`  == Serious Problems in Current Citations & Constructive Suggestions for Improvement ==  (1) A remarkable number of the footnotes (as this article now stands, in Aug. of 2011) rely on a SINGLE PAGE of a single work by Gregory Schopen.  That one page DOES NOT support the argument pinned upon it by this wikipedia article (and I know, because I read it: one whole page, what a tremendous burden of fact-checking!).  Please allow me to quote what Schopen's thesis and/or conclusion actually is here: ::``We are left, it seems, with the apparent fact that, at least in regard to major Buddhist cult forms, -the stupa cult and the image cult- the appearance of early Mahayana sutra literature had no effect, changed nothing, and was of no consequence.`` That is hardly the view that is now espoused by this Wikiepdia article!  In this case, I can only surmise that the contributor is intentionally mis-representing the source cited.  It is also problematic that only one half of what Schopen is saying is reflected in these quotations: he is making a specific argument about one stage in the development of the EARLIEST (known) Mahayana literature, while contrasting it to later developments that did indeed go on to do the things discussed in the ensuing history (he is stating that it did not do so ``in its earliest phase or phases``, to quote him directly, just as certainly as it DID do so thereafter; and this is all very clearly said on the very same page!).  Likewise, the actual phrase ``profoundly conservative`` is (horrendously!) quoted out of context as this wikipedia article now stands, and used against its original purpose.  No library required for this one, by the way: this one page that has been so mis-used can be read instantly through google books' preview service.  (2) I also found that Guan Xing does not support some of the views now stated in this wikipedia article.  The source here is The concept of the Buddha: its evolution from early Buddhism to the trikāya ... by Guang Xing (and yes, you can preview that through Google Books, too).  Page 33 states that the Theravada canon does not include the 80 marks, but these are instead a later addition in ``sub-commentaries``.  In general, this whole book contains some very detailed reflections on the fact that Theravada and Mahayana descriptions of the Buddha are NOT identical (e.g., p. 28, e.g., p. 34-5... ) ... genuinely interesting, and. I think, the opposite of what Tengu800 would prefer this article to say.  This article now relies VERY HEAVILY on Guan Xing... but I don't think it even fairly reflects the thesis that the guy's work pursues.  I mention this because the incongruous contrast between citation and source here is a pretty clear sign to me that whoever added all of these citations either did not really read Guan Xing's book, or that they used it insincerely.  Admittedly, I myself just did very rapid fact-checking, and also have not read the book (...I'd like to...); this is a case of a source that is not dubious, but some editor has made very dubious use of it.  (3) The Wikipedia article Race of Jesus opens with this sentence, ``The race of Jesus of Nazareth has been a subject of debate in the western world academia since at least the nineteenth century in Europe.``  So, this article on the Buddha should open with the sentence, ``The physical appearance of the Buddha has been a subject of debate in western academia since at least the nineteenth century in Europe, and artistic representations indigenous to Asia have shown tremendous diversity, over a long and storied history.``  That's NPOV: ``diversity`` and ``debate`` are neutral, and factually correct.  (4) Race of Jesus has a section titled ``Jesus in the Bible``... followed by a very brief survey of primary sources.  How about a very brief sequence of bullet-points listing the influential sources of descriptions of the Buddha's physical appearance?  Please note, the 32 marks are NOT the only source: However, at a minimum, * Theravada Canon (cite a few different suttas by name) * Mahayana Sanskrit Canon (I know we've got one vote for the version of the 32 marks preserved in Sanskrit) * Tibetan Canon (if anything is strikingly different from the above...) * Chinese Canon * Anything uniquely Japanese (if differing in some interesting way from the above)  (5) I would prefer to see it follow after #2, rather than before it, but it is really obvious that someone needs to briefly quote some of the major figures like Thomas William Rhys Davids who did argue that the Buddha was a completely ``natural`` physical person (as opposed to supernatural) and was vaguely desultory toward the tendency to turn him into a god (please do not attack me as if I were supporting this view, I am just stating that it needs to be mentioned in a survey of the academic debates in this section!  I d