Jump to content

Talk:Wat Phra Dhammakaya/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Between Faith and Fund-Raising

Can this article be expanded to include some information from the article at http://www.pathfinder.com/asiaweek/magazine/99/0917/thailand.html ? Ewlyahoocom 08:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the edits by User:Philothai on 27 December 2006

I have revised it. This is a bit more complicated than simple removal of contents done earlier. So, there are a couple of things I like to point out:

  • Deletion of ligitimate part. Please stop this. See previous discussions.
  • Copy and paste from another article. Please do not do this either. Try to write something that is more relevant specifically to this article.
  • Citation from a personal blog. Please use citations from media sources.
  • Scan of newspaper articles. I'm not sure if this is allowed to be posted, so I left them in the article. Does anyone know what's wikipedia policy for this?

--Melanochromis 17:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


I think I remember this format from Matichon online Archive. I could be wrong though. Better safe than sorry. http://mic.matichon.co.th/. You can probably check by contacting their customer's service at mic@matichon.co.th Hmm now that I checked Matichon demo, it doesn't look the same, but they could have change the format years ago. Suredeath 18:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Some of the information was removed here.
  • The images do not have a compatible license, and are tagged for speedy deletion.
--Oden 19:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted the most recent edits by the user in question, please let me know if I have removed too much. --Oden 19:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you did good. This article has a very unusual history of repeated deletions, copy-and-paste from other sources, copyrights and licensing issues, blatant censorship, weird claims with no citations, etc. We can't keep investigate every single dubious edit. There shouldn't be no more benefits of doubt. So, if there is any edit in question, especially when done by a user who has a bad record, we should just revert it back. Let's establish this as the standard procedure for this article. --Melanochromis 21:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Oden, I think you did not good. Because this article have some content untrue. Now Phrajabhavanavisudhi still be a monk,and someone who wrote "Abbot Dhammachayo is not referred to by the common title for monks, "Phra" because he has been expelled from the monastic sangha by the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand and the Sangha Council. To use this title would run foul of Thailand's laws against impersonating a monk." , this content was untrue. why you did not re-check.
Matichon and Siamrat newspaper were really Apologies to wat phra dhammakaya and phrarajabhavanavisudhi, why you said they did not apologies.You were lied.
Suredeath, you can read thai, why you did not check by telephone to mtichom and siamrat newspaper office, or in thisweb[1]
philothai—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.161.55.43 (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
Philothai: if what you are asserting can be verified using a reliable source then feel free to add it to the article. However, removing content which is relevant and properly sourced is not considered to be constructive.--Oden 14:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Cite media sources, not personal blogs

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Bloggang.com is by no means a reliable source. It is primarily an online diary with no verifiable academic aspects whatsoever. Please use media sources such as newspapers and magazines. The temple has had huge coverage in the media in last decade, this is no excuse to replace the media sources with a personal blog. --Melanochromis 15:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and Controversy

There have been several attempts to delete this section without any explanation or discussion. Please discuss here before you try to delete it again.

User:61.91.191.4 who deleted this section has claimed that this section is "not true. It's lie by agitator". I have informally investigated his/her claim and found that the deleted sections had proper and valid supporting references from respectable sources (Asiaweek magazine, The Nation newspaper). Therefore, it is legitimate and should not be deleted without discussing here first.
It should also be noted that User:61.91.191.4 has a long history of spam and vandalism. If this deletion is repeated, I'm inclined to consider it another vandalism attempt. --Melanochromis 08:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The unexplained removal of this section happened again. However, as the article is semi-protected, the deletion this time was done by User:Philothai whom I suspect might be the same person as the anonymous deleter in the past. Please discuss here first before deleting. Otherwise, it would be considered vandalism. --Melanochromis 16:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
These anonymous deletions go back months at at Dhammakaya Movement (history) (and Dhammakaya Foundation (history), before it got merged). Ewlyahoocom 19:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The article text in question seems to be verfiable and from a reliable source. Wikipedia's articles have a neutral point of view which should allow for information which could be regarded as critical, and that content is not censored. --Oden 15:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The Phrarajbhavanavisudh article should probably also be sprotected as well. Ewlyahoocom 06:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realized that article existed. It probably is not a good candidate to be sprotected since there's no recent vandalism from anonymous users. --Melanochromis 04:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
There seemed to be a lot of miscellaneous articles created concerning Dhammakaya... Some of them I think is utterly redundant since most were very similar (Dhammakaya center, Wat, Foundation)Suredeath 13:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
merge them? --Melanochromis 05:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of 'written like an advertisement' tag

