Talk:Aṅgulimāla

Nirvana?

Did Angulimala attain Nirvana upon his death? The current article is a little vague on this point. Ewlyahoocom 14:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, according to the Pali Canon, Venerable Angulimala attained arahatship or sainthood and has passed away into Nirvana. The article focuses too much on his violent past and not enough on his final destination. Dhammapal 07:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is biased against Angulimala. According to the reverted article link below, the Buddha said “his evil deeds have been overwhelmed by good kamma and his mind has been completely rid of all defilements." Dhammapal (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Causes of Angulimala’s behavior & his transformation

The article does not explain the causes of Angulimala’s behavior and his transformation, giving only one sentence: “After hearing this, Angulimala changed his ways, vowed to cease his life as a brigand and joined the Buddhist order.” Please read my reverted external link (I don’t get a pop-up only a Yahoo advertisement): Angulimala: A Story of the Power of Compassion Dhammapal 02:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

But thats the thing, it really did go down like that. While it's all well and good to call bias and such, where Buddhas teachings were concerned, he REALLY was that convincing. Remember, nobody had heard of any of this crap before. People did things like mutilate themselves in order to reach a spiritual elightenment. While the "outrunning while walking" story can't physically be true (unless he was a really crap runner or was just too far away he percieved it differently), he actually did just straight away accept the Buddha. Otherwise he would have killed him. The historicity of Angulimala points to him existing and being responsible for those deaths, then suddenly converting and stopping killing when Buddha finds him. Even if it was just Buddha sitting down with him and explaining his teachings for a few hours, Buddah really did just meet with him and suddenly change his views on killing. And thats what makes it so damn remarkable. 124.169.79.1 (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Actually, most of what you've said is false. According to legend, the Buddha was only one of many. In any case, these stories were never meant to be taken literally, but metaphorically. People forget that outlandish stories make for memorable stories, and the more outlandish, the easier it is to retell them over time, from generation to generation. Keep in mind how long it took for these stories to be written down, and you get the picture. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The article states: "A ruthless killer who is redeemed by a sincere conversion to Buddhism, he is seen as an example of the redemptive power of the Buddha's teaching and the universal human potential for spiritual progress, regardless of one's background." The only thing which I think is unequivocally incorrect with this statement is the claim of a "sincere conversion to Buddhism". There was no Buddhism at the time of the Buddha, only a Sangha after his teaching began and if that's what is meant then better to say that. If the enlightenment of Angulimala is what's meant then say that. The Buddha was very clearly recorded in the Suttas as not being interested in creating any kind of Buddhism as his legacy, only that his teaching continue for the two Sāsanas which he foresaw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WideEyedPupil (talk • contribs) 01:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul the Apostle

Nuff said. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 30 April 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested. Dekimasuよ! 01:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Angulimala → Aṅgulimāla – This is the correct spelling of the subject, including diacritics, following the Dictionary of Pali Proper Names, in several entries[1] as well as the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, p.149[2] Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:23, 30 April 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.

Review?

This is a very interesting article--well written and well organized and thorough. I have never heard this story before and think this is a valuable contribution here on Wiki. I wish I was qualified to do a real review for, you but I simply don't think I know enough and don't have the tools or the experience here on Wikipedia. You set a pretty high standard and there is no way I could measure up! I could sort of informally go over the prose if you wanted--which is overall great of course--but that hardly seems fair since what you need is a real review. You would probably have to walk me through it more than the other way around! I told Gerda Arendt how great you were. I wish there was a review process, I would give you glowing praise. Thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

If you are interested in some random comments, I can do that. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

