Talk:History of Wat Phra Dhammakaya/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 16:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this, since I'm already reviewing Wat Phra Dhammakaya; I'll hold off on adding comments here until that GA review is further along. Mike Christie (talk – contribs – library) 16:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

General

 * Footnotes 192 and 198, both from the Financial Times, are dead links with no archive link. Mike Christie (talk – contribs – library) 00:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed, i think. Can you open this link? On my screen, it appears to work briefly, and then there is an error. But that could be because I have run through my maximum of articles, which might also affect archived links. As for the other dead link, I have been able to find an other news link, it still exists on their server, and basically says the same thing.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The same thing happens to me. I've left a note at VPT asking about it.  For now I'll accept it, so that takes care of 192; the other one (now 199) is still an issue. Mike Christie (talk – contribs – library) 22:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The other one has already been replaced by this link, but this website has a limited amount of article views per person, so you might have to login using another device to bypass the paywall.

Founding years (1963–1978)

 * the landowner Khunying Prayat Suntharawet gave a plot four times the requested size to celebrate her birthday: does "her" refer to Chandra Khonnokyoong? Or is the landowner female?
 * The landowner was female. I have rephrased it.-Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * eventually, this was changed to building a full-fledged temple, under pressure of authorities: what does "under pressure of authorities" mean?
 * Mackenzie states: Phra Dattacheewo, however, made the point that there was no intention to open a temple, it was supposed to function as a centre for meditation but "we got into some trouble for not registering as a temple with the authorities and so we registered but it was not our purpose to start a temple".
 * Fixed now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * However, there was disagreement as to who should become the abbot of the temple, and she left. In 1982, the temple was therefore renamed "Wat Phra Dhammakaya": I don't follow this. Voranee left?  If so, I hadn't realized she was a member of the temple.
 * Voranee was a supporter, not a staff member. Rephrased.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * What was the debate about who should become abbot?
 * Not so many sources mention this. The Youtube with the in-depth news report cited (most Thai news channel post directly on Youtube, rather than maintaining their own video archives) says that Voranee wanted to develop a temple "following Thai traditionalism" (ตามประเพณีนิยมแบบไทย). One newspaper article from 1998 states that Voranee was against the temple expanding its areas, which they eventually did in 1984. I have rewritten this now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * And why "therefore": does the new name have a meaning that is relevant, or are we just saying that it dropped Voranee's name because she left?
 * The latter. Rewritten.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The article uses both "mae chi" and "maechi"; shouldn't it be consistent?
 * Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This ceremony was of that importance that people from all over the country traveled by bus to join it, from urban and rural areas: "of that importance" is not fluent English; do you mean "of such importance"? Even that doesn't seem quite right, though, because phrasing it that way makes it an absolute statement, whereas presumably it's only viewed as important by the temple's adherents.  How about "This ceremony was so important to the temple's adherents that..."?
 * Fixed.


 * prohibited the building of a meditation center in the province: what does "in the province" mean here? The province where the temple was located?
 * Upcountry. Rephrased.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * A similar incident occurred in 1988 in Chiang Rai Province, when villagers felt threatened by the expanding activities led by forty monks of the temple: I don't think we've heard about this expansion activity earlier in the article, have we?
 * The source is not clear. Removed for now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

First clash with government (1997–2000)

