Talk:Wat Phra Dhammakaya/GA1

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 12:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike Christie!

General overview

I'll copyedit as I go through the article; please revert as needed.

• There are some dead links; see here. I see the Matichon links at least have been archived, but the first two I checked both showed a 404 error in the archived version, so there's no verifiable link here at all. Can you fix or replace these?

A number of months ago, the Matichon E-library has become a paywalled service, and in the process they seem to have updated the links. However, the articles can still be accessed through the service's main page, provided you pay them a fee. As a sign of good faith, I will gather the downloaded English language articles (and if you can read Thai, those as well) and send you a link through personal wiki-email.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No need. (I can't read Thai, by the way.) I'll have to think about the right way to cite these, but for the Matichon ones I think you're OK. Not necessary for GA but I would go ahead and remove the archive links from the ones for which the link leads to an archived 404; it doesn't help to have a failed archive link in there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay then. I have fixed most of the dead urls now by referring to archivers. As for Matichon, I have simply referred to the website, without any direct link. If anyone wants to check the article, they can find it there at the cost of a fee. There was one link that linked to a video that no longer played, but in the archived version there still is a summary below the video still.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

All the links appear to be fixed now; there are a couple of dead ones left but they have working archive links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• There are a couple of harv errors; Crosby, Gutschow, and "Somsak angered about being sued" do not appear to be used in the citations.

Removed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note 1 needs a source.

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Why is the history section so long when there is a separate article on the history? The article is already very long, and a summary of the history could be provided in perhaps a quarter of the space you use here.

  I will start working on that right away--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

  I'll skip that section till you're done with it, and start going through the rest of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Because there are so many dead links that need to be looked at, and because I've suggested cutting some text, I'm going to pause here to give you a chance to respond. I also looked at the history article and the same problem exists there; I see you have other Dhammakaya Movement articles in the queue, so you may want to go through them all for the dead link issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Good points. I'll start working on them as soon as i can.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. The history section is considerably trimmed now. I am afraid that has caused me to mostly select the content which described important political events, at the cost of religious and spiritual detail, which has been reported on less. This seems to have cause a contradiction between the politically focused history and the spiritually focused sections on beliefs and values. I am not certain how I should fix that yet, if it should be fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I saw this comment just as I was putting in the question below; let's talk about the boundary question first, and I think your question above might get resolved as part of that discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I have another question about the boundary between articles which I should ask before I go on with the review. How are you deciding what goes into Dhammakaya Movement and what goes into the temple articles? I ask because I see a lot of detail under the "Principles, practices and beliefs" section; I looked in Dhammakaya Movement for comparison, and found rather less about those things. I would have thought it would be the other way round. Or are the temples able to individualize their practices, so that only generalities can be given in the parent article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note the disambiguation hats on the top of both pages. The Dhammakaya Movement refers to all temples that originate in Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen, whereas Wat Phra Dhammakaya is one of those temples. In the section Dhammakaya_Movement#Notable_Temples some more explanation is given. The difference is relevant, because Wat Phra Dhammakaya, Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen and Wat Luang Por Sodh Dhammakayaram have played different roles in Thai society, and have also had some differences in opinion. They explain meditation and certain doctrines in the same way, though.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, that's enough for me to go ahead with the review. I'll try to get it done over the next day or two. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Detailed review per individual section

Lead

• Any reason why you cite the statement about Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro in the lead? Not a problem for GA, just curious if it's a controversial statement in some way.

  Do you mean This movement ... was started by the meditation teacher Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro in the early twentieth century? No, this statement is not controversial. E.g. even Sulak Sivaraksa, a sworn enemy to Wat Phra Dhammakaya, repeats the same statement here on page 85. So this is not a pro-Dhammakaya statement, despite its bearing on legitimacy. It must be included, because it explains the roots of the temple.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  All I meant was that you have three citations in the lead for that sentence. Typically the lead is only cited for controversial statements and direct quotes. Not an issue for GA, as I said; I was just wondering why you cited it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that happened when the articles Wat Phra Dhammakaya and the Dhammakaya Movement split off. I don't know why they did that. I have removed the citations now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• which has led to controversy and government response: vague -- this could mean positive or negative response.

