Talk:Ching Hai/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The fact tags

Does anyone plan to actually follow these up, or should they be understood more as permanent fixtures meant to warn the reader? This is an important distinction. If we're not going to fix that information, and it doesn't seem too controversial, why not just leave it untagged? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A number of facts need a cite of some sort. In some cases the claims are difficult to validate but the fact tags ensure readers of the article know that certain statements have not been validated. Efficacious (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

OK that seems reasonable. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thornton

I have quite some good information from Patricia Thornton on this individual. This is just a note for anyone who monitors this page that I will include it quite soon. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Just one remark. Anyone in the academic field of religious studies knows that people like Rick Ross are really not mainstream figures. Such people make money off their exposes, and of cultivating the image of being one who exposes such groups. Hackneyed and stale designations of "typical destructive cult" (or whatever it was) are an ironic example of why such sources should not be trusted. Real scholars do not resort to such vituperative. I suggest that Rick Ross be removed from this page. If there is an objection, we may take it to the Reliable Source Noticeboard, which I have found helpful for resolving a previous dispute.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Another note is that I am making a number of changes to the article that may be interpreted as significant. I hope to improve the article to make it conform more to what I believe a professional document should look like. If I have instead had a deleterious effect on the quality, please advise. I get the impression that admirers of the subject may have initially made some input into this page, which I don't believe in and of itself would be problematic. I am just attempting to "reign it in," so to speak. I would welcome someone who knows more than myself on this subject to help or consort. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to get some sources for a lot of these claims, too. If there is a serious clean-up of this page, a lot of the unsourced or poorly sourced material may be deleted. To stop it from being deleted, it needs a source. If anyone is reading this, you may be able to input there. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My final remark: the over use of subsections in the material that was positive on the subject did two things: made it look like there was more of it than there was, but also gave the impression that the article was somewhat more "balanced." However, it now becomes clear that perhaps 1/3 of the article is given over to criticism. This seems rather unfair to the subject. I wonder whether some of the information could be integrated into the article in other ways. Primarily I think that the reader wants to be informed about this subject, not preached at one way or another. I will do some more research and make further changes. I hope I've played a positive role so far with my (fairly bold, I would say) changes. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A great series of edits. The article has suffered from surges of wild edits, usually removal of any negative material, with a gradual struggle to restore content. Your edits restore the flow and new refs are welcome. Efficacious (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. I'm still looking for scholarly information on this individual and her activities. I will add more information soon. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for the tip. Putting "alleged" when it was not alleged was inappropriate. I think I was just trying to be overly politically correct. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit unclear where this individual starts and ends; is this an article about all the businesses and organisations? I will try to write a lead which clarifies the factors, another day. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a challenging article because most of what is known about Ching Hai is via her own promotion so it tends to be very one sided (although not necessarily inaccurate). I think the person and the organisation are one and the same in most respects so it would be challenging to separate them in any meaningful way. Efficacious (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair points. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have merged the multiple references to the four-paged essay of Patricia Thornton to a single reference. By looking at Thornton's article, our article here relies heavily on the very single source by Thornton which itself provides little credible info to the subject. Does merging multiple reference to a single help for this? Ldp linux (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Collapsing the multiple refs into one is ok given they are all within a few adjoining pages. No idea where your comment about Thornton not being credible comes from as I find it highly credible. Efficacious (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Awards notability

I'd like to raise the issue of some of the awards used in basically all of the Ching Hai press releases: [1]

• International Peace Commendation
• World Spiritual Leadership Award from the World Cultural Communication Association (article identifies the United States government as the giver)

They have been flagged as needing a ref for some time and I have found no evidence of the organisations, nor the people mentioned as being associated with those organisations in the press kit, existing outside of Ching Hai's web site. If we can't find any valid refs I propose removing them from the article. Efficacious (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say, take them out. The onus is on an editor wanting them included to demonstrate they are bona fide organisations. Rumiton (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The awards are clearly an important part of Ching Hai's public representation: she is much welcomed and much loved for her humanitarian labours. Whether they are fabrications or not, their value is mostly symbolic. Why not just note that the existence of those organisations was unable to be established? Combined with the academic sources which explain the role of awards in Ching Hai's image-building, readers should learn something. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue comes down to notability. There was a prominent sentence regarding an award that turned out have been given by a vegan website in England with a couple of hundred followers and about 3000 web site hits in five years. Despite the hype it gets on Ching Hai's web site it is not notable. I had previously added a statement that no evidence of existence could be found and it was quite rightly removed as WP:OR. Efficacious (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what I understand you to be saying. Broadly, if we say, "Here is a list of insignificant award-giving institutions that the Ching Hai Organisation claims are noteworthy" we are violating WP:NPOV in a most WP:OR way. If these institutions don't appear to be notable, no reference to them should be made. Rumiton (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is not the awards themselves or the hard-to-trace organisations purported to have given them, but the place of such awards in the construction of Ching Hai's public image. They are important because they are held up as examples of recognition she has received. It doesn't matter whether the organisations which were supposed to have given them don't even exist - that would be part of the notability, in fact. Patricia Thornton mentions this point, of the importance of the awards for Ching Hai, in her book chapter. That's the angle from which I thought it would be notable. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, though I think making that point in the article might be skating on the edge of the WP:OR abyss. We would need a reliable source to tell us both things: how valid those awards might be, and how important they are to the subject's notability. Can you give us a quote from Thornton that would illustrate these points? Rumiton (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think in this case my memory filled in more than the text itself provided. All we get from Thornton is:

"...Supreme Master Ching Hai has had local authorities in the United States, Taiwan, and elsewhere declare particular dates "Supreme Master Ching Hai Day." The website displays letters of appreciation she has received for her charitable contributions and works, including one purporting to be from the "China Communist City Council of Chifeng and City Government of Chifeng" thanking her for her flood relief efforts in Shanxi Province in 1998" (p. 191 of the 2008 text, I believe)

And this does not substantiate the claim I made. I may have read this elsewhere, or it may have simply been my own idea. Let's forget about it for now. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. Rumiton (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

For the part that says, "On October 25, 1993 the Mayor of Honolulu Frank F. Fasi proclaimed the day as "Supreme Master Ching Hai Day" and awarded her Honorary Citizenship of Honolulu and an International Peace Commendation", I encourage you to see this video on youtube, Walk The Way of Love, Charitable deeds of Supreme Master Ching Hai on YouTube, regarding the proclamation of the "Ching Hai" day, where the then Mayor of Honolulu Frank F. Fasi speaks of SMCH. Ldp linux (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Youtube videos are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles. That would be original research on our part. We need reputable, preferably scholarly, sources to tell us what significance these awards have. Rumiton (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Loving Hut Restaurants

I am new to editing Wikipedia and am not sure how to add a new section here. I made a few changes. 1) I removed the information under criticism of her entrepreneurism saying that she owned many restaurants. I realize that this references an old article saying she owns a number of restaurants, but the information is inaccurate. She only owns one restaurant -- the Vegetarian House in San Jose, California. The others are owned by members of the Supreme Master Ching Hai International Association. She has asked people to open vegan restaurants as part of her teachings on non-violence, which includes not consuming animal products, to make it easier for people to embrace a vegan diet, which is why so many association members have started restaurants as their own entrepreneurial efforts. But these restaurants are not owned by her. 2) the author of that section had mentioned her public seminars under "entrepreneurship" but she never charges for seminars, to teach people meditation, or to come to group meditation. She supports herself and her humanitarian activities through her artwork and the one restaurant. Any articles from journalists claiming otherwise are inaccurate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elskene (talk • contribs)

