This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
I disagree with thisWP:DRAFTIFICATION by User:Rosguill. Sure, the quality is low, but I could quickly verify the basics, and nothing is contentious, and mainspace is where pages get improved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No objection at this time if you were able to verify the basics. I'm going to go ahead and add a POV tag because the article is written from a POV that takes the entire mythological account of the subject as fact, including outlandish claims such as the idea that this Buddha was 120ft tall. signed, Rosguilltalk 18:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged it for sourcing issues as well- this is primarily sourced from the Buddhavamsa, a primary source, and I can't find (or read) a couple other linked sources. There's a bit of a WP:BIAS issue because this topic hasn't been of major interest to Western scholarship. Agree the POV issue needs work, but I'd suggest letting some of the primary-sourced material stand simply because it's readily verifiable. --Spasemunki (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Outlandish facts. Point there. There is verifiably something about a mythical Maṅgala Buddha, but is it sparse, and does not appear to be mainstream. I assume that it is a local tradition somewhere. This is an immediatism vs eventualism philosopical issue. I think this needs time in mainspace for source collection, cross referencing, categorisation, etc. It could well be destined for a merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