And if you wanted to walk me through it and teach me how to do a review, I'd be willing--if that wouldn't be like reviewing yourself. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. I don't think it was one of my best reviews for my part, but okay. As for doing your own review of a GA nominee article, you can find detailed instructions at WP:GA?. Try to use a template which helps for you, and don't forget that GA does not include more layout stuff than just those five sections mentioned in this guideline page. I would recommend you to get familiar with the process, so you will learn more about writing articles, and will find it easier to find other reviewers when you nominate a new article for GA. I hope this suffices. Try to understand WP:GA? first, I'd say.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not see how anyone could have done a better job than you did. If it was not one of your better ones--well--then you're good ones are hard to imagine! It was long and difficult--no section went untouched. You did the kind of job that makes me think you are almost as responsible for how good it is as I am--and I wrote --no rewrote and wrote--almost the entire blinkin' thing! I really wish I could return the favor here. I will definitely do that reading. Thank you for everything. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding at the end--but 99% was easy and positive, right? It's been a truly great experience meeting and working with you. I genuinely hope this is not the end of our relationship. Good luck with this!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem, Jenhawk777—no hard feelings. Your article was very long, and your writing style idiosyncratic. Combined with my perfectionism, that made for a long review. However, your review wasn't actually that many days (about 10), because you responded quite quick. There are reviews that last much longer because people are very busy, or just postpone it all the time. --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay--now you have to explain what you mean by idiosyncratic. Unusual? Peculiar? You mean my long compound— German — sentences don't you? Hahaha! Well I want you to know that after working with you I am becoming more careful about that. No run-on sentences for me anymore--no sir! Well... maybe one or two just for variety... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You're reviewing comments now?  :-) You really are a perfectionist. That's okay--I live with one. I thought you requested that I come and look at your article that needed reviewing, so I was responding to the request for review--hence the title. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The question mark means: is this going somewhere?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh! What I saw was this: section header is confusing. I thought you had typed that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

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:Aṅgulimāla/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 20:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Farang Rak Tham, I hope you do not mind if I review this article, since you have already reviewed so many of mine.

Didn't I ask you myself? Very much appreciated! --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Initial review

1. Well written? Yes. Will analyze in much greater detail below in the coming days.
2. Verifiable? Everything is
3. Broad in coverage? Seems to be. Will discuss more later.
4. Neutral? As far as I can tell from the initial readthrough. Will discuss more later.
5. Stable? Yes.
6. Illustrated? Yes.

This clearly is not a quick fail. I will go through each section individually and add criticisms in the coming days. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Textual sources and epigraphical findings

@Farang Rak Tham: Here is my review of the first section:

• General note: I would recommend discussing the sources in chronological order that they were written (or created, since you also mention the relief) to make it easier to understand which sources are the earliest and which ones are later. I am not sure if you already do this and I am a little confused about when the texts you are discussing date from. The only date you give in the whole section is the "fifth century CE" in the last paragraph.

•  Doing...--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Having looked again at the section, I am uncertain who to proceed. The first paragraph deals with the Pali texts, and the relation between the earliest Pali texts and the later commentaries. The second paragraph deals with other languages. If I were to rearrange the text, some of the relationships explained between early and later texts within the same textual tradition might become more difficult to understand. I will try a first draft in my sandbox.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Done. I have tried it and it does look better. Inserted the new, reorganized section now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that is better. I am glad you added the dates to clarify when the texts described were written. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Buddhaghoṣa (5th century CE; depicted at the right) The caption here is confusing. Is the image shown from the fifth century CE or is it illustrating a person who lived in the fifth century CE? My initial assumption was that you were saying the image was from the fifth century CE and I have to say, if the image itself is that old, then it is in astonishingly good condition. However, I clicked on the link and it took me to the article on Buddhaghoṣa, which says he was from the fifth century CE, so my guess now is that that is probably what the caption meant, except that is not at all clear from reading the caption as it is currently written. I would recommend revising the caption.

•  Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• The earliest text that refers to Aṅgulimāla dates from the fifth century CE, You may want to specify at some point when Aṅgulimāla is supposed to have lived, because this is relevant in determining how close the earliest mentions of him are to the time when he is supposed to have been alive.