• 1. If the situation with how many restaurants are owned by Ching Hai has changed then it would be highly desirable for a suitable ref to be included (although your assertion that these were transferred to other members of her organisation warrants some exploration). 2. The relationship between donations vs hugely over-priced artwork is mentioned in the article as a concern with a suggestion that these are not wholly different other than how they are described. 3. Your edits suggesting Ching Hai had no involvement in the environmental destruction in Biscayne are creative but not supported by any refs. 121.45.207.210 (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• One of your amended edits to this page included the comment "I realized I have no published information to support this, but I know from my experience in the organization for the past 11 years that she only owns the one restaurant.". You need to exercise some caution in your edits to avoid any perceived positive bias. 121.45.207.210 (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• I totally agree with Elskene's concern about the inaccuracy of information about the vegan/vegetarian restaurants operated by Supreme Master Ching Hai. Loving Hut [2] is an international chain of restaurants owned and operated by the Association members. The information here is truly misleading! Ldp linux (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever the tax evasion method is for the restaurants, you do realise that the lovinghut.com home page has the Supreme Master Ching Hai Association logo on and slogan on it? Efficacious (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I must say that I've done a bit of snooping here in this area just for you Efficacious =D. I added some stuff on the actual article, but as there is a healthy discussion here I thought I might contribute and ask for some help of the more experienced Wikipedians. Of course this isn't a suitable source, but I've been to three different Loving Hut restaurants. Once you step inside one, it is immediately obvious that Ching Hai, or at least the association, has a great deal of affiliation with the chain. There is usually a HUGE picture of Ching Hai that you see right when you step in, and there are multiple TVs around the dining areas, all broadcasting the same channel, which I'm sure you can guess is the SupremeMasterTV program. Also, as I tried adding in the article, the "Celestial Shop" sells Loving Hut merchandise, and conversely the Loving Hut website sells Ching Hai paraphernalia, such as her picture books: http://lovinghut.us/shop.htm. So, I'm wondering... How can I incorporate this into the article, or maybe just the Loving Hut article? If I got permission to take a picture of the inside, would that be considered evidence? Happypatatoes (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This being a living biography you cannot suggest that Ching Hai benefits financially or in any other way from these businesses unless you have a reliable secondary source that tells us so. There is probably not much you can say at all about them. Rumiton (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean, I can't draw up conclusions like that. And about this original research thing... What if I like, found a Supreme Master Ching Hai pamphlet explicitly claiming that she owned Loving Hut, or conversely and perhaps better, a Loving Hut pamphlet claiming they were owned by Ching Hai? Also, I am guessing that I'm not allowed to source Ching Hai's own personal books? She has some semi-autobiographical books out there. Is it OK to include some info, if in the article I precede things with like "Ching Hai herself claims:" blah blah blah??? Happypatatoes (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Her pamphlets and books would be primary sources. They can be used, but only with great care, and only for uncontroversial information or statements regarding the subject that are not "unduly self serving." Some information, especially legal and financial statements, require a professional to interpret them. It's a minefield. Much better to stick to respectable secondary sources. Rumiton (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Loving Hut, http://lovinghut.us/about.html, is an international Vegan/vegetarian chain of restaurants around the world opened with the pure intention of promoting the compassionate VEGAN/Vegetarian diet and are locally individually owned. Supreme Master TV, http://www.SupremeMasterTV.com, a free-to-air satellite channel that airs uplifting and enlightening programs 24/7 in English with over 42 subtitles and 60 languages is definitely an obvious choice for a Vegan restaurant like Loving Hut. --Ldp linux (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Find a reputable secondary source that agrees with you and we can put it in the article. Rumiton (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Lists

I have removed the long lists of awards, donations and books from the article. The issues vary from notability to the simple issue of having non integrated, non externally referenced items which don't really add anything to the article. Although they provide a little background, most of the awards are fairly low on the importance scale. The awards reads like a shopping list of $ contributions, and the self published books were removed per previous discussion as they are far from notable and there is ample evidence of vote stacking on Amazon pushing them up the popularity lists without any basis. 121.45.207.240 (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with this and strongly believe that notable literary/art works of a person must be included for public evaluation in order to fully appreciate the contribution made by an author. The awards are the achievements of an individual in recognition of her/his various contributions to the society, the reason why we associate accolades to a person. Ldp linux (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The rather extensive list of over priced art and self published material is available on her infomercial web site. WP is not a place to advertise people you feel an affinity towards. I for one don't want to see rubbish like [http://www.amazon.com/Birds-Life-Supreme-Master-Ching/product-reviews/9866895149/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar|The Birds In My Life] added to the article as it may lead to a misunderstanding that it is a notable literary work. Efficacious (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Any published literary work, is original in its own nature and content, and hence should not be judged by personal opinions. Personally, one might prefer Maths to sociology, it's purely an individual choice. It is obvious from the book description page that this book is primarily for pet lovers (most importantly those who admire the beauty in birds) and therefore should not be judged on the same ground as scholarly articles: "...In this beautifully illustrated book, Master Ching Hai lovingly writes about each one of Her feathered friend's unique biography, complemented by life-like photographs and captions filled with amusing telepathic exchanges between Master and bird..." [http://www.amazon.com/Birds-Life-Supreme-Master-Ching/dp/9866895149/ref=cm_cr_rdp_orig_subj|The Birds In My Life] Wikipedia, due to it nature, is accessible not only to the academic/technical community but to a wide array of audiences including 264+ languages besides English List of Wikipedias. In this spirit, I believe that the three books need a place in the literary works section of this article: [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/9866895149/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books|The Birds In My Life], [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/9866895076/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books|The Dogs in My Life] and [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/9868415233/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books|The Noble Wilds]. Please have your say! Ldp linux (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I say absolutely not unless they are an example of how Ching Hai has her followers distort rating systems to boost her poor quality books per the one star reviews in my earlier comment. Efficacious (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry I didn't know there was such a brewing talk page before I made some edits! I actually added a short sentence about her books, but I don't think it's too much? And also I must admit that my source was amazon.com, which isn't the best, but I think it works? Anyways, I don't know what was written before, but I don't think what I wrote is too over the top. Haha just letting you guys know. Happypatatoes (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Immeasurable Light Meditation

Can someone who has Thornton's book tell us what this is/was? Rumiton (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• I can only quote exactly what is here, p. 188. Make of it what you will. If it's confusing, delete it:

The Supreme Master Ching Hai World Society (Qinghai Wushang Shijie Hui) was established in Taiwan in 1986 as a religious society with Buddhist leanings, associated with the Center for Meditation on the Immeasurable Light (Wuliang Guang Jingzuo Zhongxin) The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