For as long as there is admission of public accusations on the page, I think no-one could rightly accuse the page of being written like an advert. Adverts would conceal all events in the temple's past that were not squeaky clean. Thanissaro (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

neutrality problem due to 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. The role of the royal family has been implied in some interviews regarding recent accusations. 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)

Section on controversies is incomplete

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 and thus not always reliable. S Khemadhammo (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC) S Khemadhammo (talk) 23:32, 28 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 yet. All the more because the case of Wat Phra Dhammakaya's involvement in money laundering has not yet been decided upon.S Khemadhammo (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This issue seems solved, and i have now merged this section with the preceding section.S Khemadhammo (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Overlap between articles Phrathepyanmahamuni and Wat Phra Dhammakaya

I suggest that the sections which are almost identical in these two articles be erased in either one of these pages, or briefly summarized. It is redundant to have the same sections on both pages. S Khemadhammo (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I have now summarized the sections on controversies and updated the content according to the edits made in Phrathepyanmahamuni. S Khemadhammo (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Section activities should be expanded

Currently the section on Wat Phra Dhammakaya's activities is too brief for this article. Please help expand. S Khemadhammo (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Section 'Temple layout'

This section is problematic for several reasons.

  1. First of all, the level of detail is unjustified considering the length of the article as a whole. This section does not provide much relevant information, if any at all.
  2. secondly, the section is speculative in nature;
  3. thirdly, the source quoted (Dr. Laohavanich) is a former monk of Wat Phra Dhammakaya that left the temple after several conflicts. He is also working closely with the DSI, a goverment agency mentioned in the section on Controversies. His background makes it difficult to use him as a reliable source, unless other opinions are also quoted to show several perspectives, and the background of Dr. Laohavanich is also specified. See also WP:QUESTIONABLE
  4. fourthly, information about the structure of the temple is generally available from the Dhammakaya's own websites. Though information may be added from other sources, it wouldn't make much sense to provide such basic information about the temple solely based on external sources.

Please help to address these issues.S Khemadhammo (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Seligne, for addressing these issues. The information seems to be more balanced now. The fourth issue is solved to some extent, but Dr. Laohavanich's background should be explained in more detail before quoting him. I am adding a link to an article that was written about him. Some of the contents from that article may have to be summarized here.
Also, this article has many other sections that need to be expanded. Describing the buildings of this temple to such an extent, but hardly describing the activities still remains a problem.S Khemadhammo (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Since this section contains many weasel words, expressions of doubt and speculation, i have been so bold as to remove this content now. See also WP:WEASEL, WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:ALLEGED.S Khemadhammo (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Templates

A sidebar and a footer; some overkill here! More clean-up and mergers to do, I'm afraid. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have merged many parts in my last edits, and removed many redundancies. Thanks for the efforts you made in putting this all together.S Khemadhammo (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wat Phra Dhammakaya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


Hello, I thought about doing this but I didn't want to appear as if i was censoring anything so I will ask here first. I propose removing 2 links from the external links section on this page.

