Talk:Transfer of merit

Requested move 22 October 2016

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: Move unopposed (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Pariṇāmanā → Transfer of merit – per WP:COMMONNAME S Khemadhammo (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)--Relisting. Fuortu (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2016 (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.

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

Reviewer: Finnusertop (talk · contribs) 16:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

GA toolbox results

• Dup detector: Nothing to check per next item
• Copyvio detector: No copyvios
• Disambig links: No dablinks
• External links: A few dead/timeout urls that should be replaced or given archive links for

 Fixed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:

   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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

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

5. Is it stable?

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

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Discussion

I will be reviewing this. It was suggested to me by the nominator here. I pledge to offer a fair and thorough review in accordance with the criteria. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• After an initial read, everything looks fine. First of issues that caught by eye is underlinking There is a lot of technical terminology here and most of it should be, at minimum, wikilinked. Try to go through each Buddhist term and see if there is an article for it.

•  Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• For the most important terms (such as merit) an additional, brief explanation would be beneficial. As it stands the article suffers some lack of explanatory context. Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable.

•  Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• A third issue is with the two very long quotations. The one by Gethin is to a large extent redundant with the article text. Consider taking out redundancies and integrate the rest with the article. Right now it offers something of a parallel summary of the topic and is not poignant or iconic enough(?) to justify inclusion in this form.

• Agreed.  Removed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Then there's the one by Ruegg. I actually find the first part very useful. For the latter part, it would be perhaps better as paraphrased. Right now some things are not explained at all, like what the categorization by Dutt is about. For a general audience reader like me, it's also unclear what the significance of Pali is here. The passage seems to contrast Pali, a language, with Theravāda and Mahāyāna, two schools of Buddhism, which I find very confusing.

•  Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've passed the images and stability criteria. More images would be great, but given the subject matter (spiritual practice) not absolutely necessary. Something that comes to mind would be manuscripts of texts that you mention. There are some particularly striking ones here (and esp these; see the excellent Notes), but I'm no expert when it comes to relevance.

•  Doing.... I will definitely look for more images. The images of the museum may be difficult to use in the article, as the images would probably not be clear enough, and the subject (the ghosts) too small.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• I wasn't able to find any images with a CC license on any of the regular websites. Since we already have an image of someone transferring merit below on the article, I don't think I can presume fair use for a non-free image. I will move the only image we have to the top of the article.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Done. I finally found one in the Mulian rescues his mother article.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comprehensiveness: In general, there is room for more. I checked what the Chinese and Japanese Wikipedia articles have to say on this topic. Both talk about Pure Land more than you do. If this is an influential belief, then you could expand on it. Similarly, both mention a framework of three types of transfer (Bodhi, all sentient beings, actual transfer). The Chinese version also goes through some apparently classic accounts in Buddhist teaching. The Japanese one appears to mention a practice of merit transfer where words are uttered. The Chinese version has a similar section but I'm unable to discern if these phrases are recited mentally or aloud; at any rate they appear to be standard formulae. Please check with reliable sources if these pointers are relevant.

•  Done. I will check if these things are covered by English-language scholarship, and whether they are DUE. If you can read Chinese scholarly sources, feel free to add content from those. :-) --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Lots of sources I haven't used yet. About two pages of sources on Google Scholar and 27 entries on Hollis. We could be here a while. Better put the GA review on hold for a while, Finnusertop.

--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I've put it on hold, Farang Rak Tham. You're making good progress here. I hope we can wrap this up in a week, but there is no hurry. I think this comprehensiveness check is the biggest issue right now and it requires some work from both of us. If you read Dutch and Thai, sources in those languages would be welcome as well of course. Unfortunately, I don't read Chinese, but thanks for asking. I do read Finnish, and I have access to some books by Tommi Lehtonen, whom you cite in the article. These look like introductory books for the general audience, though, and not entirely on-topic. I might check them out just to see if there's something in there; if not, I've probably learnt new things about Buddhism in the process. In any case, I'm also going to look at some encyclopedia/dictionary entries for (transfer of) merit and see how things are balanced there. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Finnusertop!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I found 31 sources with notability which have not yet been used in the article. There is unfortunately little coverage of Pure Land Buddhism or East Asian Buddhism for that matter. Nevertheless, I do consider 31 overlooked sources as a too large number, and I will integrate these sources in the article in the days to come.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