At the bottom of that page it refers to her founding the Immeasurable Light Meditation, but the next page is not included in the net sample so we don't find out what it was. Do you have the book? Rumiton (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah the joys of the internet [3] Efficacious (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and then it says "page 189 is not part of this book preview." I'll delete the reference, don't think it will be missed. Rumiton (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha! That's weird because I can see p188,189,191 and 192 (which is all of the coverage as far as I can see). I've restored the reference as there is some good clarity on origins timeline. Efficacious (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That is strange. So what follows the words Immeasurable Light Meditation on the following page? Rumiton (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC) OK, I see. It's in the article. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have the book in case either of you want more out of it. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What we have looks pretty good, but why not just put anything else in that seems of value? Rumiton (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What would be very useful is some info on the refs in the book itself. In particular, any refs 33-48 between p188-192 that we can find online or in a library. Efficacious (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's pitifully evident that the article here is relying on Thornton's article for most of its part. Unfortunately, her article is only a part of the "Popular protest in China", By Kevin J. O'Brien. And evidently, as the title suggests, article is biased towards modern China. Thornton relies heavily on articles spread across the web which lack original research. The Supreme Master Ching Hai is truly a dedicated person of our era! How often do we see such noble examples in a world so plagued by power and politics? I highly respect the NPOV (Neutral Point of View) but I strongly urge our co-authors here not to loose personal sense of judgment in making any changes! We are attempting to write a section here of a person, whom at least a million people around the world proudly believe to be a good person. And please respect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. Thanks! Ldp linux (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure what you mean by pitiful and although it is the largest ref, Guzman and Young are also used many times. Are you suggesting we use more refs from Ching Hai's own web site as you have been attempting to add? I don't think your understanding of original research is quite in line with how I understand it. Perhaps you can provide some properly cited examples of factual errors? There is no evidence that Ching Hai has anything like one million followers despite the fluff on her web site. The rest of your comments along with most of your edits seem to be heavily POV. Please read the previous discussion before making bold edits against consensus. Efficacious (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I also suggest spending some time reading WP:Verifiability as the article has actually improved substantially in the quality of the references and much of this has come from the replacement of self-published sources that were overly self serving with more balanced independent research. Efficacious (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Ldp linux, you accused me (politely, I must say) of libel on my talk page. This is not a great way of winning Wiki-friends, but we can leave it behind. I suggest that you spend some time in a library and find some reputable secondary sources that support your views of the subject. No one wants this article to be in error either positively or negatively. Rumiton (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Efficacious and Rumiton, I highly admire the moderator job that you and the other folks at wiki are doing. But, this article is way too misleading of such a respectable, selfless dedicated person. The article degrades itself right from the beginning with the usage of the word "self-titled founder". Nowhere can I find the evidence of the Supreme Master Ching Hai proclaiming herself as the founder of the Quan Yin Method with my google query [4], rather, she has mentioned several times that the Quan Yin Method that she teaches is nothing new, and has been practiced by past spiritual gurus and enlightened Masters. As such, there is no founder of Quan Yin meditation technique. Rather it is transmitted by a living enlightened Master. Also, the estimated "20,000 followers world wide" is misleading because Howard Chua-Eoan article [5] itself estimates it to be over 300,000, which contradicts to Christopher Partridge's article. Next, it attempts to label the non-profit organization as Supreme Master Ching Hai International Association, as a "business group", again based on Howard Chua-Eoan and Nichollas Hackman. It fails to acknowledge the fact that all the money is spent in donation and the relief works that range from the World Trade Center in NYC, Haiti to the recent flood reliefs in Pakistan http://www.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/humanitarian/index1.php. These cited articles must have been written during the late 90s with the intention to gain fame and money at the time. I don't see neutral tone, research and fair journalism in these articles. Also, the Biography section starts with a negative tone with a citation to the SF Daily, which in turn relies on the poorly thesis of the then grad. student Eric Lai's thesis. Supreme Master Ching Hai teaches the way of love and respect for all beings. We need to open our hearts and respect those selfless person. At least, we should listen to her true teachings before we start criticizing her blindly. --Ldp linux (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Please stop proselytising Ching Hai per the header of this page.
2. Noone else teaches a "Quan Yin Method" and her own web site confirms the statement: ""Eventually, in the Himalayas in India, she received from a true Master the divine transmission of the inner Light and Sound, which _she_ later called the Quan Yin Method"
3. In THE BUDDHIST MARTHA article the same paragraph that states 300,000 followers also notes that only 804 recorded followers existed and that at a significant gathering only ~6000 people attended so I think the alternative 20,000 ref is okay as I don't think there is any way to come up with a true figure.
4. Regarding how money is spent, there are plenty of examples of ostentation on her part rather than simple philanthropy. The evidence of good deeds is overwhelming but she is not a saint. Efficacious (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits like this should be resolutely fought against (as the Chinese government might say). The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, as of 2010, members have reached almost twenty fold of what it was 1998, the member range is around 5million, go look on godsdirectcontact.com

P.S it is a humanitarian group and MANY(notice how I didn't say all?) Loving Hut restaurants are actually non-profit and file IRS 990 tax forms.

She sends out relief teams of complete VOLUNTEERS from any center closest to the disaster areas; you are ignoring all her contributions.

The Loving Huts are completely vegan now, they are no longer vegetarian.

Under the Quan Yin section you wrote I would also like you to change your use of words. "she *claims* (if you watch any of her lectures you will find she DOES refer to the bible) is also referred to in the Bible and said to be acknowledged repeatedly in the literature of all the world's major spiritual traditions"

By the way "she claims is also referred to in the bible" is not a sentence, please correct your grammar. Thank you for your help in making Wikipedia better. -rivluk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivluk (talk • contribs) 20:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It is true Ching Hai is the only spiritual teacher teaching the Quan Yin Method *PUBLICLY* The Quan Yin method was and still remains one of the most secretive ancient Tibetan Buddhist sect in the world, you can travel through India, Nepal all the way to Tibet and you might only find 2 or 3 teachers and when(or IF) you find that Quan Yin teacher he(usually male) will only take on 5 to 10 disciples in his lifetime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivluk (talk • contribs) 21:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can work out some factual changes with proper citation (not the rather presumptuously named site godsdirectcontact.com and its ilk) feel free to make cautious changes to the article but you can't, for example, simply change her home country to France without verification. Efficacious (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hah. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A contribution by rivluk has now been deleted twice. Wikipedia runs entirely on information and observations from reputable sources, and their assessment (by us) demands a spirit of collegiality. I agree with the deletion, as I also found this contribution divisive and patronising, but would like to add this by way of clarification: Our personal experiences with any Wikipedia subject are entirely irrelevant, and may even be hindrances in our ability to study what reputable sources have said. For any subject there will be someone who says, "I was there and I know about this! Listen to me!" And then someone else (this always happens) will say, "No! I was there too, and he is wrong!" So the question for rivluk is not, "What do you personally know?" but rather, "Have you read any good (preferably scholarly) sources?" If you have, particularly on the Quan Ying meditation techniques, then we are very open to your input. Rumiton (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment for Wknight

Check out the history. All you did was remove a category about her being Vietnamese. I added it back.. then you removed it again (reverting me). Just take a look at the diff and you'll know what I'm talking about. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Right. A useless POV category added by the sock of a banned user (which I also blocked). The category is now deleted. Wknight94 ^talk 19:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ohhh.. Added by this guy? The page there does not indicate that it is the sock of a banned user. I can see that the cat is dead. Indeed, what an obscure category. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, look at my edit summary. It was an old edit that I undid - by the user noted. Wknight94 ^talk 19:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary was confusing since it was basically excising a rather old edit vs a typical reversion of immediately previous edit. Looks like it is sorted now so let's play nice. Efficacious (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know we weren't playing nice. Just a misunderstanding. The edit summary was an auto-generated one from the "Undo" button. I'm not sure how much clearer it could be. Wknight94 ^talk 01:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Loving Hut merge proposal