•  Fixed. It is presumed he lived at the same time as the Buddha. I have included a note with an estimate about the dating of the life of the Buddha.

• pre-dates this text with approximately two centuries. I would suggest: "pre-dates this text by approximately two centuries" as more idiomatic. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• dates from approximately 3rd century BE. I believe you mean BCE? As far as I am aware, "BE" is not a dating system. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oops.  Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• I have a generally strong dislike for short, single-sentence paragraphs, so I would recommend either merging the sentence about the relief into another paragraph or expanding this with more information on early visual representations. Nonetheless, this is really just my personal preference and, since this is your article, not mine, I would not want to force you to merge it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Previous life

• In the texts a previous life is described before Aṅgulimāla met the Buddha Gautama... Try to refrain from using passive voice. This reads much more clearly if you switch it to active voice, saying, "Texts describe Aṅgulimāla's previous life before he met the Buddha Gautama..." --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Doing....--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Done. As far as they could be fixed I could fix them ...--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• I believe "In this life he was born..." should be "In this life, he was born..." I know for certain this is how it would be written in American English, since any introductory phrase longer than two words requires a comma after it, but I am not sure if this applies to non-American varieties of English. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Fixed. I am not using any specific variety of English in this article, which I guess means we default to American English. Do you have a good external source for American interpunction? I'd appreciate it.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• You may want to clarify that this section is talking about a previous incarnation, because when I read the words "previous life... before Aṅgulimāla met the Buddha Gautama," I initially assumed this merely meant his life in this incarnation before meeting the Buddha. That mistake is probably a result of my western cultural background, but, as it stands, the passage could be made less ambiguous. Saying "previous incarnation" instead of "previous life" might make this more clear. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Done.Incarnation is not a common term in Buddhist Studies because rebirth and birth are used in Buddhist texts, rather than the more Hindu-associated term incarnation (which implies a permanent self, a teaching Buddhism resists). But since Barrett uses the term (though Zin and Wilson use life) and I can't think of good alternative to solve the issue you point at, I'll use it for now, until I can think of something else. (German scholar Wilkens has fruehere Existenz, which literally means 'earlier existence', but I guess that in English that would not be idiomatic.)--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• as a man-eating king turned 'ghoul' I appreciate you trying to make the article more readable by using western translations for Indic words, but I do not think this is the right approach, because "ghoul," in my mind, is always an Arabic demon that haunts cemeteries and I am sure most other people are bound to think of the "ghouls" from George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead. It would be better to give the Pali word yakkha and its Sanskrit equivalent and define what the term means, rather than providing a similar western term as a gloss. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Fixed. I see your point here, but I am not sure how you want me to define this apart from a yaksha being a type of monster. I followed Zin and wrote a type of demon, removing ghoul.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Youth

I have no criticisms for this section, although I do have a few observations:

• The birth narrative reminds me a bit of the birth stories of Paris and Oedipus in Greek mythology. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• In another version of the story, the teacher's wife tries to seduce Ahiṃsaka. When the latter refuses her advances, she is spiteful and tells the teacher Ahiṃsaka has tried to seduce her. The story continues in the same way. This is a story we find in virtually all cultures across Europe and Asia. Its most famous versions today (at least in western cultures) are Hippolytus and Phaedra in Greek mythology and Joseph and Potiphar's wife in the Book of Genesis. It is interesting that Buddhists apparently have at least one version of it also. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore these; they are not particularly relevant to the review. I just thought I would comment on them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is amazing. First-generation Indologists like Burlingame and T. W. Rhys Davids have written much about these similarities. The latter claimed that the original to the proverbial "wolf in sheep's clothing" and the original to the Solomon's Judgement were both Buddhist stories! See also the excellent article about the blind men and an elephant ...--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Life as a brigand

No criticisms for this section either. It is all very well-written and well-sourced. I have to note, though, that the part about the "necklace of fingers" is incredibly disgusting. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

That's Wikipedia for you—UNCENSORED.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Meeting the Buddha

• ...some psychic power... I have several complaints here. Firstly, are you sure "psychic power" is the best description here? When I hear the word "psychic power," I think of a spiritualist giving a cold reading, or maybe the X-Men, neither of which I think are the kind of psychic powers you are talking about here. Like the "ghoul" gloss, these translations seem to be far too broad-brushed. It would be better to give the actual word that is used in the source here and provide a definition of what it means, rather than trying to give an analogous western concept.