These two in particular

The reason I think these should be removed is that they are very very specific and it seems odd this would be here in an article that covers a scope of the whole temple. Id also like to point out that all of the other links (both favorable and unfavorable to the temple) generally cover some kind of general scope while these are opinion articles on a very specific case. So I propose removing the links. If anyone else has any thoughts on this let me know. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure whether they're is a policy for avoiding links too specific, but the first link is already mentioned in the references in this page, and can therefore be deleted. The second article is an opinion article, rather than a news report. Ms. Ekachai is know to write opinion articles mostly involving the faults of Theravada Buddhism, e.g. the corruption, the fact they don't support the Bhikkhuni ordination, Wat Phra Dhammakaya, A Wirathu, etc. She is rather partisan in her language, by western journalism standards. E.g. in the posted article above:

"But according to the public prosecutors, continuing the court case would create serious divisiveness within the clergy and among Buddhists both in and outside the country. A far-fetched claim, to say the least."

and in another of her articles originally appearing in Bangkok Post, promoting the Bhikkhuni ordination:

"“Make more merit,” is also their standard recommendation. “So you will be born men in your next lives.” The best merit, they would continue, comes from donations to monks. It confounds me how most Thai women still take this nonsense submissively and continue to give their hard-earned money to build big temples only to be told that they cannot enter the temple’s most sacred area because women menstruate, thus are “dirty”."

Some of her statements also show a serious lack of expertise on the subject of Theravada Buddhism. E.g. the above statement involving menstruation was written in that article to indicate a position in Theravada Buddhism in general. This, however, stands in stark contrast with how scholars usually view Theravada Buddhism, e.g. Gombrich:

"Buddhism per se, being unconcerned with worldly matters, did not recognise brahminical concepts of impurity. Thus in Sinhala Buddhism a woman who is menstruating may not, for example, attend a spirit shrine, but her condition does not affect her attendance at a Buddhist temple or her participation in any act of Buddhist piety."[1]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Ms. Ekachai is quite strong in her opinions. She seems to me quite clearly a political lobbyist more than a neutral expert on Thai Buddhism. Whether this violates external links policy, I am not certain, unless you want to cut it out following WP:ELPOV or WP:ELBLP.S Khemadhammo (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Well WP:ELMAYBE says links to be considered should "...contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" so I guess this would count since they dont really address the subject of the article but a bit of a relavent tangent and the author is simply stating opinion rather than adding any information or insight into the subject. But i think the the points you mentioned are good enough. If anyone has any objections please state so and why, if nobody does I will remove them within a few days. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the article in question as the author is shown to not be reliable, and the link does not seem to touch on the subject of the article well since it is about a very specific case while the others in the section touch on the temple as a whole. Wikiman5676 (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings. By Richard F.Gombrich. London: Athlone Press, 1996, p.163

Complete reorganization of article

As I am adding more information to this article, it seems the structure of it is problematic. There is not clear timeline describing the events of the temple, and therefore no main structure to fit things in. I propose to change the article's structure, organizing it in the following sections:

  1. First years (1963-1978)
  2. Cold war period (1979-1996)
  3. 1997 Asian financial crisis (1997-2000)
  4. Thaksin period (2001-2006)
  5. Post-Thaksin period (2007-2016)
  6. Principles, practices and beliefs
  7. Temple layout
    1. The World Dhammakaya Center
  8. References, etc.

I making a "sketch" of what the article might look like in my sandbox. However, before I continue with that, I'd like to know what you all think of restructuring the article like this. It goes without saying that in this new structure, all of the current content can be kept. S Khemadhammo (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I have now reorganized the article completely, following a timeline as mentioned above, with the following additional detail:
  1. Distinguished between the movement's teachings (the movement as a whole) and the temple's teachings;
  2. Added section on general analysis of controversies
  3. as mentioned in edit summary, added paragraph on protests against state interference
  4. rewritten for clarity and conciseness, and for allowing new organization of sections to be read smoothly;
  5. corrected statements from primary sources for neutrality
  6. corrected for consistent American English
  7. removed duplicate references
  8. added wiki-links
  9. removed redundant Thai language reference
  10. rephrased to prevent WP:OR
  11. removed redundancies in section about movement in beginning
  12. removed diacritics for consistency
Please let me know if I have omitted or accidentally deleted anything. I have tried to prevent this as much as I can.S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Note with regard to the source Sritong-on