After a proposal to delete Loving Hut was rejected to by another editor, I am now proposing a merge. The other article offers basically nothing in the way of additional content and, more importantly, does not appear to have the scope to develop into a proper article in its own right. Efficacious (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have merged what little additional content was in the Loving Hut article in the Operations section. Efficacious (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's probably a good way to go. On thinking more, lack of notability isn't really the problem, it's the promotional tone that was in the article and the reliance on primary sources. Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Have redirected Loving Hut to this article since there was nothing left in the source article not already included here. Efficacious (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What the heck is "Loving Hut"? It doesn't sound too savory, if I may say so. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Read the article. Or look here. Rumiton (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to range from savoury to sweet. ;) Efficacious (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Environmental TV campaign

This is OR, but over Christmas in Australia there has been a high coverage program signed by "Master Ching Hai" carrying a message of severe environmental doom and gloom. Questions: Is this international? Are there any sources that have commented on it? Rumiton (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC) The messages appear to promote universal vegetarianism as the only hope for mankind and the earth. Rumiton (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ching Hai learnt Radha Soami Sant Mat meditation from Thakur Singh

The current article states that Ching Hai was a disciple of Thakur Singh and stayed at his ashram. Can we not therefore correctly describe the name of the meditation technique that he taught and allow for hyperlinks to appropriate wiki web pages. This has recently been added but then undone. And the undo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ching_Hai&diff=417496783&oldid=417495541 gives a reason that is not correct: "remove additional detail not mentioned in the ref". Yet the source does confirm the Radhasoami origin of the meditation technique: "It was here that she became a prize pupil of Thakar Singh,... "Thakar Singh turned out to be the most scandalous guru in the history of Radhasoami,"... etc., etc. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Problem here is that the cite you used is to a free hosting website and can't remain.

2. I'm no expert on meditation techniques but the Sant Thakar Singh makes no mention of Radhasoami, nor is it overly criticial of Thakar Singh... Efficacious (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

1.) I don't know what that means but anyway, can you point me to wiki policy that states a "free hosting website" can't be used please. It was a link to an online version or a reputable source: a published book by an acknowledged expert in this area.

2.) The currently cited source in this Ching Hai article says that Thakur Singh is the most infamous Radha Soami guru. So whether the Wiki article mentions Radha Soami is neither here nor there. You deleted something with a reason that was not correct.

(And the Thakur article has "disputed neutrality" and "may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards" warnings on it.)--Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

For 1, my main issue was the tripod web site which is considered WP:SPS. I've found an official link [6] which I'll add to the article.

For 2, I see the ref above covers the topic fairly well so I will look at adding it to the Thakar Singh article. Efficacious (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for finding a better link.:-)--Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

P.s. I still maintain "immigrated" is not proper English. What is your issue with replacing it with the word "moved" which gives the same meaning and I think is a less problematical use of English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs) 06:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. usage is immigrated to India, emigrated from Vietnam. Moved can have a very different meaning from immigrated regarding permanency. Efficacious (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As Efficacious implies, "immigrated" is a much more precise term than "moved". "Moved to India" would work, but "immigrated to India" is better. The question is put to you to justify why you think this is incorrect usage. (It's not.) LadyofShalott 03:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In order to say she immigrated we need to provide reliable source that supports that statement. There is no evidence that I am aware of that she permanently became domiciled in India. That would require a residents permit, wouldn't it? Can you produce a reliable source WP.RS that makes that claim? I am not aware of any such source.

The source given at present for this sentence does not make this claim. It actually says "She eventually migrated to India". Migrated and immigrated have totally different meanings.

Immigrate means to move into another country to stay there permanently.

"Migrate, which is used of people and animals, sometimes implies a lack of permanent settlement, especially as a result of seasonal or periodic movement. Emigrate and immigrate are used only of people and imply a permanent move, generally across a political boundary" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/migrated] If we don't like the word "moved" then our only option is "migrated" or find another source that states "immigrated".--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the use of "migrated". I was only refuting the ridiculous claim that "immigrated" was poor English or even "not an English word" at all. LadyofShalott 14:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Biog details - Ching Hai's half-american daughter + suicide

Hi, a couple of edits regarding Ching Hai's teenage years in Vietnam, have recently been deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ching_Hai&diff=prev&oldid=417495541

The info in question is concerning the research which states that Ching Hai gave birth to a daughter conceived with a US soldier whom she left with her mother prior to moving to Europe with the german doctor.

One source states: "The daughter of a Vietnamese mother and an ethnic Chinese father, Trinh reportedly hung out with American soldiers as a teenager, and bore one a daughter. At 19, during the height of the Vietnam War, Trinh left home with a German doctor working for an international relief organization. Trinh's daughter later killed herself at 20. Trinh married the doctor, and the couple moved first to Britain and then to Germany." [7]

Also that Metro article says nothing about the "translator" work, yet that is incorrectly given as a source. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I have now find the archive with the discussion on Eric Lai's research. And after checking it out on the net I found another source which makes it three independent sources for the same research. (All other references that I found to Lais' work appear to be copying one of these three sources). Each of these three sources appears to refer to it independently and include slightly different aspects of what appears to be the same information.

The research is described in an article by Gordon Young, from May 22 1996 as "a graduate thesis in journalism at Berkeley written in 1995 by Eric Lai: 'Spiritual Messiah Out of Taiwan'." [8]

Here is what appeared in the third source I found (on pg 48 of Veg News) [9] "Hue completed 9th grade before becoming a nurse and spent most of her time socializing with American soldiers stationed in Vietnam. By 19, she had given birth to a baby whom she left in her mother’s care, leaving home with the German doctor she later married"

This article, written in 2010, even includes interview comments from Eric Lai presumably made in 2010 where he compares things in 2010 to how it was in 1994: "While studying in Taiwan in 1994, Lai attended a Supreme Master retreat and sat front-row alongside 6,000 followers at her lecture....“They were definitely more open, because it’s a totally different media environment now,” says Lai. There is more on that.

If it not possible to show that the information is deliberately incorrect it would appear to be worthy of inclusion in some form, according to my understanding of wiki policy. These three sources (Metro, Veg News, and SF Weekly News) seem to be reliable WP:RS secondary sources. I understand that this biographical detail might be regarded as unpalatable to a devotee. But wiki is an encyclopaedia not a hagiography. So could I ask if someone who objects to this appearing can explain why this should not be included according to wiki policy. I agree that this can be regarded as "contentious" but can anyone fairly claim in the light of the above three Reliable sources that it is ""unsourced or poorly sourced... material"?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The Metro and SF articles are fairly unbalanced and not considered good sources overall. A lot of work has been done to distance the article from relying on them as they are so contentious and are not supported by other sources. The Eric Lai article has never been located so we are left with 2nd hand accounts with no reliable sources. I'm not quite sure the Veg News article is saying they spoke to Eric Lai; I suspect there is some license in the phrasing to freshen old material.

The Veg News reference is interesting considering it is somewhat critical, which seems surprising for a pro veg magazine. Unfortunately the link is not suitable as it is to an illegally cached copy of the article. I have purchased an electronic copy of the original [10] for use in any refs. Efficacious (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Efficacious. Regarding "unbalanced" and "not considered good sources overall"? These are subjective values and open to interpretation. But anyway, "overall" is not at issue here. :-)

Eric Lai wrote his thesis in 1995. The VegNews article has him comparing a meeting from 1994 to the present day ones. So that can not be "freshening old material".

I think the core of our discussion basically comes down to one of WP:RS

The fact that three secondary sources independently refer to his research I argue means it can be used as wiki source material.

Research does mention Ching Hai, when a teenager, gave birth to a daughter fathered by an American G.I. The research does say that. This is not in disagreement.

