Talk:Luang Por Dhammajayo

Old comments from 2013

This new page has been set up owing to the elevation in royal rank of Phrarajbhavanavisudh to Phrathepyanmahamuni since 5 December 2010. I propose to change the original page [Phrarajbhavanavisudh] from which this content has been copied into a forwarding link to this one. I may not have time to do this myself, in case anyone else has the chance. Thanissaro (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Section on controversies is incomplete and needs editing

This section should also include that the wat was also accused of being communist. Considering this accusation came during the end of the Cold War period, it would provide more context on how at times the Thai government's accusations to the wat may have been influenced by outside pressure.S Khemadhammo (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Section on money laundering has multiple issues

Please cleanup this section by specifying a clear time frame, and more context. Not all readers are expected to know the specifics of Thai politics and the role of all the organizations institutions involved, so more detail and context should be given. Wikipedia is not Bangkok Post. It may even be considered that the current political events in Thailand are too unpredictable to write anything here. All the more because the case of Wat Phra Dhammakaya's involvement in money laundering has not yet been decided upon.S Khemadhammo (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

These issues are now solved, though regular updating remains necessary. S Khemadhammo (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

neutrality problem due to self-censorship – advice on tag needed – additional editors needed

The majority of the writers of this article, myself included to some extent, may be subjected to Thailand's strict lese majeste laws if the role of the royal family would be discussed in this article. Also, the present Thai government prosecutes people criticizing certain policies. It may therefore be required to find people who edit this article who are not subject to Thai laws and regulations, and also will not be in the near future. Please help me to find the right tag to address this issue.S Khemadhammo (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)S Khemadhammo (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Article title

I propose to list the page as Dhammajayo rather than Phrathepyanmahamuni. Dhammajayo currently redirects to Phrathepyanmahmuni. My reasons for this are:

1. Dhammajayo is the general monastic name given to Phrathepyanmahamuni, by which he is mostly known.
2. Dhammajayo is a name that will not change over time, in contrast with the honorific titles, which may change as quickly as in one year.
3. Other pages about Thai monks, such as the page on Ajahn Chah, don't list or default-sort the pages under the monks' honorific royal titles either.S Khemadhammo (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the monastic name Dhammajayo should be combined with the common form of addressing abbots in Thailand: Luang phor. Many pages about Thai monks start this way. It may still be lengthy, but is far more preferable than Phrathepyanmahamuni, which may change in the future and is just a bit too lengthy for anyone to remember. So i propose the title to be changed into Luang phor Dhammajayo. This is in fact the name under which he is mostly known and all websites from Wat Phra Dhammakaya use this name and form of address.S Khemadhammo (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Title of the page has been changed now. S Khemadhammo (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The change of the name of the page to Phra Dhammajayo has not been preceded by any form of discussion or consensus. If anyone wants to change the page's title again, please discuss this first.

Commonly, in most pages of Thai monastics, the title is used that is commonly used to address that person in Thai society, e.g. 'Ajahn' for the forest tradition, and 'Luang Por' for abbots in the city tradition. The word 'Luang por' is very common in Thai society, and will certainly not make the page's contents any less encyclopedic. S Khemadhammo (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, the Thai media are unlikely to be a good source of information on common and accepted forms of referring to people in Thailand. E.g. in Thai media, the current prime minister is referred to as 'บิ๊กตู่', which translates as 'the big Tu'(the prime minister's nickname). However, most Thai people would refer to the prime Minster simply as 'prime minister' ('นายก'). Thus,the media's usage of words not always reflects common usage in society. This is partly because of the sensationalist paparazzi style of most Thai media, and also, practically, because short, catchy names make good headlines. Therefore, i would like to emphasize once more that any name changes should be discussed first here, as I have been doing since May, and that 'Luang Por' is preferential to 'Phra'.S Khemadhammo (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think it'd be contentious. The honorific Luang Por/Phor/Pho implies a sense of respect, which is inherently non-neutral. Apart from the inconsistent spelling, it wouldn't be problematic for most monks, but given the controversy surrounding Dhammajayo, some might object to conferring him such an honour. And frankly, I haven't personally heard anyone refer to him as such. It's also at odds with Wikipedia's manual of style, which prefers not to use any honorific prefixes, so we should probably use just Dhammajayo instead. However, the basic essence of the article title guideline suggests that they follow what the subject is called in reliable English-language sources, and "Phra Dhammajayo" is what both national and international English-language news outlets are using. (The บิ๊กตู่ comparison is not quite relevant because (1) while the press may use nicknames in headlines and opinion columns, it's the main body of the news that counts, and they'd refer to him properly there, and (2) it's English language sources that're of concern.)

