that reliable sources uses uppercase when referring to this article's subject. -Aoidh (talk)05:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Dicklyon and SilverLocus plus the clear indication that the source tree has died, and propagations are not the only trees that are referred to with the term.--Kevmin§19:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the first sentence, the article is firstly about the original Bodhi Tree, a proper name for the tree that Buddha sat under determined to attain enlightenment. Thanks.Randy Kryn (talk)15:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
.svg)