22 sources left. Something on Mahayana in general, but not much on Pure Land yet.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 00:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Farang Rak Tham. I'll give it a proper re-read tomorrow. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Only one source left. I just have an article of Lehtonen which I have not yet integrated into the Wiki article yet. Apart from that, I couldn't find anything more on the topic of merit transfer. I might do another search using key terms like Pure Land.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I have added some content from Lehtonen as well, now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Found five sources with notability about Pure Land Buddhism and transfer. Will continued to expand based on these.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Expanded the article a bit.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking real good now, Farang Rak Tham. I'm quite confident that broadness is now definitely met. There are some issues left that are more on the stylistic side of things: – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• And in the Sanskrit tradition, the word pariṇāmanā is used for transferring merit... Drop the "And" for better grammar.

•  Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• 'transfer of merit' does not translate any classical Buddhist term... Should be translate to.

•  Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• just like a candle used to light another candle does not diminish. Is this analogue your own or in some of the cited sources?

•  Fixed.In many of the cited sources. Explained.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• If dead relatives are reborn in a place that is too high or too low, as a deva (deity), as a human, as an animal or in hell, they cannot receive the merit. I must admit to having very little knowledge about the afterlife in Buddhism. For an unitiated reader like me, this begs the question: when are they able receive the merit? In addition to the negative, I would have liked to read about some typical situation when the deceased recipient is able to receive the merit.

• Good catch.  Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• ten meritorious acts I can't tell you how tempted I am to click the link to know what those ten acts are. The actual list verges on being too long to include here. Maybe you could have it in a footnote?

 Done. Feel free to click. --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Pure Land I think you should define this, briefly.

 Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Another aim in transferring merit, apart from helping the deceased, is to dedicate it to the devas... It's said above that devas cannot receive the merit. If this is about that merit transfer that helps the giver but is not received by the deceased, it would be useful to explicitly spell it out here, even at the risk of some repetition. Otherwise it seems like a contradiction.

 Partly fixed. It is a contradiction, and I would have blamed you for not noticing it. I have found no scholar who describes this contradiction though, so I don't think I can, lest I stray in SYNTH. I have added some more detail at the part that says they cannot receive it, though.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Phew, you tried to set me up, didn't you. I think you could add something to the effect of "Notwithstanding views that devas cannot receive the merit"... without any SYNTH problems; you'd be just repeating a claim made earlier in the article.

 Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• historical Buddha There are still some terms that need wikilinks, like this one.

 Doing....--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• The blockquote still has two minor issues: should use {{quote}} instead of {{cquote}} (MOS:BLOCKQUOTE) and it should use ellipses without brackets (MOS:ELLIPSIS).

 Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Overall, some sections are a bit long. In particular at least "Origins" should be split.

 Fixed. Added several subsections, and in the process renamed some which were not accurate.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Gethin and Marston are included in References but are actually not cited.

 Fixed. Kicked them out.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• This source mentions one sutra, Tirokuddasutta, in the context of preta and merit transfer. Maybe's it's relevant and due, maybe not.

That is indeed notable.  Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Spot checking sourecs: Bowie is missing the page number
• Same for Yin
• Same for Reader & Tanabe

 Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• And last but not least, following your improvements to the article, the lead should be expanded a bit. Per MOS:LEADLENGTH it should be about two or three paragraphs now.

 Doing....--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: I've decided to pass the article. It meets all criteria. I wish to personally congratulate you, and thank you for this experience! I've learnt a great deal about both the review end of the GA process as well as the subject matter at hand. I hope we keep running into each other in our Wikipedia activities. It's been a pleasure. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't think the article could be improved that much still. You did a great job to show this. Any ideas for a DYK entry?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

How about "... in Buddhism, transfer of merit to deceased loved ones is seen as a better alternative than mourning?" It's simple, essential, and thought-provoking. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks, Finnusertop!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:27, 8 June 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.