Also, even if the Luang Por/Phor/Pho honorific is used for the article lead, it should definitely not be used to refer to the subject in subsequent mentions in the article. Per the aforementioned manual of style guideline, we should be referring to the subject by name, and avoid the use of honorifics. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: can you give your opinion/interpretation here? WP:HONORIFICS is the right policy here, right? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Here because of the ping., I would say drop the honorific in the title. Although there are some exceptions, that is how it is usually done for Indian religious people and I don't see any reason to diverge from that for a Thai person. But I won't be losing any sleep over it either way. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Please note that WP:HONORIFICS does include the statement "In Burmese names, honorifics may be preserved if they are part of the normal form of address, even for ordinary people. See U Thant for an example." Burmese customs and religious tradition is Theravada and very similar to Thailand in many ways, and therefore would be a good comparison.
2. Also, from Category:Theravada Buddhist monks we can conclude that almost all Theravada monks have some sort of honorific in the page title. Any policy for dropping this honorific, would have to be applied in retrospect to all this articles, not just the current article. Otherwise, leaving out the honorific of only this article would defeat the very purpose we are trying to accomplish, that is to present information in an unbiased way.S Khemadhammo (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
3. Reading through WP:HONORIFICS generally and WP:NCCL in particular, it seems to me that 'Luang Por' may not actually be an honorrific in the sense it is used here in these policies. To further clarify things, 'Luang por' (Thai: หลวงพ่อ) is used for monks of all status in Thailand. The word simply refers to a monk of a certain age, usually above 40 years of age. I have not come across any guidelines in WP:HONORIFICS to drop words used for clergy of a certain age. S Khemadhammo (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I concur that the title should be Luang Por Dhammajayo. The reason for this is his Royal Monastic title changes and wikipedia should not use a name that will consistently change. I think Luang Por is more suitable than Phra for a few reasons.

First off, his followers refer to him as "Luang Por" and the Dhammakaya website refers to him as "Luang Por Dhammajayo". Also, it is the Wikipedia convention to use the titles that are commonly used to refer to the person as rather than generic ones like "Phra" unless they are usually referred to as such, nothing associated with Dhammakaya refers to Phrathepyanmahanumi as "Phra Dhammajayo". Also when you look at the wikipedia pages of other monks, they always use the titles in which they are commonly referred to as, here are a few examples: Ajahn Maha Bua, Luangpor Thong, Ajahn Chah, Somdej Toh, Luang Pu Waen Suciṇṇo, so unless we want to change all of these to Phra also I don't think its a good idea to use "Phra". Also, since "Luang Por" is the common name used to refer to him normally, someone looking to search for Luang Por Dhammajayo would more likely use "Luang Por" Dhammajayo rather than "Phra" Dhammajayo since that is the normal convention just like how someone searching for Ajahn Chah or Luang Por Thong is more likely to use their respective titles rather than "Phra" Chah or "Phra" Thong. So in my opinion it is more proper and consistent with the usual article title naming conventions of monks to use Luang Por, as well as more practical for users searching for the page to use "Luang Por Dhammajayo".Wikiman5676 (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to add that Wikipedia would appear biased if it used the usual naming conventions for other Thai monks but used Phra only for Phrathepyanmahamuni if that wasn't the title he is commonly referred to as, which it isn't. Wikiman5676 (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