 * There's an uncited sentence at the end of the first paragraph of "Investigations and lawsuits".
 * The sentence merely introduces the next paragraph.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Moreover, the temple underlined the legal rights of monks under the constitution: The previous sentence doesn't discuss the temple's position, so "Moreover" is not the best way to start this sentence. How about "The temple cited the legal rights of monks..."?
 * Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Spokespeople also questioned whether the letter of the Patriarch was not a fake: not quite right; suggest either "Spokespeople also questioned the authenticity of the letter of the Patriarch", or "Spokespeople also suggested that the letter of the Patriarch might be a fake".
 * Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * If it was later acknowledge to be genuine by the Patriarch I would say so at this point, perhaps in the footnote explaining he was ill.
 * I have no source stating an acknowledgement on his part, but as you can see in the note, the debate on this was still continuing in 2015. I am not sure why the Patriarch was never asked about it. It could be that he was too ill or too old to speak. He was suffering from dengue fever, which is pretty serious. This is, however, all speculation, since it is common practice in Thailand to sue anyone who says anything remotely bad about the Patriarch—so most people try not to get involved. I have rephrased the note in such a way that it is no longer suggested that the Patriarch recovered later.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I see a later footnote about the letter but it doesn't appear to resolve the question of whether it was authentic.
 * Yes, it has remained an unsolved issue, with opinions on both sides. I have included a "see below" link to the section where this discussion is continued, that is, in 2015.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * From November onward, Luang Por Dhammajayo started to go to court: what does this mean? That he had to attend the trial daily?
 * The source just says he went to court, and that the trials were not finished yet. I don't know the frequency of the hearings, but in the Matichon archive there are one or two reports per year stating that the case was still running.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, religious and state officials continued to criminalize the temple's propagation of teachings: suggest "Nevertheless, religious and state officials continued to assert that the temple's teachings constituted criminal offenses", or "included criminal offenses"; or perhaps "some of the temple's teachings".
 * Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The temple promoted laypeople nationwide to open their homes or workplaces: I don't think "promoted" is the right word here. What's the intended meaning?
 * Persuaded. fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Wider public engagement (2007–2013)

 * The temple continuously placed itself: I'm not sure what this means.
 * Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * In April 2007, while...: this paragraph is at the end of the section, but it describes the earliest activity in the period covered; shouldn't it be the first paragraph?
 * At first I could only find hearsay, and not an actual confirmation. So I thought it should be at the end, because it was just a rumor. But I found a source last December confirming this with the chairman of the protesting committee. Fixed now.


 * We've already discussed the use of the word "propagation"; perhaps the section title "Propagation in the city" could be changed. How about "Teachings" or "Activity"?
 * Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Standoff with junta (2014–present)

 * Prayuth was afraid of the rising conflicts: Is this a typo? You have "Prayut" on the previous line.
 * Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * the leading Sangha's shortcomings: what does "leading Sangha" mean? Do you mean "leading members of the Sangha Council"?
 * Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * who could force the DSI to commit itself to additional conditions: what does this mean?
 * I summarized this incorrectly. Corrected.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * After having searched for a while, a number of laypeople rose and barred the DSI from continuing their search: as written, this means the laypeople searched for a while and then rose, so presumably it should be rephrased.
 * Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * How did they bar the DSI? Passively standing in the way, or by attacking them?
 * Rewritten and specified.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * the flexibility and amount of practitioners: what do you mean by "flexibility" here? And I think "large number" would be better than "amount".
 * Explained and fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * they managed to push through the task force: what does this mean?
 * Specified. Task force is explained above, but I have also wikilinked it now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * a critical national debate started as to what a "real temple" and "real Buddhism" should look like: what do you mean by "critical" here?
 * Critical as in "involving skillful judgment as to truth, merit, etc.".--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Luang Por Dhammajayo had been removed from his honorific title Phrathepyanmahamuni: normally in English one would say someone had lost their title, or it had been removed from them, rather than the other way around.
 * That's silly. Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * the extent conservative news outlets such as Tnews and Manager Daily demonized the temple: if we're going to say this we should give an example from a news outlet rather than from social media.
 * I summarized the text inaccurately. Rewritten now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Notes, citations and references
-- Mike Christie (talk – contribs – library) 15:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few harv errors in the references section; you can see them by installing this script.
 * Thanks, but I had already, and the errors are not appearing on my screen. Normally it functions well. Could you give me a few examples? Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm using a fork of that script, so perhaps it's misbehaving. The ones it's complaining about are Crosby, Gutschow, Irons, Skilling, Sriton-on, and Williams.  Searching for those names with ctrl-F doesn't find them in teh footnotes; are they in fact used?


 * Since that's the only remaining point, and that's not an issue for GA, I'm going to go ahead and promote now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't think my Ucucha script works that way. Anyway, I have removed the sources now. And if you have a link of that fork, I'd appreciate it.
 * And thanks again for all your help!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)