So I see four questions:

Q1. How is it being critical to mention that statement of fact (e.g. "research states that..." etc..

Q2. Reliability? Who decides whether these three sources are not WP:RS and why? On what grounds are they considered unreliable?

* It is Eric Lai's research which revealed that Ching Hai's real name is Hue Dang Trinh and named the vietnamese province where she was born and lived, etc.

* It appears to be his research that is the source for the German doctor info.

* It appears to be his research that reveals the Thakur Singh connection.

* All these are included in the Ching Hai article and are not contested. Nor are the sources.

Q3. how then can we contest the daughter information when it comes from the exact same sources? This becomes a question of consistency of application of reliability criteria.

Finally, Q4. has Ching Hai ever been asked about the daughter? Has she ever denied this research to be accurate? If not, I'm curious and would like to ask you, why are you denying it and forbidding its use in this BLP?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Simple fact is the work of an undergrad which has only been referenced 2nd hand by web sites which have been previously agreed by consensus to be generally less than ideal for a living bio as they demonstrate bias and could be considered libelous. Noone has been able to source the original document and follow up the sources. As such there are no *facts* to corroborate any of the more audacious claims. It is one thing to clarify details re original name etc but to suggest she hung out with GIs and had an illegitimate child has been successfully challenged previously in this article and did not stick. At times this whole alternative history has been entirely removed from the article.

I'm not forbidding anything; I and others have edited this article over a number of years and we have gone through a range of these topics a number of times when keen new editors see some apparently easy updates. Worth reading some of the talk archives to see how much work has gone into achieving the balance present today. Efficacious (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have read the archives, (as I have already mentioned;-). You write: "...referenced 2nd hand by web sites...". To be fair they are printed articles archived on the web. Regarding "2nd hand": that is precisely what wiki policy requires WP:SECONDARY "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources..."

I'm just trying to add to the factual accuracy and perhaps neutrality(?) of the article, avoiding any personal preferences and subjective evaluations via applying facts from sources more consistently (see Q.2 & 3). I.e attempting to arrive at a consensus by applying wiki policy. Therefore, could I ask you to answer my four questions.

I understand and accept your point that "Noone has been able to source the original document and follow up the sources.". But I still don't see how that bars it from inclusion according to WP:RS. Can you explain?

And I don't see how the veg news article has "demonstrated bias". It merely includes research that doesn't concur with the hagiographies of Ching Hai. That strikes me as being neutral. Incidentally, the Thakur Singh article has this problem also. He admitted to gross improprieties yet the article makes no mention of it. That, I assume, is why that article has a "neutrality" warning on it: its leaning towards being a hagiography. Thus the relevance of Q4. regarding this Ching Hai article

You write "...had an illegitimate child has been successfully challenged previously" but all I saw was an opinion expressed and based on unacceptable original research WP:OR. Basically, I think it all comes doen to on what grounds are the three sources for Lai's research considered unreliable? (Q.2)--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Please promise you'll hang around when the POV editors return (as they regularly do) :) Efficacious (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Will do. I'm not knowingly going anywhere, erm... barring unforseen calamities of course. :-)--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope I am not a "POV editor". I have no opinion of Ching Hai but I do have some strong views on living biographies. Most popular leaders, especially in the spiritual area, attract journalists like those that get presented here. They specialise in titillation and innuendo, and make their money (sometimes a lot of it) by suggesting that money is the only thing their subjects are interested in. They are transparently biased and their research is invariably of a low standard. When they can't find an unsubstantiated rumour, they go ahead and make one up. Their writing is mostly atrocious also. I am enjoying seeing Wikipedia growing away from these predictable turkeys and becoming more discerning in its choice of sources. Just the facts, thanks. Rumiton (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Broken URL

32. Morgan, Curtis (24 March 2004). "Park removes access to illegal bay island". The Miami Herald (Link to Ross Institute).

The URL listed no longer works. IT has been redirected to http://culteducation.com/group/1251-suma-ching-hai/3662-park-removes-access-to-illegal-bay-island.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superflous activity (talk • contribs) 08:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ching Hai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101102075710/http://lovinghut.com/ to http://lovinghut.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080721155305/http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/D0841971GeneralSubmission-SupremeMasterChingHaiInternational/%24File/D0841971%20General%20Submission%20-%20Supreme%20Master%20Ching%20Hai%20International.pdf to http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/D0841971GeneralSubmission-SupremeMasterChingHaiInternational/%24File/D0841971%20General%20Submission%20-%20Supreme%20Master%20Ching%20Hai%20International.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103161746/http://www.px.gov.cn/xxgk/zwgk/ztjd/cskxfdxj/20090901/160642835.html to http://www.px.gov.cn/xxgk/zwgk/ztjd/cskxfdxj/20090901/160642835.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Bio data

WP:FULLNAME Trịnh Đăng Huệ 12 tháng 5, 1950 (67 tuổi) Quảng Ngãi, Việt Nam ... is there confirmation for this? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

RFC requested

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion is closed early without resolution. This WP:RFC detracts from the move request above since it is essentially another move request, and thus an unintentionally distracting discussion fork. If the policy should be changed, I recommend starting a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies or Wikipedia:Article titles. Either way, the above move discussion seems to be bringing in comments from possible WP:SPAs, which in turn makes this discussion vulnerable to comments from the same set of possible WP:SPAs; in effect, this discussion may not produce the results and effectiveness the creator of this RFC had intended to achieve. So, I am closing this discussion without prejudice to another similar discussion being started at either a more effective time or location. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

---

RFC proposed to gather additional input on whether Wikipedia's naming convention policy should be over-ridden in the case of the above requested page move. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 21:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) I'm thinking no. How about Ching Hai (Supreme Master)? please ping L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not sure what the RfC is asking, so the answer is no. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• I request the administrators to please close the discussion and move the title of "Ching Hai" to "The Supreme Master Ching Hai". It's very obvious already. Those who oppose are merely opposing for the sake of opposition. Their point of view is too weak and irrational. There are enough reasons to prove that it is more adequate to use the title name of "The Supreme Master Ching Hai" than any other name. "The Supreme Master Ching Hai" is the dharma name, the pen name, the stage name, the professional name, the most recognizable name used to refer to the subject in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, and none of us has the right to change a person's name (especially a living person's), and therefore, please just move the title to the requested name, thank you. -- Orwuck (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:HONORIFIC. Again noting several WP:SPA in above discussions. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Agree because no persuasive argument to oppose. Ching Hai is a province of China. ""The Supreme Master Ching Hai" is a name of a person. "The Supreme Master" is not honorific in any other contexts, also in the so-called "The Supreme Master Television". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janberlin (talk • contribs) 10:05, 20 August 2017 (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.