For NPOV, Wikipedia should follow what most people refer to him by, not just his followers. As mentioned above, English language news sources nearly universally (currently) refer to him as "Phra Dhammajayo".[1] These news sources are much more likely to be indicative of what most people would be searching for. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Paul_012. Phra Dhammajayo appears to be the name that is commonly used in reliable English language sources. I propose to rename the article to Phra Dhammajayo per WP:COMMONNAME. JimRenge (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed that my three arguments above have not been addressed by anyone yet. I have taken the liberty of giving them a number. (Starting from "Please note that"...)S Khemadhammo (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I should've been more clear, I mentioned that "Luang Por" is the title Venerable Dhammajayo's followers refer to him as, but most common everyday people usually use the same title as typical followers. For instance followers of Ajahn Chah refer to Ajahn Chah with the prefix Ajahn, but non-followers of Ajahn Chah still refer to him as Ajahn Chah rather than Luang Por Chah or Phra Chah, both of which are still viable but nonetheless "Ajahn" is used more commonly because that is the normal way of referral and address. Likewise, both followers and non-followers of Thanissaro Bhikkhu don't use Phra Thanissaro, but either the anglicized "Thanissaro Bhikkhu" or the Thai title of "Ajahn Geoff" in which he is usually referred to as. It should also be known that a typical common Thai person, follower or non-follower, would likely address Venerable Dhammajayo as "Luang Por" if he were to be addressed directly. This is a convention in Thailand as well as in English speakers who want to address or refer to pretty much any Thai monk. Perhaps this suggestion is too forward but this discussion seems to be tied up so perhaps we could invite editors of the pages of other Thai monks to discuss this? I suggest this because my primary objection to using Phra rather than Luang Por is that it is different than the naming conventions of other articles on Thai monks and doing so would make this one an odd one out. I don't see a justification for us to deviate from the normal naming conventions of Thai monks on this article unless we applied the same standard to the pages of all other Thai monks, who generally have their common respective titles rather than the generic Phra. Somebody familiar with the normal titles of Thai monks would be curious as to why other pages have the respective title of each monk but the one on Venerable Dhammajayo is different, I think Luang Por is more suitable because I don't see a justification to single out this article by using the generic "Phra" when the pages of other Category:Theravada Buddhist monks mostly seem to have their unique title in which they are commonly addressed. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

There's too much variation in the way famous monks in Thailand are referred to, I don't think trying to have a single consistent formatting for article titles is as good idea. Some are most known by the title Ajahn, or Luang Pho/Phor/Por, while others may be best known by their monastic name (e.g. Such-and-such Bikkhu) Each should be decided on a case-by-case basis. I'm still not convinced that Dhammajayo is most commonly referred to as Luang Por. We still need evidence of such usage in reliable sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it should be case by case, but i think looking at the pages of other monks is still useful. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but it is also its own site and in order to appear unbiased we should at least consider how other relevant pages are named. People still make associations and expect some kind of consistency from one related page to another as it is one site. I'd like to point out that English news sources in general typically refer to Thai monks as "Phra", not just Venerable Dhammajayo, while most common people will usually address monks by their usual title of "Ajahn", "Luang Por", "Somdej" etc accordingly in normal everyday conversation. Also, when you look at the names of monks of other pages, the sources are typically the monk's official sites or followers' sites which is where they get the name. Dhammakaya's site refers to Ven. Dhammajayo as Luang Por Dhammajayo which is why I have the position it should be "Luang Por". News sources will also often spell his name "Dhammachayo" as a transliteration, but the Dhammakaya site uses the spelling of "Dhammajayo", which actually is the official romanized spelling and is what should be used on Wikipedia. I also want to make the point that many English sources refer to Ashin Wirathu simply as Wirathu, or often refer to him with different honorifics than his normal "Ashin" honorific, but Burmese editors insist on the honorific "Ashin" which means "Lord", see Wikipedia:Naming Conventions (Burmese). Normally this would be removed due to WP:HONORIFICS but one reason for the exception is that in Theravada Buddhism the unique honorifics are associated heavily with the respective monk, saying "Wirathu" alone is weird in Burmese and is akin to referring to Mother Theresa simply as "Theresa". I bring up Ashin Wirathu because Paul made a point about controversies and Ashin Wirathu is arguably the most controversial Theravada Buddhist monk out there, yet his page still has the common honorific of "Ashin" rather than "U" or no honorific at all as is what is seen in many English news reports. Wikiman5676 (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Merge revisited

Hello Wikiman,

I am thinking again to merge Luang Por Dhammajayo with Wat Phra Dhammakaya. I just don't think we can do much about this article—his life is just too similar to the temple's history. Arguably, Luang Por is the temple, and the temple is him. It's not going to work as a separate article.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I wouldnt say LP Dhammajayo is the temple or vice versa. but pretty much all of the coverage of his life involves the temple. Merging would be reasonable but I think its weird to have an article for Luang Por Dattajivo but not for Luang Por Dhammajayo. Non-editors just reading the articles might think thats weird. Maybe I'm biased but you can argue the same interconnectedness with Tzu Chi and Cheng Yen, which i wouldnt agree with merging. Having a separate page does provide some useful details, especially regarding early life. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of moving this discussion to the talk page here.