  Agreed. Rephrased to "crackdown".--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  Better, but it should be either "crackdowns" or "a crackdown", depending on whether it's one long one or can be considered to be separate events. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Again not a problem for GA, but you don't need to put "(Irons)"; the attribution is in the citation.

  There is actually a policy that says the name must be mentioned inline if you quote someone. Not many people know this, but a copyright specialist on Wikipedia once "cracked down" on me and summarized some relevant policy for me. I have rephrased the sentence now to get rid of the awkward brackets.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  I didn't know that. Do you recall which policy this was? There are situations where I think it's quite unnecessary, though it's certainly a good rule in many cases. Struck, anyway, since it's not an issue for promotion either way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Citing_sources#In-text_attribution. Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  Interesting. That's a guideline, not policy, so "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", but you're right that it should be followed when it's easy to do so. I would argue that attribution inline is optional if adding the attribution doesn't give the reader any more context. The examples in WP:CS show how failure to attribute inline can mislead a reader, but there are cases where that doesn't apply at all. See the unattributed quotes in the example at the end of WP:RECEPTION; the reader is not misled because we don't say which journalist or magazine those opinions are drawn from. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• During the period of the Asian financial crisis: this is an odd way to give a date, and in fact if the reader doesn't know what the dates of the crisis are they're no wiser. I'd give the date explicitly. Is the crisis relevant to the criticism mentioned here? I assume that's why you're mentioning it; if so a brief explanation of the connection would be good.

  I have included the date now. Yes, it is relevant, this is explained in the main body of the article to some degree. The main point is that the response of Thai society to the temple to some degree was dictated by economical circumstances. Let me know if it makes sense.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

History

• You don't say that Phra Dhammajayo and Luang Por Dhammajayo are the same person; you just change names partway through the narrative.

  They are two people. Please refer to a sentence or section, so I understand what part is confusing.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  Now I'm really confused. You now have Phra Dhammajayo later became abbot of the temple and was called Luang Por Dhammajayo from then on, which indicates they are the same person; that's what I was asking for. Are they in fact two people? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  No, sorry for the confusion. You are right, they are the same person. Anything else I need to do about this?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  No, that's fine the way it is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thus, on 20 February 1970, Maechi Chandra, Phra Dhammajayo, Phra Dattajivo and their students moved to the 196-rai (313,600 m2 or 77.5-acre) plot of land to found a new meditation center: Why is Phra Dattajivo mentioned here and nowhere else? Suggest either cutting his name here, or explaining who he is, if he's important.

I have expanded on this.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• All of this at the backdrop of the financial crisis Thailand was facing at the time: this sentence has no main verb.

  Fixed.

  Tweaked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Under pressure of public outcry and critics: not quite fluent English. Was the investigation started because of the outcry and criticism? Or did it start for some other reason, and the outcry and criticism is the accompanying context? If the former, I'd make this "Prompted by the criticism and public outcry, "; if the latter, then something like "Amidst the criticism and public outcry" would work.

Good advice. Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• had not broken any serious offenses: not quite right; one commits offenses, but breaks laws.

Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• This period of intense media attention had disastrous effects on the temple: vague; did membership decline? Or donations? Were they in financial difficulties? Just a couple of words would do.

Rephrased. I have also replaced a reference that got swapped, and added another one that supports the removal of the abbot position.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• The pilgrimages stirred up resentment however, because of its notability, alleged traffic jams caused, and a debate started as to whether it was going against tradition: I'm not sure what "because of its notability" means here.

Rephrased.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Despite the resistance at times, as of 2010, Wat Phra Dhammakaya was the fastest growing temple of Thailand: why "at times"?

Not supported by sources. Removed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Phra Suwit objected to this nomination of Somdet Chuang Varapuñño: "this nomination" implies it's already been mentioned, which is not the case; making it "the nomination" would fix it unless it's supposed to have been mentioned before this.

  Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

And why is this relevant in an article about this temple? I see Somedet Chuang ordained Luang Por Dhammajayo, but why does that make this interesting?

This is explained in the section Wat Phra Dhammakaya#Political analysis. Please check and let me know if the explanation is correctly located in the article and suffices.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure; I'll have another think about it when I read through again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• that made headlines worldwide: suggest cutting this.

  Can do, but may I ask why? Just so I can follow. It is easy to prove it did, if that is the problem.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  It's not the sort of information we typically put in articles. See Amanda Knox, for example; the coverage is implied by statements like "later widely seen", and by the mention of paparazzi, but unless I'm missing it the article doesn't say "received extensive coverage in the press" or anything like that, though that would be easy to source. I don't think it's forbidden, but I think statements like that can be seen as non-neutral in some contexts, and that's the issue here: it sounds like we're saying "the lockdown by the junta was so egregious an action that it was reported worldwide". If you want to keep it, I think it needs to be supported not just by citing coverage in multiple countries and media channels, but by commentary about the media coverage itself, since that would clarify that the coverage was notable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There are actually some articles by Prachatai and other newspapers that exactly state this: but it really is more about problems with democratic rule vs. dictatorship than about our temple. Removed now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• So the abbot's location is still unknown? I'd make this clear at the end of the history section.

  Well, let us say they haven't found him and cannot pinpoint his exact location. Good point. And done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Overall I think the history section is still a bit too long, but I'll hold off on specific suggestions till I complete a pass through both articles.

Okay. As you have noticed, it is hard to trim and still make sure the text makes sense. Also, following sections refer to some historical events.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

-- More later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Bring it on!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

OK! I should have more done, if not this morning then in the next couple of days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Very well. Just ping me and I'm here.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been a bit more delayed than I expected but should be able to get some more done on this in the next few days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. I noticed you are almost assessing the entire GA page, lol.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, not quite! It's not as bad as it looks, as sadly some of the older nominations are abandoned, so I never get a response. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not as bad as it looks... Nothing bad here, only good initiative.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Political analysis

Reading through again:

• News analysts have described the actions of the Thai junta towards the temple may have reflected a political need to control who should be selected as the next Supreme Patriarch: looks like an incompletely edited sentence.

Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• What does "governing monk" mean?

A monastic with a leading position in the monastic hierarchy. Have replaced it with leading monk following source cited.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Principles, practices and beliefs

• Why is "เผยแผ่เชิงรุก" given inline in the "Principles" section?

It is a term used by the temple, referring to the nature of their activities.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Google translates it as "propaganda", which might be a better word than "propagation", by the way.

  Using the word propaganda for a religious movement does not seem very neutral to me. Then again, the sentence as is stands seems a bit promotional, so I have removed the word active and used the word teaching instead of propagation.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, that's an improvement, and you're right that "propaganda" is a loaded word. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• Dhammakaya meditation at the higher levels is also described to bring forth abhinna: "described" is not the right word here. Do you mean "believed"?

Exactly. Corrected.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of "Anatta controversy" repeats material from the section above it.

Removed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• The anatta concept has been a subject of intense debate: we still don't know what anatta means. The previous paragraph doesn't define it, or doesn't say so, if it does.

It means 'not-self'. I have connected it with the English translation now. Would you like me to expand on it?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Is "kamma" a typo for "karma"? And shouldn't "bodhisattas" be "bodhisattvas"?

Kamma and bodhisatta are Pāli language, and used by Theravāda Buddhism, whereas karma and bodhisattva are Sanskrit and used by Mahāyāna Buddhism.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• stating that the environment will only improve if we start working on clearing up our own minds: can we rephrase this to put it in the third person?

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Why is criticism of fund-raising a subsection of the merit-making section?

Merit-making and fundraising are intrinsically connected, since in Thai society, merit-making is often understood as giving food or money to a temple. The main thing of which the temple has been accused, is teaching that the more you donate, the richer you become.