Requested move 15 August 2017

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: not moved - I don't want to override yesterday's relist but I'm afraid a fair discussion cannot take place with the contributions from single-purpose accounts. No prejudice to renomination if the SPA users stop. DrStrauss talk 19:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Ching Hai → Supreme Master Ching Hai – 1. When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). And "Supreme Master Ching Hai is the name of the subject that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. 2. Ching Hai can be meant to be anyone's name, a name of a place, a name of a thing, and even a phrase of certain meaning in Chinese Language. You will find all different kinds of information related to these two words "Ching Hai" not related to the subject depicted in this article while searching on the internet. And therefore, due to ambiguity in the name "Ching Hai", I suggest "Supreme Master Ching Hai" is the most adequate title name for the article. Orwuck (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Hi. This should not and would never fly at Wikipedia, per POV and The Manual of Style. Honorifics are not part of a person's name. Naming conventions, however, exist to differentiate similar terms and names, see Wikipedia article naming conventions. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 19:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:HONORIFIC and speedy close as editor comment above. Not in a million years. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree. I don't see any reason and sense for the people who oppose. Supreme Master Ching Hai is the dharma name of her. Why should we change other people's name just because you think it is neutral or not. If you don't understand what dharma meaning, very easy, you might know 14th Dalai Lama, right? Dalai lama is actually a title given to spiritual teacher in Tibet. But you see the name 14th Dalai Lama as the title name of Tenzin Gyatso in wikipedia. Same as artists, they can call whatever they want for their professional name, like Lady Gaga, why don't you suggest wikipedia to use "Gaga" as the title name instead of "Lady Gaga"? Why such difference, people? Moreover, Supreme Master Ching Hai is the name used in all official documents, media and all her publishing books as an author. There is no issue of neutrality regarding this name. And so I agree with username Orwuck to move the name to the proper title "Supreme Master Ching Hai". -- Plumablue (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC) — Plumablue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose per WP:HONORIFIC. Article names should be the shortest unambiguous form found in RS. If there were another individual with same name a qaulifier might be added but even then the preferred form would be Ching hai (spiritual leader)not an honorific. Martinlc (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree: I search on the internet, and I found that Supreme Master Ching Hai is not only a spiritual teacher but also an artist and book author. Since her publication uses the name of "Supreme Master Ching Hai" as the author title, I think it is reasonable to use her professional name as the title of wikipedia. Moreover, the name "Supreme Master Ching Hai" is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources as well as governmental awards and official recognition certificates issued by governments in many countries and international organizations. -- Noblemedic (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC) — Noblemedic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Agree I also think it is more logical to move the title to "Supreme Master Ching Hai". The name "Ching Hai" is too ambiguous if you want to translate it into Chinese. If I hear the words "Ching Hai", I might think it refers to a province of China "青海 ", same pronunciation and translation in English. I might also think it refers to "情海", which means affairs or "Love ocean" literally. It can mean many other things but I would not think of a person's name in the instance when I hear "Ching Hai". If according to the above comments, "Supreme Master Ching Hai" is the most commonly seen name in English reliable sources, and it is acknowledged as the stage name or pen name of the person, I think it is better to use this title. - Tomwan17 (talk) 04:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• neutral to say, honorifics are not part of a person's name, but in the present case, "The Supreme Master Ching Hai" is the translation of its Chinese original version, in which "the supreme master" is by no means honorifics, but just part of the name, which exists from the very beginning (1980s, if my memory is correct). Also, the term "Supreme Master" is not honorifics in general conception or is being used as honorifics in any other case, apart from the case of Ching Hai. Which simply means: it is merely a part of her name. On the other side, many people strongly against her prefer to deliberately call her "Ching Hai". Wikipedia should be free from this bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.248.188 (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It is really funny. The person who opposes the idea keep posting the guidelines of Honorific titles, but he/she did not even read thoroughly the entire explanation. It says in the guideline, Honorific titles used with forenames only (such as "Sir Elton", "Sir David", "Dame Judi") should be avoided unless this form is so heavily preferred in popular usage that the use of the surname alone would render the entire name unrecognizable. As I see from the explanation of the above people in favor of the move and reading in Chinese, the name "Ching Hai" is too vague to be used to refer to the subject. And therefore, even though I don't think "Supreme Master" is regarded as an honorific title, it is ok to use "The Supreme Master Ching Hai" as the title for the subject without any violation of the guidelines of wikipedia, since it is widely used in public sources. -- Saisahi (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC) — Saisahi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose per WP:HONORIFIC. As an example, Wikipedia's article on the current monarch of England is Elizabeth II even though the majority of English language source refers to her by her honorific title. The same for her father George VI. —Farix (t | c) 11:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • the WP:DUCK quacking is loud here. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    • The fact that all of the support comments follow the same format and are all from new accounts, there is a strong possibility. There is also the possibility of off Wikipedia canvasing for support. —Farix (t | c) 01:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Whatever you think it might be, the reasons in favor of the move make sense, and are in conformity with the principles and guidelines of Wikipedia. :) -- Plumablue (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Agree The example of Elizabeth II is not persuasive at all. The term "Elizabeth II" is clear enough, but the term "Ching Hai" means so many things, as Tomwan17 already pointed out. How about the term "Alexander the Great"? Would you also suggest that we should change it to "Alexander" ? In the case of Alexander the Great and the Supreme Master Ching Hai, "the Great" the "the Supreme Master" is not purely honorific, but part of their name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.254.102 (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC) — 2.247.254.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Agree Searched on the internet, the term "The Supreme Master Ching Hai" is her official name as appeared in government documents and international events. It is by no means honorifics, but simply a complete term that represent this unique individual. Thus, I suggest using "Supreme Master Ching Hai" as an adequate title. Tiggerluvi (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC) — Tiggerluvi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Agree We believe that each individual has the right to choose a name to represent himself/herself. Since 1980s, "Supreme Master Ching Hai" has been the official name she chose to share the Quan Yin Method. Thus, we, editors of Wikipedia, should respect the full title as "the Supreme Master Ching Hai" instead of "Ching Hai." As Wikipedia aims at becoming an encyclopedia that collects knowledge disseminated across the globe, giving readers authentic information is what we should do. Thus, we should make the titles of the subjects match up public information as precisely as possible. Consequently, I agree using "the Supreme Master Ching Hai" as an adequate title for this article.Sululight (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• ″Agree″ Wikipedia is a place for pieces of information to be presented for people to understand things they are interested, but a place to confuse all the viewers. Following this, a simple and clear information is necessary and a must. That is, should JFK be a less confusing or right page title than John F. Kennedy? The answer is very clear. John F. Kennedy is better known and more understood than JFK for most wikipedia users, which is also the final and current page title used. Once again, I would like to reiterate editors are here to make information organised and clear for the readers, but for a stance, a POV, or a judgement, not to say make the users confuse. I am pro "the Supreme Master Ching Hai" as the page title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estebanpai (talk • contribs) 17:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Agree. For those who keep clinging to the honorific issue, I suggest you to please spare more of your time to move the title of these real honorific titled articles instead of trying to change a person's name: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh / Prince William, Duke of Cambridge / Prince Harry / Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon / Princess Leia / King Arthur / Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother / Queen Victoria / Queen Latifah / Princess Alice of the United Kingdom / Princess Stéphanie of Monaco; Actually there are many more, if the above names are still not enough for you to spend your leisure time, I can try to spare a little more of my time to list out some more titles for you to have fun. -- Plumablue (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this is against existing guidelines so if there needs to be a consensus to change them first.--76.65.42.75 (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree to move the title to "The Supreme Master Ching Hai" The answer is very clear. "The Supreme Master" is by no means a conventional honorific title used to describe a person of high position or honor. It is part of the name of the spiritual teacher and author "The Supreme Master Ching Hai", and that is the most adequate and best known title to be used in the Wikipedia to refer to the subject. Even if you insist in claiming that the name "The Supreme Master Ching Hai" is an honorific title, in accordance to the guidelines of Wikipedia, it is still reasonable to use this title to refer to the subject as this is the ONLY title we can clearly and unambiguously identify the subject without any dispute or confusion. For those who read Chinese or are expertise in translation, the words "Ching Hai" can mean many things, and you will never think of a person with merely these two words because it is not even a complete name, I wonder if you can tell which is the first name and which is the last name? In this case, those editors who don't even know Chinese or don't even know much about the subject surely will not be able to judge whether the title of this article is correct or not. Since the name "The Supreme Master Ching Hai" can be found in most of the reliable second-hand sources as well as in her official documents and websites, and also is widely and well-recognized by most people, organizations, media and world governments, I believe "The Supreme Master Ching Hai" is the best title to this article.-- Plumablue (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to possible WP:NOTAVOTE violations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Your relisting reason is too vague. Please explain in more detail what you mean by "WP:NOTAVOTE violations"? I see no violation. The explanations and reasons for the move are very clearly stated in the above discussion, while the ONLY reason for opposition "is" relatively too weak and untenable. I was expecting that Wikipedia administrators should be fair and not bias. -- Orwuck (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Steel1943: not clear why you relisted? This is clearly an impossible request against WP:HONORIFIC and supported in the main it seems by a farm of new/recent accounts. What's going to change by another seven days? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• @In ictu oculi: As it stands, if the discussion did not have any WP:NOTAVOTE or WP:SPA issues, then consensus would be to move the page per WP:IAR ... since IAR essentially supersedes any other guideline when there is consensus to enforce IAR. As you stated in the section below and as I saw, this discussion has potentially been canvassed, disrupting the ability to obtain a clear picture of consensus for this discussion. My hope with this being relisted for another seven days is that this discussion gets some input from editors with more established accounts than the majority of accounts that have participated in this discussion thus far. So, I relisted this discussion hoping to get a clearer picture of what consensus for this move truly is. Steel1943 (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2017 (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.