I used to think that since there is an article about Luang Por Dattajivo, there should also be on about Luang Por Dhammajayo. But actually that reasoning may not hold, because coverage about Luang Por Dhamma is very much interconnected with coverage of the temple, whereas Luang Por Datta has received more specific individual coverage. It is not that we are overlooking him: it is only that his identity and life very much overlap with that of the temple.

If we are going to keep a separate page about Luang Por Dhammajayo we need more specific detail than this. Currently only 2-3 paragraphs are different from Wat Phra Dhammakaya and History of Wat Phra Dhammakaya. That does not suffice to merit a separate article. One Time interview here with Luang Por Dhamma done in the 90s is not sufficient to base an article on.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, i wouldnt oppose a merge, but just pointing out some of the potential issues. Im pretty on the fence about a merge. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

If we are to keep it seperate, i would maybe suggest making his page like the Cheng Yen page. Much shorter and only a brief coverage of his life as abbot. this would require consensus tho. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, Wikiman, give it a try and we'll re-evaluate.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay Farang Rak Tham i have made the changes. I suggest looking over them. Ideally i would like this condensed just a bit more but not sure how to do it without taking away important details. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Mm. I still don't see much original content, Wikiman5676. It's copied from other pages about 95%.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham The page or the life of abbot section? That section is meant to be copied from other pages. theres no way of avoiding that. Wikiman5676 (talk) 07:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

All sections. But the page does look a lot better. I do admit that reading Luang Por's biography first, and then the temple's history, opens up some fresh perspective. But still, the content is not unique: most of it I copied myself from other pages. Anyway, the page makes for an interesting read.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

cool. If you or anyone else thinks there's ways to improve it, like reducing the life as abbot part more or something, just lemme know or try editting the page. Its more or less the best we can do with a page that just naturally overlaps so much with another page. Wikiman5676 (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikiman5676, when you trimmed the article, you removed the sources section below the citations. Lots of reference errors now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I am very busy this week. I will try to fix within the next few weeks or so. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

More pictures!

There is also the issue of the pictures: the pictures in the article of Luang Por Dhamma have been mostly nominated for deletion, so we need pictures with permission from the temple to replace those. Maybe we can ask the DhLeaks44 guy, and there is also a Dhammakaya user on Wikipedia apparently, called Dhammakaya072. Both haven't edited much, but the latter hasn't edited since 2012, and the leaks guy sent me some pictures the other day.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Which ones have been nominated for deletion? Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The one with the caption "Luang Por Dhammajayo guiding meditation." But the other ones could get deleted any time now, for the same rationale.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Most of the photos seem safe. It just happens that that particular picture was scanned from a magazine or something. But ok. Leave him a message. Pretty sure hes a rep of the temple. I remember seeing one or two of those pictures he uploaded on the temples official social media accounts. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Leave him a message: You mean Honey Kochphon Onshawee? I don't know if she's on Wikipedia. I uploaded the image myself, but Honey—whoever that is—owns the Pixbay account that hosted the picture with a CC license. The argument against the picture now is that it being hosted under that license was illegitimate, because she did not take the picture herself.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I meant Dhleaks. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I recall seeing a few of those article 44 pics he uploaded on WDP's official English twitter page (if i remember correctly). so he's probably either a temple photographer or just some person who was there and sent the pics to the temple to post. based on the angles the pics were definitely from the temple's side of the standoff. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I sent him/her a picture message.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for explanation on the article “Luang Por Dhammajayo” section

Pk9720 (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC):Dear Editor ，I have a question regarding the article “Luang Por Dhammajayo” under the section "Teaching" 2nd paragraph "Luang Por Dhammajayo is known for his modern style of temple management and iconography.”.What is the word "iconography" refer to ?Example, refer to the ways Luang Por Dhammajayo using "pictures" during his "Dream in Dream" program explain on the case study section ? [Currently, I am translating the article ,from English to other languages].Kindly advise,tks Pk9720 (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, PK, long time no see. Iconography here refers to the design of ceremonies and PR materials, including the broadcasts of the Global Buddhist Network channel. I hope this helps, and good luck with the translation!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

