Talk:Eight precepts

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We need to identify which traditions follow this, as our article implies they all do. Tibetan Buddhist sangha certainly eat after noon for example. I am told only Theravadins don't. Secretlondon 21:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge

See here —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 4 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) JC7V (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Eight Precepts → Eight precepts – Per MOS:DOCTCAPS. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Isn't this a proper noun for a particular list of precepts, rather than a general principle to be followed? It seems like I've seen similar things capitalized on Wikipedia, such as the Five Pillars of Islam. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• BarrelProof, could be, but specifically what policy or guideline would justify capitals?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Proper names are ordinarily capitalized. This is mentioned in WP:Manual of Style/Proper names, and seems like a general principle of ordinary English. Ping to SMcCandlish, who ordinarily has substantial expertise on this sort of thing. Another example that comes to my mind is Ten Commandments. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• And Seven Laws of Noah and Four Noble Truths (but seven deadly sins). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• We have to be careful of circular reasoning (especially petitio principii) in cases like this. A "WP must capitalize because it's a proper name" view would pre-suppose what we're trying to establish, namely whether independent RS do consistently treat it as a proper name and capitalize it. Whether something is a proper name in the philosophy sense is irrelevant, since that has no connection to typographic matters; only the linguistic meaning could matter for that question. But how to approach that is a matter of sharp and recently renewed conflict in RS on linguistics, so the question doesn't really help us here. It ends up boiling down to whether RS that are not published within the doctrine (nor in a field prone to over-capitalization) consistently capitalize it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• To be honest, I won't loose my sleep over it either way, but I propose this rename to make sure it's correct. But I don't think we can rely on WP:Other stuff exists to get it right.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, lots of other things of this sort need re-examination. I see that we have an article at Noble Eightfold Path. I expected the simple "eightfold path [of Buddhism]" to be more common in independent RS. Google Ngrams shows that "Eightfold Path" leads, then "Noble Eightfold Path", then "eightfold path", then "noble eightfold path" last. But this doesn't exclude works written by Buddhists for a Buddhist market. I would almost bet money that if scholarly works are examined that they'll favor "eightfold path".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support as obviously falling under MOS:DOCTCAPS. Primergrey (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• Leaning support per DOCTCAPS, but could be swayed. "Ten Commandments" is the title (albeit traditional and translated) of a work (albeit a legendary one, and carved on stone rather than written on paper/papyrus). "Eight precepts" may not be, but a doctrinal principle. That's a grey area in general. We would not capitalize the Taoist "ten-thousand things" (a metaphor for the material world), but "the Virgin Birth" is usually capitalized in the singular and specific doctrinal claim about Mary and Jesus (not virgin births in legend/faith more generally).

  I think what we need here is an examination of how independent (i.e., scholarly not religious, and definitely not newage) books treat this phrase in English when specifically writing about Buddhism in its native lands (not neo-Buddhist stuff in the West, which capitalizes pretty much everything it can get its hands on). Journalism sources are utterly useless for this because they reflexively capitalize in any case where there is doubt, most especially religious and other cultural matters, simply to avoid giving offense to anyone who might write an angry "letter to the editor". So, anyway, is this a list, the Eight Precepts, that originated as such, or is just a set of doctrinal matters treated as a group and sometimes published as list, of eight precepts? I'm thinking of "The Scout Law" (which exists in shorter, rote-recited versions like the Boy Scouts of America's "Boy Scout Law"), the "Twelve Steps" and "Twelve Traditions" of Alcoholics Anonymous, and similar things which have a doctrinal purpose, are in list format, and are treated as proper names (titles of works) because they originated as such (though not always in the same form; I think the "Twelve Steps" was originally the "Eight Steps" or something). WP's default is to use lower-case if there is doubt (first rule of MOS:CAPS), so either we have that doubt and it remains, or the doubt can be dispelled by showing that the phrase is virtually never lower-case in RS that aren't pre-biased towards capitalization.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• SMcCandlish, good points. I used over 20 reliable sources in the article. I will do a check whether these capitalize the subject, or not. I'll be back.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Checking all authors after the 50s (not counting before that, because style and grammar was different back then), except for the BBC, since we decided we didn't want news sources.

• Capitalizing: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].

• Not capitalizing: [8], [9][10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23].

Actually, I didn't expect this outcome, but it seems the non-capital side wins.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support move to Eight precepts. The phrase "eight precepts" in lowercase is used throughout the article, this is consistent with the article title Five precepts and Farang Rak Tham's source check shows the lowercase is commonly used. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support per observations above and guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 04:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, Tea with toast!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Tea with toast, are you still pursuing this?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the delay. Tea with toast (話) 03:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Well done article. I enjoyed learning about this topic

Thanks!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Well done, I like the organization here.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Just one statement in the intro that I feel needs a citation. Overall, I am quite pleased with the citations. I did not check every single reference, but all the ones I did all check out.

I have rephrased this, to fit in with the body of the text.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

1. C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Just need the one citation to pass.

A few minor things that could be added moving forward (not necessary for a GA pass, but more for expansion to move towards feature article status):

• The latter half of the "description" section could be pulled out into an "origin" section.

 Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• • I am curious about the Iranian origin theory mentioned. Could added a sentence or two to describe this further, if appropriate

 Doing...--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Apparently, Przyluksi discusses Neo-Babylonian influence, not Iranian. Directly cited and expanded now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• The article and sources give mention to the 10 precepts; could expand to further delineate the differences between these two.

There are too little sources about this in English language. It could be done by someone familiar and versed in Chinese or Japanese-language scholarship, though. Not me.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, Tea with toast (話) 03:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tea with toast: Thanks for all the tips!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tea with toast: I have now responded to all your suggestions. Let me know if you have any more.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: Great job with the edits. It's looking more polished now. Just need a source to support the sentence in the intro that this was something that was practiced back in 7th-10th century China. I'll pass the article once that is done. Tea with toast (話) 21:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

That's already in the body of the text, Tea with toast. Under Eight precepts#History. It is therefore not required to put another citation in the lead. Unless you think it is controversial, that is.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 00:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Tea with toast, a friendly reminder.-Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I have notified the reviewer on his user page, and given him a deadline. He has not responded. Archiving and renominating.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:48, 13 October 2019 (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.

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:Eight precepts/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 12:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Opening statement

In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Disclosure: I consider myself at least a wiki-acquaintance of the nominee, Farang Rak Tham, and I have previously reviewed several of their articles before. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for all your efforts, Vami IV. You are an invaluable asset to our Wikipedia!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead

• That Citation Needed tag should obviously be there.

I have put a citation there now. That citation is also in the body of the text, though.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Description

• [...] wrong speech [...] Having reviewed the five precepts article, I understand the meaning here, but don't think it adequately conveyed. "Damaging" would be better than "wrong" in this instance.

 Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Origins

• [...], as well as the [...] Replace with "and"

 Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• [...] brahminism did not migrate to the early Buddhist region till much later. This should be "Brahaminism".

 Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

"Till much later" is confusing without any dates being used before. It's like saying "and then he traveled from nowhere to somewhere".

 Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Practice

• Fluids are allowed. Considering that this forms a (short) exception to the previous sentence and uses the same citations, I advise combination of the two.

 Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

History

• In the 1980s and 1990s, Thailand saw the rise to popularity of the politician Chamlong Srimuang. As a member of the Buddhist Santi Asoke movement, Srimuang observed the eight precepts continuously, even during his life as a politician. Combine and condense.

 Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Could this section be combined with or follow "Origins"? In case of the former, I would have the section be called "History" with the contemporary information in a subsection named "Contemporary history".

 Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:45, 26 October 2019 (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.