The following discussion 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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Mike Christie ( talk · contribs) 12:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll review this. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll copyedit as I go through the article; please revert as needed.
Because there are so many dead links that need to be looked at, and because I've suggested cutting some text, I'm going to pause here to give you a chance to respond. I also looked at the history article and the same problem exists there; I see you have other Dhammakaya Movement articles in the queue, so you may want to go through them all for the dead link issue. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I have another question about the boundary between articles which I should ask before I go on with the review. How are you deciding what goes into Dhammakaya Movement and what goes into the temple articles? I ask because I see a lot of detail under the "Principles, practices and beliefs" section; I looked in Dhammakaya Movement for comparison, and found rather less about those things. I would have thought it would be the other way round. Or are the temples able to individualize their practices, so that only generalities can be given in the parent article? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
This movement ... was started by the meditation teacher Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro in the early twentieth century? No, this statement is not controversial. E.g. even Sulak Sivaraksa, a sworn enemy to Wat Phra Dhammakaya, repeats the same statement here on page 85. So this is not a pro-Dhammakaya statement, despite its bearing on legitimacy. It must be included, because it explains the roots of the temple.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
which has led to controversy and government response: vague -- this could mean positive or negative response.
During the period of the Asian financial crisis: this is an odd way to give a date, and in fact if the reader doesn't know what the dates of the crisis are they're no wiser. I'd give the date explicitly. Is the crisis relevant to the criticism mentioned here? I assume that's why you're mentioning it; if so a brief explanation of the connection would be good.
Phra Dhammajayo later became abbot of the temple and was called Luang Por Dhammajayo from then on, which indicates they are the same person; that's what I was asking for. Are they in fact two people? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thus, on 20 February 1970, Maechi Chandra, Phra Dhammajayo, Phra Dattajivo and their students moved to the 196-rai (313,600 m2 or 77.5-acre) plot of land to found a new meditation center: Why is Phra Dattajivo mentioned here and nowhere else? Suggest either cutting his name here, or explaining who he is, if he's important.
All of this at the backdrop of the financial crisis Thailand was facing at the time: this sentence has no main verb.
Under pressure of public outcry and critics: not quite fluent English. Was the investigation started because of the outcry and criticism? Or did it start for some other reason, and the outcry and criticism is the accompanying context? If the former, I'd make this "Prompted by the criticism and public outcry, "; if the latter, then something like "Amidst the criticism and public outcry" would work.
had not broken any serious offenses: not quite right; one commits offenses, but breaks laws.
This period of intense media attention had disastrous effects on the temple: vague; did membership decline? Or donations? Were they in financial difficulties? Just a couple of words would do.
The pilgrimages stirred up resentment however, because of its notability, alleged traffic jams caused, and a debate started as to whether it was going against tradition: I'm not sure what "because of its notability" means here.
Despite the resistance at times, as of 2010, Wat Phra Dhammakaya was the fastest growing temple of Thailand: why "at times"?
Phra Suwit objected to this nomination of Somdet Chuang Varapuñño: "this nomination" implies it's already been mentioned, which is not the case; making it "the nomination" would fix it unless it's supposed to have been mentioned before this.
And why is this relevant in an article about this temple? I see Somedet Chuang ordained Luang Por Dhammajayo, but why does that make this interesting?
that made headlines worldwide: suggest cutting this.
-- More later. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
It's not as bad as it looks...Nothing bad here, only good initiative.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 12:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Reading through again:
News analysts have described the actions of the Thai junta towards the temple may have reflected a political need to control who should be selected as the next Supreme Patriarch: looks like an incompletely edited sentence.
Dhammakaya meditation at the higher levels is also described to bring forth abhinna: "described" is not the right word here. Do you mean "believed"?
The anatta concept has been a subject of intense debate: we still don't know what anatta means. The previous paragraph doesn't define it, or doesn't say so, if it does.
stating that the environment will only improve if we start working on clearing up our own minds: can we rephrase this to put it in the third person?
While criticism of the temple's fundraising eventually died down following this period, some criticism persisted: This is either inconsistent, if by "died down" you mean "ceased", or redundant, if it means "reduced".
Scott has shown that: suggest "Scott has argued that" unless you can be confident that Scott's conclusion is generally accepted.
He is both the abbot of the temple as the president of the foundation: should be "and", not "as", presumably.
a department for maintenance, fundraising, education and propagation divisions: sounds like these are separate departments; if so, this should be something like "and departments for maintenance, fundraising, education and propagation".
Full-time employees will sometimes ordain after a while, but their ordination is different than that of males who ordain without having been an employee: is it only men who can be ordained?