While we are at it, Wikiman5676, could you fix those reference errors? You said you would come back for those. They are a result from the trimming of the article.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, sorry about that. I thought I got all of the errors a while ago. Wikiman5676 (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Pk9720 (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC):Farang Rak Tham (nam-ma-sa-kan, krap) ,Thanks for your explanation on "iconography" use in the section.Previously I just using the meaning found in dictionary alone (but after asking one of my friend to read through it.She don't understand the translation use on "iconography".It trigger me to dig deeper into the use of the word "iconography" in the section. Now I could use the proper "words" in translating of the word "iconography" in my article.Pk9720 (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Great, PK! Wikiman5676, on my personal script page you can find lots of useful scripts in editing, including a script that helps in tracing reference errors which are otherwise invisible; just add "importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');" to your own script page and they'll pop up.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Very cool, but Im confused on how to do this, what's a script page? Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:50, 3 May 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 Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Luang Por Dhammajayo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 19:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Opening statement

I am reviewing this article as a quid pro quo for the nominator's having reviewed one of my articles. I am not Buddhist or Thai, nor have I any knowledge on Buddhism or Thailand. However, I think I (now) have enough knowledge on what a quality article should look like. Let's get started. –Vami_IV✠ 00:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

For replying to reviewer comment, please use a template such as  Done,  Added, or  Fixed, followed by a comment if you deem necessary.

Okeedokee.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry the article's layout is a mess. I should have fixed that before nominating. Will continue later.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Referencing

There are, as of time of writing, a totality of of 131 citations. Citations 18, 19, 22–25, 27, 47, 50, and 94 are broken. They are using Template:sfnref, but there is no established ref handle for them.

 Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Another problem is that the citations are not consistent. I'll use the first two paragraphs of "Early life and background" to show you what I mean. In the first citation in the prose (citation 5), you have given the reference and the page to turn to (outside citation). In the second, you give the page inside the citation and it's unmarked ("p." or "pp."). Then in the third citation, the method of the first is employed again. Then there are the sfnrefs, which introduce a third citation format and another layer of citation method. Most of the citations used are one-offs, so it's natural that they're long-form. Sfnrefs are by their nature short-form, making them more suited for a reference being used frequently.

 Doing....--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Prose

Section-by-section review of the article. –Vami_IV✠ 00:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Early life and background

• [...] who would often play dangerous games with fellow friends. Doesn't "friend" imply "fellow"?

Y Resolved Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Sra Prathum Palace I did a google for this and got "Sra Pathum Palace," and no Wikipedia page for either. What's going on here?

•  Removed. Yes, the spelling was wrong. Anyway, redlinking and explaining it inline would only distract from the main narrative, so I am removing it.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• [...] especially in books on Buddhist practice and biographies of leading people in the world, both religious and political. Consider especially on Buddhist practice and biographies of leading people in the world, both religious and political.

•  Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• One of these early acquaintances later became a Buddhist monk and Luang Por Dhammajayo's assistant in the endeavor to establish a meditation center: Phadet Phongsawat, since ordaining known as Luang Por Dattajivo, who would become the vice-abbot of Wat Phra Dhammakaya. Firstly, this sentence is impressively long. Secondly, and the edit history can now attest to this, I as the reader got confused as to who our homeboy Phadet Phongsawat is, as there wasn't a link to him...except there is, four words later. I would shorten "since ordained known as" to "since ordained as" or "now known as."

Y Done. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Reading the rest of paragraph feels more like reading a fantasy story than a Wikipedia biography about a 20th/21st century Buddhist monk.

I agree, but this is indeed what the sources say. I think it makes more sense from a Thai perspective, as Black Magic is a concept more widely understood in Thailand. Let's see what the nominator's thoughts are. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed. Similar discussions have been held at Talk:Luang Por Dattajivo/GA1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Luang Por Dattajivo/archive1, but it appears no satisfying solution has been found yet. I rephrased, referring mostly to occult practices instead, keeping it broad.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Ordination as a monk

• The first paragraph has some problems. Sentences one and two, and three and four could, I think, be shorter and/or two sentences. As an example: During university, he took a lifelong vow of celibacy as a birthday gift to Maechi Chandra, inspiring many of her students to do the same. Sentence two mentions that Chaiyabun was persuaded to finish his degree, but the reader has to get to sentence five before they learn that his degree was in economics. I would move this into "Early life and background," unless he majored in something else when Chaiyabun enrolled at Kasetsart University. Moving that bit of sentence five will also immediately make it shorter and therefore more pleasant on the eye. To close, sentence six reads awkwardly and I think sentence seven would be better earlier in the paragraph.