With regard to the source Sritong-on that is quoted in this section, I am aware that this is merely a M.A.thesis. However, the thesis was endorsed by the temple and widely distributed by the temple. The book is a great field study of the temple, and includes interviews with the vice-abbot especially held for this book. Following the consensus that M.A. theses can sometimes be used on a case by case basis, and also seeing the value of the thesis as a primary source reflecting the temple's opinion, I have included it as a reference.S Khemadhammo (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Two references with lost content

These two references no longer are connected with any content. This must have gotten lost during the last merge with Dhammakaya Movement. I will try and retrieve the content. [1][2] S Khemadhammo (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bangkokbiznews 24 June 2001 p.11
  2. ^ Matichon 19 July 2003

Reliable Source Discussion

Hello Experienced Wikipedians,

I have noticed a few issues regarding this on this page so I have created a discussion on the Wikipedia Reliable Sources Noticeboard in order improve the reliability of the content on this page and the related pages as well as prevent possible future edit wars. I have raised the issue there and have given my opinion on it and my reasons, please share your thoughts in the discussion so we can reach a consensus. If there are no dissenters I will remove the sources in question. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It appears the discussion was archived shortly after I wrote this. I have updated it with a link to the archive for those who want to share their thoughts. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Please do not remove reliable sources, see WP:RS and WP:NPOV for additional info. JimRenge (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I will be sure to take care and avoid removing reliable sources. If anybody has any comments on the reliability of the source questioned on the noticeboard above please weigh in. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
With regard to the article of Mano Laohavanich about esoteric teachings, I have currently not included it as a reference in the article Wat Phra Dhammakaya. It is my understanding that the article was published in the Journal of Buddhist Ethics mainly for its value as a primary source, since Laohavanich can at best be called an independent scholar, who doesn't not have a research position in a university or institute. Most of the statements Laohavanich makes cannot be verified in third-party sources, as he doesn't refer to any. Currently, scholars have not spent much attention to the subject of the esoteric teachings, and though McCargo has pointed out that they are worthy of investigation (doi:10.1558/bsrv.v25i2.254), I have yet to find any other source about the topic, whether Thai or English.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I have deleted the Esoteric Teachings paper from the further readings section on the grounds of WP:RS, it is not a reliable source as the claims in the paper have a very clear bias and most are not supported by anything except for Dr. Laohavanich himself saying so. Given his clear bias, we cannot take his claims as reliable when there are no other sources supporting them. In addition, given the author's history of questionable claims and noted instances of inaccurate statements regarding Wat Phra Dhammakaya, it is not likely to give reliable encyclopedic knowledge to readers and should not be included or it may misguide readers into believing things that do not accurately reflect Wat Phra Dhammakaya or its related pages. Please refrain from citing Mano Laohavanich's claims on Dhammakaya as sources unless you can somehow justify so on this talk page first. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Merger

I've merged Dhammakaya Movement into this article; it's one and the same organisation/movement. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

And understandibly so, but remember that some other temples apart from Wat Phra Dhammakaya also refer to Phramongkolthepmuni's teachings and Dhammakaya meditation and might not agree with this merger. Some scholars such as Newell, mentioned in the references, cautions for such generalizations in the leading chapters of her Missing Link thesis, and points to the fact that the movement dates back a long time, to the time of Phramongkolthepmuni, and should be described as such. S Khemadhammo (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Adding to this, Phra Thepyanmonkol is referred to in this article, but this monastic/scholar is not part of Wat Phra Dhammakaya, but of Wat Luang Phor Sod Dhammakayaram. I am adding this information to the article now, but still, the problem still remains that there is more than one temple who considers himself Dhammakaya tradition.S Khemadhammo (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
There are multiple temples that identify with the Dhammakaya Movement and having the Dhammakaya Movement redirect to Wat Phra Dhammakaya can be confusing. I have a proposal, perhaps we make a short separate page for the Dhammakaya Movement that gives a brief summary of the movement and then list out the different temples that identify with the movement? I suggest this because it would cause less confusion and be more fair to temples that identify with the movement that are not a part of Wat Phra Dhammakaya, such as Wat Luang Por Sod Dhammakayaram.Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Over here Dhammamedhi and in this section Thanissaro have actually mentioned the issue of confusing the temple with the movement from the outset, when Dhammakaya Movement was still a separate page. Thus the merger was not agreed on and should have been discussed before proceeding with it. In all fairness, it could be that Joshua confused the Dhammakaya Foundation with the Dhammakaya Movement. I did support the merger of the Wat page with the Foundation, but not the entire movement, which involves multiple temples, as I mentioned in Talk:Dhammakaya Movement. Also see the discussion I've added in the article here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S Khemadhammo (talk • contribs) 13:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Edited comment S Khemadhammo (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
It's clear from the sources I found that they are one and the same. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:

  1. Can you list those sources? When were they published? I have noticed that recent articles from 2008 onwards do recognize there is more than one temple involved.
  2. If you wish not to split the article, how do you propose we deal with statements quite extensively quoted in this article, not made by Wat Phra Dhammakaya but by Wat Luang Phor Sod Dhammakayaram? S Khemadhammo (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
1: see lead, source 1 & 2
2 :such as?
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
2 Such as the section Wat_Phra_Dhammakaya#True_Self I just wiki-linked above. I'll quote it:

"The bulk of Thai Theravāda Buddhism rejects this teaching and insists upon non-self as a universal fact. As against this, Phra Thepyanmonkol, the abbot of Wat Luang Phor Sodh Dhammakayaram, argues that it tends to be scholars who hold the view of absolute non-self, rather than Buddhist meditators. Also, only the compounded and conditioned is non-self - not nirvana. Williams summarises Phra Thepyanmonkol’s views (in his book referred to by his former title Phra Rajyanvisith), and adds his own comment at the end(...)"[emphasis added]

For evidence Wat Luang Phor Sodh Dhammakayaram is not Wat Phra Dhammakaya, read Newell:

"Using the term “Dhammakaya movement” interchangeably with “Wat Dhammakaya” suggests a movement which is somehow represented by a single temple, Wat Dhammakaya. In fact this temple was not the first to be associated with Luang Pho Sot and his vijja dhammakaya. The term “Dhammakaya movement” also implies a movement which emerged fully formed in the late twentieth century, some thirty years after the death of Luang Pho Sot. In fact, there are disharmonious relations between at least two of the temples, and Wat Luang Pho Sot Dhammakayaram goes to great lengths to distance itself from the more controversial Wat Dhammakaya. There are considerable differences in style, practice and structure of all the temples, as I show below in chapters 3 and 6. There is, then, no such thing as a single “Dhammakaya movement” or “Dhammakaya tradition”, at least in the sense in which such terms have been used by these scholars, implying a unified group who share beliefs and practice and choose to group themselves under such a definition."[emphasis added]

In a scholarly review of Scott's book about Wat Phra Dhammakaya, which you can find here, in the fifth paragraph, McDaniel mentions that Scott should have taken more notice of the internal differences in opinion within the Dhammakaya tradition.
Please note also, that Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen is part of the Dhammakaya tradition (it originated there), yet has its own wiki-article. Then why not make a separate stub article that encompasses the entire tradition, covering Wat Paknam, Wat Phra Dhammakaya and Wat Luang Po Sod Dhammakayaram? Or at the very least, we shouldn't write about another temple in this tradition in an article about Wat Phra Dhammakaya. Similar arguments have been made by Dhammamedhi and Thanissaro on the talk page of the Movement redirect and Wikiman above. (And, in case you were wondering, they are not my sock puppets, nor am i theirs.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
You've got a point here; how would you propose to proceed? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: Sorry, I hadn't noticed you had replied, because I wasn't checking my watchlist well enough. Thank you for response. I have been trying to copy and paste to see if I could compose something, but it seems a separate article on Dhammakaya Movement might not work after all. We could paste the paragraphs dealing with the entire movement into Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen, since everything originated there anyway. This would also help in developing the tourist stub article into a more mature article with background information. Some of the information in the movement sections pertaining especially to Wat Phra Dhammakaya would have to be maintained here. With regard to Wat Luang Phor Sod Dhammakayaram, I am not sure the subject is notable enough to have its own page. The temple has mostly appeared in Thai news sources. We could add a section in the Wat Paknam page that briefly describes each of the temples that follows the Dhammakaya Movement.−−S Khemadhammo (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan:, @Wikiman5676:, @Thanissaro: and @Dhammamedhi:: since I have no clear consensus with regard to moving content pertaining to the Dhammakaya Movement to the page of Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen, I am going to proceed with the proposal which has already been agreed on, that is writing a separate article about the Dhammakaya Movement. See progress over there.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge the page Luang Por Dhammajayo and Luang Por Dattajivo into this page. Luang Por Dattjivo only has notability in Thai-language sources. Luang Por Dhammajayo has notability in English language sources as well, but his life is so intrinsically connected with Wat Phra Dhammakaya, that it is difficult to maintain as separate page about Luang Por Dhammajayo, without significant overlap. Merging would mean that both monks' lives can be explained in a separate section in this article.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this, I dont really see a merger or not as being a big deal. Although looking at the pages for Luang Por Dhammajayo, and Luang Por Dattajivo I do agree it would reduce quite a few of the redundancies.Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
@Wikiman5676: and others, for the time being, I am cancelling the merge. Currently, Thai news focuses more on LP Dattajivo due to his role as acting abbot, a separate page is therefore warranted.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