•  Doing.... Two sources[3][4] have no alternative term. Bhikkhu Analayo has "feat of magic" though—does that work for you? Or do you prefer Robert Buswell Jr.'s "miracle"? PTS' Dictionary of Pāli, a standard work, has "supernatural accomplishment, magic power".
• And again, your request for a definition instead of a gloss is challenging. I am uncertain if adding a sentence-long definition of the term will help the narrative, if that is what you intend me to do.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Fixed. Replaced all instances with supernatural accomplishment now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• My second issue is that you pipe "psychic power" to Riddhi, which is a redirect to consorts of Ganesha. In the lead of that article, they explain that "Riddhi" is one of the three main consorts of the Hindu god Ganesha and that her name means "prosperity." I do not think this is the same sense at all in which the word is being used here in this article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oops again.  Fixed. Good catch: we need more Katolophyromais on Wikipedia.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Life as a monk and death

No criticisms. This section is fine as it is. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Historical

• Mahābharatha should be written in italics, since it is the title of an epic poem. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Do historians typically consider Aṅgulimāla a real person or do they regard him as purely legendary? If your sources do not discuss this issue, you do not need to double over backwards to try to find sources dealing with this, but, as the article currently stands, it is ambiguous what historians say about Aṅgulimāla's historicity. This section, I think, might be a good place to discuss the matter. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Doing.... They do discuss this indirectly, when discussing the the Tantric cult theory. I'll add or rewrite to make it clearer that this also is about historicity.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Have added the word historical twice to emphasize that the violent cult theories imply that Angulimāla was a historical person.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Doctrinal

Well-written and very interesting. I found the discussion about the importance of forgiveness in Buddhism particularly fascinating. The lesson that the only purpose of punishment is to elicit reform is actually an idea that I have long wished that the justice system of my own country (the United States) would take note of.

Yes, I guess that Kumar's book was aimed at the US. Then again, it's a good thing that the US still has strong left and right wing politicians—in Europe, we only have center-right and far-right these days.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, "strong" is the last word I would use to describe the current state of the United States Democratic Party (our only left-wing party). The Republican Party (our only right-wing party) holds the majority in both houses of Congress, has control of the presidency, and has stocked the Supreme Court with justices that favor their views; that leaves the Democrats virtually completely impotent. Right now, their only power is the power of moral outrage: the ability to point to President Trump's objectively inhumane and ridiculous policies and say, "Isn't this just outrageous?" Then people get angry and protest. Then, within a week later, a new story comes up that is even more outrageous, so people move on and get angry about that, forgetting about the outrage that came before. Who knows, though, maybe that will change in the upcoming midterm elections this November. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I will, however, note that the paragraph length varies significantly throughout this section, which bothers me. I will not make you change it, though. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed. Removed isolated sentence about East Asian Buddhism, and merged two other paragraphs with similar content.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

In behavioral sciences

Very interesting, well-written section. I have to admit that I was honestly not expecting this kind of analysis here, but I think it is very helpful and tells a great deal of information about the subject that would otherwise be omitted. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I merely searched on Google Scholar.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

In modern culture

This section is likewise very well-written and I believe it adequately covers the subject of Aṅgulimāla in modern culture. It is far superior to the common "In popular culture" sections with bulleted points that so often populate our articles. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

And thanks again. I have tried to avoid such a section.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