•  Fixed. I had some kind of technical glitch, but I think I fixed these problems now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Life as abbot

• However in years to follow this would gradually become less, as she grew older and withdrew more to the background of the temple's organization and Luang Por Dhammajayo received a greater role. Long and awkward. Rewrite?

•  Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• (during the Asian economic boom) Link?

•  Not done. Have been looking for this before, but found none. Closest I could find is Four Asian Tigers#Economy, but this will probably not suffice. The category page Category:Economic history of Asia has no other pages to link to. I redlinked the word Asian economic boom now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• By the mid-1980s, the temple was attracting up to fifty thousand people on major ceremonies. This and the above bullet point could be the same sentence, which could then form the final sentence in the first paragraph of "Life as abbot."

•  Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Widespread negative media coverage at this time was symptomatic of the temple being made the scapegoat for commercial malpractice in the Thai Buddhist temple community[50][51] in the wake of the 1997 Asian financial crisis.[52][53] I loathe citations not held down by punctuation, but reviews aren't for pushing my dogma. The other problem with this sentence is that it's pretty wordy and not very clear. Refer to WP:SPADE: Widespread media coverage made the temple a scapegoat for the commercial malpractice of the Thai Buddhist temple community in the wake of the 1997 crisis.[50][51][52][53]

•  Removed clause about crisis. This was already mentioned earlier in the section. I have removed citations that are less relevant. There is a lot of content in this article dating from the early 2000s, when Wikipedia standards were a little lower.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• I run the risk of hypocrisy for saying this with the above rewrite, but this section has a case of WP:OVERCITE, with three or four citations to one sentence. I would advise this for something highly contentious. I wouldn't think, say, the temple filing libel suits requires four citations.

•  Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• The paragraphs that begin with "In 2006" and "In 2011" should be one, as the last and first sentences of are the perfect glue for the two.

•  Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note 3 should be deleted and it's content redistributed to the prose.

• I prefer to have it  Removed, if you don't mind. It is not relevant enough for this article.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Since the 2014 coup d'état

• Link the specific military junta in the second sentence.

 Done Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• I understand pages for Paiboon Nititawan and Phra Suwit Dhiradhammo currently do not exist, but I would link them anyways.

 Done They exist in Thai, so I redlinked and put the Thai in parenthesis. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• [...] a department modeled on the FBI, [...] Irrelevant?

 Fixed Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• The hover-over alt-text is unnecessary because the un-abbreviation of KCUC is in the same delicious, bite-sized paragraph.

 Fixed Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Paragraphs 3 and 4 should probably be one.

 Done Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Teachings

• Did you mean "thought" or "taught" in The temple emphasizes the usefulness of meditating in a group, and public meditations are taught to have powerful effect on the minds of the practitioners.? The sentence implies the former.

•  Fixed. Rewritten.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• [...] emphasizing cleanliness, orderliness and quiet, as a morality by itself, and as a way to support meditation practice. The latter portion of this is kind of awkward. Perhaps [...] orderliness and silence, as a morality by itself and as a support for meditation.?

 Fixed Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• I wasn't sure if "the temple" was metaphorical, so I changed it to "Wat Phra Dhammakaya."

• Okay. I don't know which sentence you refer to, but it sounds okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• I have only problem with the lead - whenever I look at the first paragraph, all I really see is Thai or bolded text, all related to his name. There's just not enough English prose to hold me. Forgive the inappropriate analogy, but it's like a T-bone steak but with too little meat.

•  Doing...--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Paragraph three is also too small; provide some detail on these controversies.

•  Doing...--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Can you try shrinking the second paragraph of the lead?

• I tried splitting it, if that's okay. Wikiman5676 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Thanks for all the help, Wikiman5676! --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I have now addressed all your comments, but I will be expanding the article a bit during the following days before we wrap up.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Noted. –Vami_IV✠ 17:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

GA Progress

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.

Standoff date

Farang Rak Tham the date of the publicized standoff was in Feb 2017 was it not? Why does it say 2016 in the lead? Wikiman5676 (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikiman5676 Correct. I'll re-revert.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)