Just like in the Dhammadayada training programs, full-time employees are trained thoroughly: this seems non-neutral. Why "thoroughly"? If the sources said it was cursory, that would be worth commenting on, but training can be assumed to be appropriate. And what's the point of the reference to the Dhammadaya training program?
We are born to build up our parami's: I don't know if this is the standard translation, but in English one would not use an apostrophe.
Purohita: an important office building: "important" is vague; can we either say what it is used for, or why it's important, or cut the word?
That's it for the read-through. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I still have to read through the last couple of sections; I might get to that this morning, but if not it should be this weekend. I am a little uneasy about neutrality. I haven't yet looked at the talk page or talk archives, or searched online for other sources about the temple, but in places I get the feeling that this is the point of view the temple would want to present. Can you point me to any third-party articles about the temple or its history that cover some of the controversial material? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Sources in the article that have a close connection with the temple are only Sorakarn Sritong-on, whose thesis was published by the temple, and of course, the books published by the temple/foundation itself, or its English-language publisher the Tawandhamma Foundation. It may also be that Sirikanchana is closely related to the temple—I cannot confirm this. Apart from these, all sources cited in the article are secondary and independent. If you want, i can split off the sources section into primary and secondary sources subsections.
News outlets are less relevant for this article, but in general:
With regard to reliability, McCargo has the best reputation, followed by Scott and probably Swearer. Others scholars cited are less well-known, it seems. Mackenzie's book as was not well-received by scholars as Scott's, but it contains much information not found elsewhere. Apinya Fuengfusakul is a well-accepted scholarly authority on the temple in Thailand, but she has written only one article about the temple in English, and the rest is in Thai.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 14:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Edited.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 13:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Searching online found these two recent articles: Temple told to pay KCUC 58 million baht, from the Bangkok Post, and Scandal-hit Thai temple hosts thousands of monks for Buddhist ceremony, from the Southeast Asia Globe. There are a couple of things from these stories that don't seem to be fully reflected in the article:
I'm not saying we have to include all of this in the article, but these seem to be material points, and I'd like to hear your thoughts.
In the meantime I'll start reading the history article. This article is now pretty close to GA status, but I'd like to go through the history article at least once to get a sense of the relationship between the two before I promote either one. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, didn't realize there was new events. Wikiman5676 ( talk) 23:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Mike Christie ( talk · contribs) 12:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll review this. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll copyedit as I go through the article; please revert as needed.
Because there are so many dead links that need to be looked at, and because I've suggested cutting some text, I'm going to pause here to give you a chance to respond. I also looked at the history article and the same problem exists there; I see you have other Dhammakaya Movement articles in the queue, so you may want to go through them all for the dead link issue. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I have another question about the boundary between articles which I should ask before I go on with the review. How are you deciding what goes into Dhammakaya Movement and what goes into the temple articles? I ask because I see a lot of detail under the "Principles, practices and beliefs" section; I looked in Dhammakaya Movement for comparison, and found rather less about those things. I would have thought it would be the other way round. Or are the temples able to individualize their practices, so that only generalities can be given in the parent article? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
This movement ... was started by the meditation teacher Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro in the early twentieth century? No, this statement is not controversial. E.g. even Sulak Sivaraksa, a sworn enemy to Wat Phra Dhammakaya, repeats the same statement here on page 85. So this is not a pro-Dhammakaya statement, despite its bearing on legitimacy. It must be included, because it explains the roots of the temple.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
which has led to controversy and government response: vague -- this could mean positive or negative response.
During the period of the Asian financial crisis: this is an odd way to give a date, and in fact if the reader doesn't know what the dates of the crisis are they're no wiser. I'd give the date explicitly. Is the crisis relevant to the criticism mentioned here? I assume that's why you're mentioning it; if so a brief explanation of the connection would be good.
Phra Dhammajayo later became abbot of the temple and was called Luang Por Dhammajayo from then on, which indicates they are the same person; that's what I was asking for. Are they in fact two people? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thus, on 20 February 1970, Maechi Chandra, Phra Dhammajayo, Phra Dattajivo and their students moved to the 196-rai (313,600 m2 or 77.5-acre) plot of land to found a new meditation center: Why is Phra Dattajivo mentioned here and nowhere else? Suggest either cutting his name here, or explaining who he is, if he's important.
All of this at the backdrop of the financial crisis Thailand was facing at the time: this sentence has no main verb.
Under pressure of public outcry and critics: not quite fluent English. Was the investigation started because of the outcry and criticism? Or did it start for some other reason, and the outcry and criticism is the accompanying context? If the former, I'd make this "Prompted by the criticism and public outcry, "; if the latter, then something like "Amidst the criticism and public outcry" would work.
had not broken any serious offenses: not quite right; one commits offenses, but breaks laws.