I have now addressed all issues you mentioned, Kato.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Waiting for your response, Katolophyromai. I'm still alive for now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Houston to Kato, do you read me?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: Sorry for the delay. I have been very busy for the past few days and have not had many opportunities to edit. I will not have much time tomorrow either, but I will try to continue my review as soon as possible. If I have time, I will try to post the next few sections tonight. I know what it is like to feel like a reviewer has abandoned a review and I am trying to avoid putting you through that. The reviewer at Talk:Dragon/GA1 disappeared without a trace for whole seventeen days, despite me repeatedly pinging him/her to respond. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Katolophyromai, okay, don't worry. Just don't forget me, lol.--

Awaiting new comments,

Katolophyromai.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead

The lead looks good, although I will note that I usually like to put the original language spellings of names into a footnote (see, for instance, how I handled it in the articles Hypatia, Pythagoras, and Satan). The reason why I do this is because, while it is important to give the original language spelling at some point, most people reading the article probably will not care about it and having it at the beginning clutters up the first line with information that probably does not matter to most people. I will not try to force this habit of mine onto you, but I thought I would leave note of it here in case you wanted to follow it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done. I have removed the Sanskrit, which was in the language infobox anyway, but I think the translation "finger-garland" is still useful to keep (though gross).--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright. Looks good to me. I just thought I would give the suggestion. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: I am now pleased to pass this article for "Good Article" status. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the thorough review. Much appreciated. Looking at the Dragon article now—that reviewer is quite something, isn't he?

Any ideas for a DYK? I'm trying to improve on my record of number of views.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: I am not sure what to suggest for the DYK. I personally would prefer something about how his story illustrates the importance of forgiveness and mercy in Buddhism. If I were doing the DYK, I would probably make it something along those lines, but I generally tend to choose subjects that I personally find interesting and I am not sure how interesting your average Wikipedia main page visitor is going to find a hook of that variety. If you are looking for pure shock value, you could try the "necklace of severed human fingers" bit; that might attract some people's attention, but it could also alienate people who are not interested in severed appendages. I think that probably the best bet for attracting large numbers of views would be something about one of the film adaptations of Aṅgulimāla's story. The political motivations behind Kumar's adaptation might be a good subject for the hook, since that would relate the story to the present-day. You could try something like: "Did you know that the peace activist Satish Kumar adapted the ancient Buddhist story of Aṅgulimāla to address the Global War on Terror?"

Interesting enough. Thanks!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the dragon article, there is actually a major way in which you could help because I know you have studied mythology and I know you have some familiarity with East Asian culture. The article used to have a section about dragon stories from Indochina, but I had to remove it because it was entirely cited to a book written by a certain Theresa Bane, who, as I later learned, is completely unreliable as a source and she even reproduced information in one of her books from a hoax article on Wikipedia that I discovered. I have been thinking about asking you if you might be willing to write a new section on the subject to replace the one I removed for a while, but have not gotten around to it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Something along the lines of Nāga?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 23 July 2018 (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.

Ehtry based on belief?

I have no idea if this 'person' was a historical, living and breathing human, or is just a figment of mythos. This article neds to be rewritten or eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.249.146.8 (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Care to explain more? It cannot be eliminated as he is a notable figure in Buddhist belief, that's like saying eliminate the pages on Abraham or John the Baptist. You will have to explain what needs rewriting. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Featured article quality

This looks like a future FA in my opinion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr. Blofeld. Would you care to assess if I nominate it?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Justified killing

Farang Rak Tham I want to clarify this passage: "This version makes it look as though Aṅgulimāla's killing is justified". Does it mean to say the killings (plural) by Aṅgulimāla become as if justified? Otherwise I don't see how the preceding passage makes the killing of Aṅgulimāla look justified. HaEr48 (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. The story from the past life makes Aṅgulimāla's violence a response to the injustice he was subjected with himself in a previous live. However, this is only one version of the story, and Bareau only mentions one textual tradition that contains this story. Regardless, I have rephrased it now and I hope it is clearer.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC) Pinging.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)