- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Five precepts edit
- ... that ethicist Damien Keown described the relationship between the five Buddhist precepts (plaque pictured) and human rights as "to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one"? Source:Keown, 2012, pp.20-22, 33, "He suggests that in these cases the best English translation in these cases is 'due' because 'due' looks both ways along a juridical relationship, both to what one is due to do, and to what is due to one ... From this it would seem that Dharma determines not just 'what one is due to do' but also 'what is due to one' ... Human rights can be extrapolated from Buddhist moral teachings in the manner described above ... A direct translation of the first four precepts yields a right to life, a right not to have one's property stolen ...", etc.
- ALT1:... that peace studies founder Johan Galtung describes the five Buddhist precepts (plaque pictured) as the "basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace"? Source:Yeh 2006, p.100, "Galtung (1993: 117) contends that the absolute rejection of committing direct violence as prescribed in the Five Precepts is the 'basic contribution of Buddhism in the creation of peace'."
- ALT2:... that Buddhists consider the precept against killing any living being the most important of the five basic ethical precepts (plaque pictured)? Source:Ledgerwood 2008, p.152, "In her research the first precept against killing was viewed as the most important", Harvey 2000, "The first precept corresponds to the Hindu and Jain concept of ahiṃsa, 'non-injury', and is generally regarded as the most important one".
- Reviewed: Did you know nominations/Troy Museum
- Comment: All sources are accessible.
Improved to Good Article status by Farang Rak Tham (talk) and Larry Rosenfeld (talk). Nominated by Farang Rak Tham (talk) at 22:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC).
The DYK process has set a precedent that persons who do not have a Wikipedia article are not to be mentioned in a hook. In that case, ALT0 and ALT1 would need to be amended. I have struck those hooks, but I welcome revised suggestions without those names. ALT2 looks promising, and it would be well-supplemented by incorporating File:Plaque with the five precepts engraved, Lumbini Park, Nepal.jpg into the hook. Please do consider that. I will be happy to do a full review of any revised hooks. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for informing me of this new policy, Flibirigit, and I would welcome a full review. The people mentioned in the hook both have their own articles, so if you believe there is a notability issue, that should first be addressed in those articles through a deletion discussion. Thank you for the suggestion of the picture—I added it recently, and forgot to add it here. Again, I welcome your review, and would appreciate if you could send me a link to the policy you mentioned.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- If those persons have articles, they can certainly remain in the hooks. I will start on a review later tonight or tomorrow. Flibirigit (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- ? - Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
Image eligibility:
- Freely licensed:
- Used in article:
- Clear at 100px: - ?
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Article nominated for DYK seven days after passing GA review. Length is more than adequate. Article appears to be neutral in tone and gives equal weight to different points of view. No plagiarism issues detected, and direct quotes are properly attributed. Hooks are interesting, mentioned inline, and properly cited. The QPQ requirement has been completed. The sourcing is good, with a couple minor questions. The "In Pāli tradition" section has two paragraphs without a citation attached. I'm unsure if the citation for the following quote applies to what leads into it. For the "In other textual traditions" section, does the citation at the end of point # 5 apply to the whole list? The photo is not as clear as I thought it would be at 100px. Is there a possibilty to brighten and/or crop the image? We could also use no photo, or a different photo, perhaps the authors of the quotes? Flibirigit (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review.
The "In Pāli tradition" section has two paragraphs without a citation attached
I have removed one sentence that wasn't sourced. At the time, I didn't think it was contentious, so i left it in the article. I'm unsure if the citation for the following quote applies to what leads into it
It does.The photo is not as clear as I thought it would be at 100px.
Do you think it is required that we can read the plaque? If the picture does not suffice, we can do a nomination without pictures. Including a picture of Damien Keown or Johan Galtung would probably distract too much from the main subject of the article.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review.
Thank you for clarifying the citation questions. I am fine going forward without a photo if needed, or if the promoter likes to photo as is, that is good too. All three hooks are approved, as they are properly cited and mentioned in the article. Flibirigit (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Flibirigit!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