• It might be better to have a section "Fund-raising" under the "Principles, practices and beliefs", since fund-raising is a practice. Then the criticism could be incorporated into a description of the fund-raising. It's usually not a good idea to have a separate criticism/controversies section since it makes it hard to retain a neutral POV.

I fully agree with that, and have actually argued for that on the talk page as well. I have reorganized the text considerably now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• While criticism of the temple's fundraising eventually died down following this period, some criticism persisted: This is either inconsistent, if by "died down" you mean "ceased", or redundant, if it means "reduced".

Rephrased. I have also specified the time period.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Scott has shown that: suggest "Scott has argued that" unless you can be confident that Scott's conclusion is generally accepted.

Her work has been well-received, though is not widely known among journalists. It is a very specific academic niche, I suppose. There was PBS report that referred to her work though. Nevertheless, argues might be better, since it is too soon to conclude consensus. Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Direct quotes need a citation immediately afterwards; there's one in the section "The miraculous" with no citation.

Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The foundation

• He is both the abbot of the temple as the president of the foundation: should be "and", not "as", presumably.

Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• And he's no longer the abbot, so this is no longer true, is it?

Indeed. Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• a department for maintenance, fundraising, education and propagation divisions: sounds like these are separate departments; if so, this should be something like "and departments for maintenance, fundraising, education and propagation".

Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• As above I suspect "propaganda" is a more accurate word than "propagation". What's the intended meaning? Is this about proselytization? Or marketing? Or public relations?

Proselytization. Propagation is closer to the Thai word, as explained above, but probably confusing. Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Full-time employees will sometimes ordain after a while, but their ordination is different than that of males who ordain without having been an employee: is it only men who can be ordained?

  Yes. If you want, I can add a note to state that.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  I think that would be useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

  Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just like in the Dhammadayada training programs, full-time employees are trained thoroughly: this seems non-neutral. Why "thoroughly"? If the sources said it was cursory, that would be worth commenting on, but training can be assumed to be appropriate. And what's the point of the reference to the Dhammadaya training program?

Fuengfusakul is trying to make a point that the organization is similarly organized as a professional company. These aspects are particular for a Thai temple, which are usually more traditionally structured. I have removed thoroughly now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• We are born to build up our parami's: I don't know if this is the standard translation, but in English one would not use an apostrophe.

Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• The caption for the picture of greenery should be sourced, though I'd suggest cutting it instead -- it doesn't look unusually clean and orderly, though it's not messy either. It just looks like an ordinary road.

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Layout

• What is meant by "Older areas"? When we get to the next subsection I see what the distinction is, but perhaps an descriptive phrase such as "prior to the expansion of the temple beginning in the 1980s" would help.

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Suggest moving the first image in the "Layout" section to the right side of the page to avoid pushing out the bullet points, which is always an odd look.

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Purohita: an important office building: "important" is vague; can we either say what it is used for, or why it's important, or cut the word?

Removed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

That's it for the read-through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality and broadness

I still have to read through the last couple of sections; I might get to that this morning, but if not it should be this weekend. I am a little uneasy about neutrality. I haven't yet looked at the talk page or talk archives, or searched online for other sources about the temple, but in places I get the feeling that this is the point of view the temple would want to present. Can you point me to any third-party articles about the temple or its history that cover some of the controversial material? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The article includes almost every single source ever written on the topic. So neutrality problems would originate more from interpretation and usage of the sources, rather than the sources themselves. Scott and Mackenzie both are not connected to the temple or the movement, as far as I am aware, and their content is based on scholars of all three groups mentioned in the Principles main section:

1. Buddhist scholars and journalists who oppose the temple,
2. social scientists that describe the temple in neutral terms, and
3. human rights activists and pro-democratic scholars or journalists that are either neutral or pro.