@DrStrauss: No worries there. I wanted to give the future of the discussion the benefit of the doubt, but I fully endorse your close. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• • I was wondering, how do you define a "Well-established" account? And from which guideline in wikipedia, did you see that new accounts can not participate in discussion? I was expecting "talks" to be conducted by "persons" not by the "contributions", hmm? Shouldn't we talk by reason and with logic regarding the issue, instead of debating according to wikipedia "contributions"? -- Orwuck (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Orwuck:--That we were very gracious, we abstained from launching an investigation on the tremendous job by your virtual accomplices.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Orwuck: well-established accounts belong to users who are here to contribute to an encyclopedia. As Godric on Leave notes, a suspicious number of the accounts that !voted in that move discussion appeared to be linked and we can always start a sockpuppet investigation into the matter. Consensus isn't merely determined by numbers but also by strength of arguments which is why single-purpose accounts are rarely effective for their nefarious purposes. I have conducted an extensive re-write of the article so that it complies with our core policies. DrStrauss talk 20:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Steel1943:--Just my two cents:--That was an un-necessary relist and should have been avoided.None of the two valid oppose votes made any sense or stood by any policy.And with the proposed change directly contradicts a policy (It was as far from borderline as one could get!), and that some established regulars have already !voted in oppose, it was an easy call--Not moved.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric and Godric on Leave: I have to respectfully disagree as I have seen other discussions, such as ones that happen on WP:AFD, relisted with even worse WP:SPA/WP:CANVASS/WP:NOTAVOTE issues. Also, consensus for WP:IAR can always be applied to anything if there is clear, strong, unbiased consensus to do so. And as I said, I relisted with the benefit of doubt that the discussion could eventually have constructive comments, but willingly conceded to someone else closing the discussion; I myself had doubts, but not enough to close the discussion, especially due to assuming good faith from the nominator. So, with that being said, I stand by my actions in this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

User talk:DrStrauss It's even more funny to see your answer. Who was born with an wikipedia contribution? i came to contribute my knowledge about the subject but it is opposed by people who don't even know about the subject, and you call that contribution? The people who are in favor of the move gave reasons and tried to communicate with all editors, but you use "not well-established account" as an excuse to deny all our efforts in trying to communicate. The reasons of opposition are really weak. Wikipedia is provide accurate information to the readers, not a place for you to define what you believe or express your point of view, just go and make some research, how many people will refer "Ching Hai" to the subject of this article.-- Orwuck (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Tendentious Move Requests

This admonition is addressed to User:Orwuck and anyone else who insists that her honorific must be part of the primary title of this page. The form of her name with the honorific, Supreme Master Ching Hai, has been a redirect to this page since 2007. Anyone who wants to find the page using the honorific as part of her name can do so. Any further insistence that the page needs to be moved to include the honorific in the primary name of the page will be treated as tendentious editing and will be taken to WP:AN for sanctions. This ends the discussion, unless you want to go to Move Review or WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I've cleaned up the article and removed as much promotionalism and other tagged issues as possible however the article's heavy reliance on a couple of sources warrants the blp tag remaining IMO. I have removed the honorific per WP:NOTPROMO except to mention that it is how her followers refer to her (see the lead). Thanks, DrStrauss talk 20:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

User:DrStrauss - Thank you for cleaning up the article. I don't plan to be involved further unless there is disruptive editing, but any further attempts to change the primary title of the article are both disruptive and lame, because Supreme Master Ching Hai has been a working redirect for ten years, so that any of her followers who want to look her up using that form can do so. Why is the difference between a redirect and a primary title so important (except of course to make work for administrators?)? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon - Agreed. There are legitimate cases such as a move between Donald Trump and The Donald but this is just blatant promotion. Terry Wogan doesn't have "Sir" in its title for example. Protection may be needed if such disruptive efforts continue. DrStrauss talk 08:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

User:DrStrauss I saw your edit and it is really ridiculous. Who is Hai????? Please go and search on the internet and please learn some Chinese, or ask any one you think would know the subject, who is Hai? I saw many titles in wikipedia where people use "Prince", "Princess", "Queen" to refer to a subject, and no one say these titles are against wikipedia guidelines, it is very obvious that you are bias when referring to the Supreme Master Ching Hai. Discussing with you is waste of time.; User:Robert McClenon I wonder if you can change the title "Dr. Dre" to Andre Romelle Young instead because it is an honorific name? Or change the name of "Mother Theresa"? or Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,Prince William, Duke of Cambridge ]], Prince Harry, Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, Princess Leia, King Arthur, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Queen Victoria, Queen Latifah, Princess Alice of the United Kingdom, Princess Stéphanie of Monaco; Why some people deserve and can have their pen/stage name and the other not??? Please give me a fair answer. As I said very clearly, Ching Hai is a very ambiguous name or phrase. Very few people (maybe only those who opposed to the move) will refer the two words "Ching Hai" to the subject. You can try with your friends if you like, but I know as it can mean many things in Chinese, even English. I will try the Move Review , thanks for the info. -- Orwuck (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Orwuck: please don't fragment the discussion. This one originally took place on Robert McClenon's talk page where you've already posted this exact response. DrStrauss talk 10:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

User:DrStrauss It is the same discussion, and we should make things clear for others to understand, too. Please give me a fair answer, will you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orwuck (talk • contribs) 10:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2017

This part

"In 1994, Hai promised a $200,000 donation to relief organizations dealing with Californian fires which never arrived.[6] Metroactive claimed that Hai had set up two front organizations to give her awards and manipulated a United States official into posing as the president of one in a public ceremony.[6] Ching Hai has been described by Rafer Guzmán of Metroactive as a "tireless publicity seeker".["

is purely based on gossip from Taiwan. So we have a gossipy magazine reporting on gossip from Taiwan. Is that really allowed on here. I would suggest to delete it. Richarddemetrious (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Done Tdts5 (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 September 2017

The whole 'Controversies' section is not based on facts, but rumors, also the source is not reputable. The main metro website does not even have this information on there. Alively118 (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK _Discuss 16:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The source of the artificial island controversy is from the Washington Post... Efficacious (talk)

Removal of unsubstantiated claims and protection against antagonists on Wiki

Hi there,

Let me be fully upfront and transparent before I start. I am a follower of Supreme Master Ching Hai's (SMCH) teachings and have been for over 20 years. By follower, I mean that I have been practicing the Quan Ying method for half my life and therefore can be considered somewhat knowledgable of not only SMCH as a person but also the Quan Ying method of meditation as a method of spiritual practice. I am not a "fanatic" as some would like to label or suggest who might have been the only source of objections to the information included on the Ching hai Wiki page, but a 45-year-old successful caucasian businessman of sound mind and logical understanding of what is deemed morally "right and wrong".

