The following is an archived discussion of Sikhī Buddha's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: rejected by —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 06:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC).
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sikhī Buddha edit
... that Sikhī Buddha was 37 cubits tall, his body radiated light for a distance of three leagues, and he lived to the age of 37,000 years?
- Reviewed: Rodolfo Rincón Taracena
Created by DiverDave (talk). Self nominated at 14:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC).
The hook is under 200 characters, every paragraph in the article has at least one source, the article exceeds 1,500 characters, the sources appear to be reliable and there are adequate inline citations. However, it is unbelievable that an actual human lived for either 37,000 or 70,000 years (as per the article). Which number is it? The article states two ages. Is this mythology, or supposed to be real, like a human was able to magically live over 450 times longer than humans that live to be 80 years old? If it's myth, which is certain, then this really needs to be stated in the lead of the article and included in this DYK hook. I'm hesitant to approve this at this time, because the information is presented in a literal fashion, and also isn't believable from a scientific standpoint per this current characterization in the hook as literal. However, perhaps others may have differing views about this. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments, Northamerica1000. I too have been wrestling with how to present this information. Sikhī Buddha is a figure from Buddhist mythology, and I am trying my best to present him as such. The ==Biography== section opens with "According to the Buddhavamsa"", as well as traditional Buddhist legend and mythology". Please see the article on Methuselah for comparison. DiverDave (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1:
... that Sikhī Buddha, a figure in Buddhist mythology, was 37 cubits tall, had a body that radiated light for a distance of three leagues, and lived to the age of 37,000 years?
- Maybe the above will serve to clarify the hook. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, I think the new hook is much better. I have cleaned up the article a bit to underscore that Sikhī was a mythical figure. DiverDave (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't think it's accurate to categorize this as mythology considering that the Buddhas are a core part of Buddhist belief, which would mean that we're calling Buddhism itself a myth. My understanding is that mythology is more about the deities and demons etc anyway. Do any of the sources specifically discuss this as mythology? Regarding the height and age, all religions have these type of hard-to-believe events (e.g Moses crossing the Red Sea, Jesus' walk on water). I live in a predominantly Buddhist country myself, and my understanding is that such descriptions are usually not taken literally. They are generally understood to be exaggerations in the scriptures to present them as impressive figures. I think it would be better to say "according to Buddhist belief and scriptures" or something along those lines. Chamal T•C 13:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, I think the new hook is much better. I have cleaned up the article a bit to underscore that Sikhī was a mythical figure. DiverDave (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe the above will serve to clarify the hook. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that according to Buddhist belief and scriptures, Sikhī Buddha was 37 cubits tall, had a body that radiated light for a distance of three leagues, and lived to the age of 37,000 years?
- Thanks for the input, User:Chamal N, here's alt2 above. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Looks good to me, but somebody else will have to complete the review now since I suggested the change. Struck the original and alt1 hooks. Chamal T•C 03:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately we've got some close paraphrasing concerns. For example, in the Etymology section the one line text is word for word exact from the source right down to the parenthetical explanations. From the same source (currently FN#3) in the Biography section we have the close paraphrasing of "He practiced asceticism for eight months" with just the one word substitution in the source "He practised austerities for eight months.". Other citations from this same source are also uncomfortably close. AgneCheese/Wine 01:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input, User:Chamal N, here's alt2 above. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