Time allowing, I will list the scholars and newspaper publishers according to these groups for your convenience.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I will give you examples of authors of all three approaches of studying the temple:

1. Sulak Sivaraksa, Prayudh Payutto, Vajiramedhi, Pravase Wasi, Ravee Phawilai, Sanitsuda Ekachai, Suwanna Satha-Anand, Surapot Taweesak
2. Rachelle Scott, Apinya Fuengfusakul, , M-J Heikkilä-Horn, Manuel Litalien, Rory Mackenzie, Justin McDaniel, Edwin Zehner, Eugénie Mérieau, Donald Swearer
3. Duncan McCargo, Martin Seeger, D. Streckfuss, , M.N. Templeton
4. Scholars that have approached the temple in different ways, or simply changed their minds, are Surapot Taweesak (used to be a critic, but has since the junta 's coup d'etat defended the temple's rights), Jim Taylor, Phra Paiwan (both similar to Surapot), but also the French investigative journalist Arnaud Dubus (used to describe the temple in neutral terms, has since 2017 taken a highly critical stance).

Sources in the article that have a close connection with the temple are only Sorakarn Sritong-on, whose thesis was published by the temple, and of course, the books published by the temple/foundation itself, or its English-language publisher the Tawandhamma Foundation. It may also be that Sirikanchana is closely related to the temple—I cannot confirm this. Apart from these, all sources cited in the article are secondary and independent. If you want, i can split off the sources section into primary and secondary sources subsections.

News outlets are less relevant for this article, but in general:

1. Conservative outlets almost always oppose and criticize the temple: Bangkok Post, The Nation, Kom Chad Luek
2. Pro-democratic outlets that criticize the temple: only Thai PBS, that I know of.
3. Pro-democratic outlets that are neutral about the temple: Khao Sod, Matichon, Khao Sod English, Daily News. This also includes international agencies, e.g. Reuters, AFP, AP.
4. Some pro-democratic outlets defend and sometimes praise the temple: Voice TV, Peace TV, Thai Rath, Prachatai.

With regard to reliability, McCargo has the best reputation, followed by Scott and probably Swearer. Others scholars cited are less well-known, it seems. Mackenzie's book as was not well-received by scholars as Scott's, but it contains much information not found elsewhere. Apinya Fuengfusakul is a well-accepted scholarly authority on the temple in Thailand, but she has written only one article about the temple in English, and the rest is in Thai.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Edited.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this; it's very helpful. I will take a look and respond as soon as I can. Meanwhile I left a couple of minor points re the final section, above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Searching online found these two recent articles: Temple told to pay KCUC 58 million baht, from the Bangkok Post, and Scandal-hit Thai temple hosts thousands of monks for Buddhist ceremony, from the Southeast Asia Globe. There are a couple of things from these stories that don't seem to be fully reflected in the article:

• There have apparently been accusations that the money donated was invested in the stock market.
• The court ordered the return of the money to KCUC
• The court did not believe the money was donated in good faith
• The court said the temple reported the transactions in a way designed to conceal where the money was coming from.

I'm not saying we have to include all of this in the article, but these seem to be material points, and I'd like to hear your thoughts.

The first article you mention is hot from the press, from only two days ago. The second article is a review of past events. I will have to go through these points, see if I have already added this content in the history article, and summarized it in this main article. If not, it must be added. --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

In the meantime I'll start reading the history article. This article is now pretty close to GA status, but I'd like to go through the history article at least once to get a sense of the relationship between the two before I promote either one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken i think the History article elaborates on the points of both sources. Wikiman5676 (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Wikiman5676, but there are some new developments. Two days ago the court ordered some new things. It is pretty complex, and until thus far, in English, it has only been reported on by Bangkok Post, linked above, and The Nation. But the latter's reporting is sketchy and unorganized, so I am taking a look at some other Thai sources now. Some news outlets that publish in English, such as Thai PBS and Khao Sod English, are quite slow. They haven't reported on it yet.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Information at this point is still a lot of speculation, since the lawsuits are still running, and with regard to the current decision of the court, appeal to a higher court is likely. Nevertheless, I have added the main things that have happened this week.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Your changes look good enough to me. Passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, phew! Thanks, Mike Christie, just for a moment there, I didn't think I was going to make it. Any suggestions for a DYK entry?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never done a DYK so I'm not a good person to ask. Plenty to choose from, I'd think, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, didn't realize there was new events. Wikiman5676 (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

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.