@Wikiman5676: and others, should we change the date of founding to 1978, the date the temple officially got recognized as a temple?--S Khemadhammo (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

ohhh. Thats a difficult decision because it could really go either way. I would favor either one. Perhaps 1978 would be better but I'm not sure. Does anyone else want to weigh in on this? I can't think of any other pages that has this issue as precedent.Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan:, @Thanissaro:, @Dhammamedhi:: Any thoughts on this? Wat Phra Dhammakaya was founded as a meditation center in 1970 but wasnt officially a temple until 1978. Which date should be the established date?Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments

While excellent work has been done on the article, I'm afraid it still needs substantial edits before passing meeting the requirements of a GA.

  1. I can't commit to a full review just yet, but I'd point out that the article is currently way too long. The amount of article text is already over 100 kB, over twice the length recommended by WP:Article size, so my first suggestion would be to split off the history section into a subtopic article and shorten the coverage here into a summary.
  2. After that, the article could do with some copyediting for MOS compliance and to fix some awkward/confusing language which remain scattered throughout the article.
  3. Also, while the coverage is mostly broad enough and doesn't appear promotional, the lead still appears a bit skewed toward the temple's point of view.
  4. The analysis of controversies section does a good job of presenting the underlying issues, but the article still doesn't paint a clear picture of what the controversy looks like as a whole. While attacks by prominent critics and the media are mentioned, no examples seem to be given of the anti-Dhammakaya rhetoric prevalent in society (everyone who hates Dhammakaya seems to have a friend or relative who donated all their possessions to the temple, putting their own families into financial ruin), or the general observation of the cult-like tendencies of the temple and its followers. (The Internet is also rife with memes making fun of the temple's esoteric practices, but reliable sources on these may be harder to come by, and they're not as significant anyway.)