This period of intense media attention had disastrous effects on the temple: vague; did membership decline? Or donations? Were they in financial difficulties? Just a couple of words would do.
The pilgrimages stirred up resentment however, because of its notability, alleged traffic jams caused, and a debate started as to whether it was going against tradition: I'm not sure what "because of its notability" means here.
Despite the resistance at times, as of 2010, Wat Phra Dhammakaya was the fastest growing temple of Thailand: why "at times"?
Phra Suwit objected to this nomination of Somdet Chuang Varapuñño: "this nomination" implies it's already been mentioned, which is not the case; making it "the nomination" would fix it unless it's supposed to have been mentioned before this.
And why is this relevant in an article about this temple? I see Somedet Chuang ordained Luang Por Dhammajayo, but why does that make this interesting?
that made headlines worldwide: suggest cutting this.
-- More later. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
It's not as bad as it looks...Nothing bad here, only good initiative.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 12:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Reading through again:
News analysts have described the actions of the Thai junta towards the temple may have reflected a political need to control who should be selected as the next Supreme Patriarch: looks like an incompletely edited sentence.
Dhammakaya meditation at the higher levels is also described to bring forth abhinna: "described" is not the right word here. Do you mean "believed"?
The anatta concept has been a subject of intense debate: we still don't know what anatta means. The previous paragraph doesn't define it, or doesn't say so, if it does.
stating that the environment will only improve if we start working on clearing up our own minds: can we rephrase this to put it in the third person?
While criticism of the temple's fundraising eventually died down following this period, some criticism persisted: This is either inconsistent, if by "died down" you mean "ceased", or redundant, if it means "reduced".
Scott has shown that: suggest "Scott has argued that" unless you can be confident that Scott's conclusion is generally accepted.
He is both the abbot of the temple as the president of the foundation: should be "and", not "as", presumably.
a department for maintenance, fundraising, education and propagation divisions: sounds like these are separate departments; if so, this should be something like "and departments for maintenance, fundraising, education and propagation".
Full-time employees will sometimes ordain after a while, but their ordination is different than that of males who ordain without having been an employee: is it only men who can be ordained?
Just like in the Dhammadayada training programs, full-time employees are trained thoroughly: this seems non-neutral. Why "thoroughly"? If the sources said it was cursory, that would be worth commenting on, but training can be assumed to be appropriate. And what's the point of the reference to the Dhammadaya training program?
We are born to build up our parami's: I don't know if this is the standard translation, but in English one would not use an apostrophe.
Purohita: an important office building: "important" is vague; can we either say what it is used for, or why it's important, or cut the word?
That's it for the read-through. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I still have to read through the last couple of sections; I might get to that this morning, but if not it should be this weekend. I am a little uneasy about neutrality. I haven't yet looked at the talk page or talk archives, or searched online for other sources about the temple, but in places I get the feeling that this is the point of view the temple would want to present. Can you point me to any third-party articles about the temple or its history that cover some of the controversial material? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Sources in the article that have a close connection with the temple are only Sorakarn Sritong-on, whose thesis was published by the temple, and of course, the books published by the temple/foundation itself, or its English-language publisher the Tawandhamma Foundation. It may also be that Sirikanchana is closely related to the temple—I cannot confirm this. Apart from these, all sources cited in the article are secondary and independent. If you want, i can split off the sources section into primary and secondary sources subsections.
News outlets are less relevant for this article, but in general:
With regard to reliability, McCargo has the best reputation, followed by Scott and probably Swearer. Others scholars cited are less well-known, it seems. Mackenzie's book as was not well-received by scholars as Scott's, but it contains much information not found elsewhere. Apinya Fuengfusakul is a well-accepted scholarly authority on the temple in Thailand, but she has written only one article about the temple in English, and the rest is in Thai.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 14:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Edited.-- Farang Rak Tham ( talk) 13:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Searching online found these two recent articles: Temple told to pay KCUC 58 million baht, from the Bangkok Post, and Scandal-hit Thai temple hosts thousands of monks for Buddhist ceremony, from the Southeast Asia Globe. There are a couple of things from these stories that don't seem to be fully reflected in the article:
I'm not saying we have to include all of this in the article, but these seem to be material points, and I'd like to hear your thoughts.
In the meantime I'll start reading the history article. This article is now pretty close to GA status, but I'd like to go through the history article at least once to get a sense of the relationship between the two before I promote either one. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, didn't realize there was new events. Wikiman5676 ( talk) 23:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)