My question here, or rather complaint, is that having read through the Ching Hai Wiki page and Talk page as well as many subsequent references to her biography, I find it very strange that a lot of the most disparaging information; [11]; stems from a single individual, Eric Lai,[12] who wrote a thesis on Ching Hai in 1995 and came up with what is now being taken as fact on WIki despite multiple objections like the one I found here; [13].

I don't understand how it is possible that one person's obviously biased view of a still-living person can be taken as fact despite so much evidence to the contrary? SMCH is still alive, as are her family who have been asked about these claims and all of whom denied then as unsubstantiated lies. Clearly Eric lai had a biased point of view towards Ching Hai which he chose to express by way of his thesis.

I also notice that there are certain contributors who appear to have made it a personal mission to make sure that only negative information keeps resurfacing on the page. I notice that each time someone tries to correct a blatant unfactual entry, it's changed back again. There appear to be a few antagonists monitoring this page who repeatedly look for opportunities to cast a negative slant towards SMCH while others keep trying to repair the obvious negativity added and keep it neutral. One only has to read through the talk pages to spot the difference between a contributor trying to do damage, and there are a few obvious ones, versus those trying to restore the Wiki page to a credible source of factual information about SMCH.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Talk:Ching_Hai https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Talk:Ching_Hai/Archive_1 https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Talk:Ching_Hai/Archive_2

It's apparent that those keeping the negativity alive are either not followers of SMCH or ex-followers of SMCH who bare a grudge. How can it be allowed that those who don't know from personal experience, or those who have had a negative experience be the only ones allowed to contribute to the authenticity of this page? Does anyone else see this same dilemma?

Again, I am going to be upfront about why I am adding this topic. As a member of the SMCHIA I have been asked to assist with updating the Wiki page to ensure that only factually correct information appears on the page hence pointing out the above and asking for feedback on how this has been allowed to continue for so long? Is it perhaps that there are a few editors who are very proficient with how Wiki works and have used their superior knowledge of this public platform to ensure that their chosen narrative is always the one that the public sees? It looks a lot like that I'm afraid.

I will follow this up by asking what would be required by the rules governing Wikipedia to ensure that only substantiated information is allowed to remain on the page? Please note; my intention is not to try and change the page to that of promoting SMCH and her teachings. Certain facts that can be seen as contentious (not positive) like the environmental damage in Florida and contributions to President Bill Clinton's campaign have been widely documented and need not be challenged. However, there are just far too many tracts of incorrect information finding there way back onto the page, most of which comes from Eric Lai, a single source that can not be found to collaborate his sources, or from those who chose to substantiate those claims on the basis that more than three media's articles have been referenced (all of whom are quoting the same source, Eric Lai and therefore it must be true.

Yes I can be questioned and accuesed of having a biased point of view towards SMCH because I practice the QY Method which is why I am creating this topic and asking for everyone that has / is making contributions to this page to weigh in so that the truth about what is going on here can be discussed and agreed on before a series of major edits take place (to remove the obviously questionable information) only to be removed and then reverted back again because of what I am reffering to as the antagonistic behaviour from certain editors.

So I would appreciate any feedback and or assistance possible with this task to ensure that we are left with only the proven facts?

Thanks so much for taking the time to read this, if you made it this far I'm hoping you'll be one to help further! beveganmakepeace Beveganmakepeace (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC) --Beveganmakepeace (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)>— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beveganmakepeace (talk • contribs) 03:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Be mindful that the current content is based on nearly 15 years of edits. Much of what you would suggest is contentious content has been reviewed and revised extensively over the years. I would suggest you refrain from making any large edits unless you have high quality citation to back up the edits. You have already indicated you have a likely vested interest in the subject. Although not banned it, it is discouraged for people directly associated with a topic to make large edits as they are inclined to be subject to bias. Efficacious (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@efficacious, you seem to be the one most interested in keeping the unsubstatiated information on this page? Specifically all reference to info that was cited by a single source whose own sources have not been validated. So the edits will relate to that information, hence asking the question why it was allowed in the first place? It shouldn't matter how many times it's been revied if it is still factually incorrect. Beveganmakepeace (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of President's Volunteer Service Award and self published quote

The inclusion of this award, particularly based on the cites is misleading. The award is given by an organisation requesting to be certified then bestowing the award on one its members upon demonstrating the required number of hours of volunteer work. The certificate and medals etc are purchased by the organisation to pass to their nominated member and it comes with a boilerplate letter from the President. The video in the citation is particularly concerning as it completely misrepresents this process and at 2:21 [[14]] when the supposed medal is brought into close focus it turns out to be a Presidential Champion medal which is given for physical activity! The insertion of Obama applauding at was obviously an entirely different occasion is clearly intended to mislead the viewer into thinking this award was something more than a self purchased grandstanding exercise as we've seen with so much of Ching Hai's propaganda. I will be removing this award from the main page. Efficacious (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I have also removed the overly long quote under Quan Yin method purportedly from a book by Tim Conway but again only found on Hai's web site. Efficacious (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the award "Self promoting" is your POV. Your assertion that it is the wrong medal is in violation of Original Research. A secondary source states she received the award. The quote is also verifiable. Regarding the "value" of this award, the reader just needs to press on the Blue text to go to the award article.

Regarding the Quan Yin quote, The Primary source is enough to qualify for Hai's own description of her story, since the publication belongs to her. I agree to the removal of the Conway paragraph and citation, though Hai's article mentions him at the top. I'm speculating, that since Conway's book is an online Ebook, he must have edited many times since the publication of SMCH Magazine article. But that's just speculation. In general, it complements all the other sources views and speculations regarding her own Initiation. Whether true or notBigbaby23 (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Bias paragraph?

This portion...

"In Eichman's own view, as infuriating as Hai's persona, her materialism and unsystematic religious synthesizing is to the Taiwanese Buddhist community and to others who have called her a cult leader, when we set aside her Buddhist roots and compare her work to that of an ever-changing array of self-made gurus, spiritual guides and newly formed religions that make up the New Age marketplace, it becomes evident that Ching Hai’s work is neither the most radical nor innovative. She states that the controversies swirling around Hai should not stop us from noting just how gutsy it was for her to strike out on her own, and with her unusual prominence as a female spiritual leader, Ching Hai in effect demonstrates her ability to compete in a spiritual arena dominated largely by men. And we should be open to the idea that not all female leaders will remain within the religious mainstream.[14]"

sounds like something from a fan page rather than an objective, balanced resource. Thoughts? 2600:1702:1980:9A30:5C76:19A6:3FE2:A91D (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I have removed that paragraph because I found the prose to fall below standards. El_C 10:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Edits

Removed some content based on primary sources and blogs, and some original research. Normal Op (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)