All in all, though, the article's coming along very well, and the remaining issues shouldn't be difficult to resolve. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Paul_012. Although not yet committing to a full review yet, it seems to me you are halfway there. :-) I have been so bold as to put numbers in front of your comments, so as to make discussion easier:
  1. I fully agree. I propose a separate article titled History of Wat Phra Dhammakaya.
  2. On this one i would need some more hints. I agree that there are many sentences that do not run smoothly, but I find it difficult to fix them.
  3. I have tried to describe the temple from both pro-democrat (western scholars, Khao Sod, Matichon) and conservative (Bangkok Post, The Nation Group) perspectives. I am glad that the coverage looks broad now. As for the lead, I'll see what I can do to make it more neutral.
  4. This would require an analysis of Thai society at a level which maybe hard to find. The only scholar who tries to describe the opinions of the common person in Thai society is Rachelle Scott, but even she mostly sticks to what the media and Thai intellectuals say. While field study polls have been done by both Thai and western scholars, these polls have only been done among temple devotees. I am not aware of any poll that has been done among Thai people in general with regard to their opinion about the temple, but then again, I may not be aware of all Thai-language sources.
--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
1. I have now added a propose split tag for splitting off an article about its history.
3. I have made some edits to the lead. Let me know what you think.
4. In reflection, I am reminded of a man that criticized the temple for its fundraising during the lockdown and was interviewed multiple times by several outlets. His wife, who was a practitioner at Wat Phra Dhammakaya, was also interviewed. Might be interesting to add these interviews to the analysis section.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Paul's comments. But 2 does need more specification.
As for 4. I find the statement "everyone who hates dhammakaya seems to a friend that donated too much" funny. In that it's only the friends who hate dhammakaya and not the actual people supposedly doing this. Even when talking about the temple online it's often ppl saying they have "friends" where this happened but not the actual people who were supposedly ruined saying this.
Nonetheless, I agree the controversy section is a bit abrupt with it's analysis. While a few of these points are brought up in the history already it's a good idea the controversy section can mention some of the reasons dhammakaya is controversial (criticized for fundraising or that many see the temples as commercial for instance) and then move on to scholar's analyses. Wikiman5676 (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Since there seems to be consensus and splitting the article is clearly meets wikipedia guidelines for article splitting I will work on splitting the history section into a new article Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph about the case of Chatchai Bamrungsunthorn in response to Paul 012's remark about the criticism of fundraising not being addressed enough. Please note that the case was covered more by conservative pro-junta outlets than pro-democratic, and may therefore be slanted towards the junta's ideas of the temple. Using one rather short interview from pro-democratic Thai Rath, however, I believe I have managed to write the paragraph sufficiently neutral. (In fairness to Amarin, their talk show was quite balanced in views, despite their royalist background, and therefore was an aid as well.)
Paul, I would appreciate it if you'd have some time to reassess whether the four issues you proposed have been properly addressed. If not, please elaborate.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll try to take a closer look soon, but regarding point 2, one thing I can point out is that there's a lack of background when new names are introduced. For example, the article mentions P.A. Payutto but doesn't tell the reader who he is or why his writings are significant. (Just a few words would be enough—the reader can always find out more by clicking through the link to his article.) Rachelle Scott's work is also mentioned multiple times, but her name's abrupt appearance in the sentence "Scott analyzes the criticism..." doesn't give a clue who Scott is. (It could say something like "In her book on Wat Phra Dhammakaya, Rachelle M. Scott analyzes the criticism..."). Try re-reading the article from the beginning, and imagining how understandable everything is to a reader who's never heard of the temple before. I've found it helps a lot. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
That is a point worthy of consideration. I'll have a look at it this evening, or tomorrow morning. Thanks!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I have made some edits to make the article more accessible.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Wat Phra Dhammakaya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wat Phra Dhammakaya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Wat Phra Dhammakaya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Organization and expansion of section on criticism

Some of the additional information added by Javierfv1212 overlaps with criticism mentioned in the section on Principles, practices and beliefs. For example PM Krukrit's and other people's criticism with regard to wealth and fundraising is also mentioned here.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the principles practices and beliefs should be just about their views, and the controversy section should include all the criticism? Seems like, with the size of the article, its an easier way for people to find information.Javierfv1212 (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to point out, if you read Fuengfusakul's piece directly, that part actually came from an interview with then monk Phra Mettanando. So its basically quoting the same person. Wikiman5676 (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Personally i think the new organization could work, but could use some changes. Also, id like to point out that per the discussion here, [2]. Phra Mettanando was deemed unreliable. You can certainly reopen the discussion if you dispute this as not many ppl weighed in at the time. I wont remove it now, but I think this would warrant removing his statements from the doctrine controversy. As there is a big difference between controversies over actual doctrine taught (for instance the anatta controversy), and what some person claims is taught. If we allowed what people claim is taught on wikipedia with no reference to official sources/publications, pages like islam and catholicism or really any religious group would be filled with nothing but random people claiming they teach this and that. I think the anatta controversy is something that could certainly fit in that section tho, as there is actual proof this is taught in their official publications and it is a legit controversy. Wikiman5676 (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Javierfv1212, do you have a link to that article of Abhinya Fuengfusakul that you brought in the new subsections? I am not familiar with it. A doi number would be nice as well.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

