I think you've misunderstood the nature of article.

The article is about the historical Buddha i.e. the person whom people believe existed, as a human.

It's not about 'understanding Buddhism'.

There is nothing 'Western' about objective historical investigation, and neither is the term 'myth' highly overloaded; if people believe strongly in a narrative that is not based in reality, we call that 'myth' and it's a fair term.