With regard to adding in opinions of Luang Por P. A. Payutto, PM Krukrit, and other critics, we must be careful with adding in their opinion:

  • That it is WP:DUE, and other, diverging opinions are also included. For example, it is widely known in Thailand that the validity and meaning of the Supreme Patriarch's statement was subject of debate, but such opinions are not included in the new subsections. These differing opinions have been given in news papers at the time and as recent as 2015 and 2016, the validity of the letter of the Supreme Patriarch was still being discussed in talk shows on Thai Rath and Thai PBS, both high-profile outlets, but these discussions have not been included.
  • It is also important to notice that for articles about Wat Phra Dhammakaya and Santi Asoke there is a risk to for editors that cannot read Thai to only go along with the opinions stated in Bangkok Post and The Nation (Thailand), both of which have a conservative slant. Indeed, even Rachelle Scott's work has been criticized for not consulting Thai sources sufficiently, by Justin T. McDaniel over here.
  • That enough context and timeline is provided. For example, at the end of the 90s, during the miracle controversies, the temple was criticized for other things than in the 2010s. These differences should be made clear.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I will delete the content sourced from Mettanando, as well as that part from Fuengfusakul, as she is literally just quoting Mettanando. Please do not add that back without reopening that reliable source discussion about him. The other recent additions also need some work as they are redundant (these criticisms are discussed throughout the article), and doesnt fit in with how the rest of the article is written. How to approach reconciling the new section will require discussion tho as there are many ways we can do this. The Mettanando accusations are more urgent to remove, as it is potential libel and the only real "controversy" surrounding that, is whether or not they actual teach that or not. And whether they do is supported by exactly one person, with a fairly long history of making questionable claims about this temple. And again, for religious groups we shouldnt put what people claim they teach. Wikiman5676 (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so I didn't realize this was a thing before, but apparently dedicated controversy sections are discouraged per, WP:CRIT. While not official wikipedia policy it recommends integrating controversies into the overall article if possible rather than just listing complaints. So i propose we move forward with just integrating the controversies into the article and labelling the subsections accordingly, a rather good example is the featured article on Hillary Clinton, which instead of having a controversy section that just lists things, it has subsections on whitewater, the email controversy, Benghazi incident, etc. in a fairly logical chronological order integrated through the article. If we go this route, we can make a subsection under the beliefs section and summarize the anatta controversy there, as well as put the fundraising controversies in the merit making section. Those things are already there of course, but I guess we can make a subsection to indicate there is controversy.
How the controversy section is now is certainly a violation of WP:UNDUE, as the details seem disproportionate to the rest of the article, and is organized and conveyed in a way that is potentially misleading. for instance the last sentence in the donations section says the Supreme Patriarch ordered the abbot of Wat Phra Dhammakaya to disrobe, suggesting he is no longer a monk. in reality it was a letter leaked to the press thats authenticity was controversial itself, and the Sangha Council's unanimous consensus was that the order was conditional, not that he had to disrobe, but to disrobe if (and only if) he didnt return the land, which he eventually did. This context is provided pretty well in the history section in which it appears, but is grossly misleading in the controversy section. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Since nobody is protesting I'm gonna go with the Hillary Clinton strategy. I have a layout in mind anyways. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I've reorganized the article and summarized the info accordingly, feel free to provide feedback. It's certainly not done yet as there are some sections that are way too descriptive. But i think its a good starting point and at least there is no misleading sections. I'll try to work resolve the remaining issues over the next few weeks. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I've did some work to summarize the info in the subsections. I had to cut out some details to meet WP:PROPORTION so feel free to review my edit. although i still feel the fundraising section is still a bit too large. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wat_Phra_Dhammakaya/Archive_1&oldid=1137310011"