Talk:Ching Hai

Restaurants and Environmental vandalism

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 [1] 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)

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 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..." 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: Birds In My Life, Dogs in My Life and 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)

multilingual

Ching Hai speaks at least chinese, vietnamese, english and german. Need to work this into the article. 121.45.203.150 (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a better reference than youtube? LadyofShalott 21:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I pulled this out of the article. It is far from ideal but it does include her speaking in german so it is "proof", but not suitable in the article. Efficacious (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It might seem like nit-picking, but even for something that seems self-evident we need reputable sources to tell us about it. Rumiton (talk) 06:05, 11 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)

Eric Lai

Some of the content has been rewritten to place stronger emphasis on comments made in an article about a graduate thesis by Eric Lai. This document is not available directly and it's suitability as a reference for information, such as having an illegitimate child to a GI, seems apocryphal. I expect we will see some objections re WP:BLP. Efficacious (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Can the individual who introduced it as a source not give a plausible explanation of how they came by it, and perhaps a bit about the sources it uses? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The changes come from User:Ohconfucius who you suggested contribute to the article. Lai is referred to in the Guzman article which I consider to be of only moderate quality myself. However without those refs the article becomes very thin indeed on content outside of 3rd party sources apart from Thornton. Efficacious (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted a series of anonymous edits which broke some refs and incorrectly justified removing facts by stating refs were unrelated. Efficacious (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I can have a look later. I saw that contributor's name on articles about other contemporary Chinese religions/spiritual practices and thought he may have some useful insight here. I do not know what the limit is for how much a single source may be used in an article. I would seek to paraphrase and summarise much more of Thornton were there no fixed proportional limit. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing set down. If there is only one reputable (preferably scholarly) source, we use it. But that seems hard to believe in this case. Rumiton (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Rafer Guzmán

Not sure about this author's acceptibility as a reputable source for a living biography. He describes the Transcendental Meditation organisation as "infamous" and makes a lot of over-the-top statements about this subject as well. The Suma Ching Hai article (written by Edward Irons) in Christopher Partridge's New Religions -- A Guide seems to provide a better overview. Rumiton (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read the content in Patridge's book and it is rather light in comparison to some of the existing refs. It makes no comment on her birth name, has a birth year of 1948 (compared to 1950 in other sources) and suggests both her parents were ethnic Chinese which is yet another variation. Even that article uses Ching Hai's own refs! One interesting fact mentioned is that (at the time of the research) it was estimated there are only 20,000 followers of Quan Yin which is rather short of the 100,000 mentioned in the article at present. I'll add some alternative refs though as I agree it is a somewhat more reliable source than the Guzman piece. Efficacious (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is, I suppose, rather light as you say, but it is light on both devotional mythology and Guzmán's kind of gossip. More comprehensive scholarly sources would be welcome. Rumiton (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits have moved this article further in the direction of unsubstantiated gossip. All editors please help in paring this thing down to what reputable and preferably scholarly sources say. If they don't say much, we don't say much. Rumiton (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Actually the last bunch of edits chopped up the article, broke refs and replaced 3rd party refs with links to Ching Hai's own web sites. Although the cites are not ideal, the article is currently properly referenced (despite some of the edit comments). I have reverted them and I suggest any subsequent edits should perhaps be discussed here first. I do think some of the Guzman specific refs would be better replaced with alternative refs but using it as a cite is currently valid despite opinions otherwise.

Vitriolic comments and opinion like "The alleged research", "Although this seems hard to believe", "including the elusive 'research'", "research that cannot be found anywhere" in the body of the article confirm POV edits and I suggest that the newly created account Special:Contributions/TruthFactsOnly is another Ching Hai zealot. Efficacious (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That is probably the case, but on the other hand, Guzman's snide little asides don't belong in a living biography either. I suggest he is used with caution, and mainly for uncontroversial details. Rumiton (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Broadening references

This article suffers badly from too much article based on a small number of sources, leading to fights over the reliability, notability and verifiability. Here are some others that I've found. (Perhaps some are more applicable to the organization rather than the person, if there is a difference.)

• Pitkin, James (2008-08-20). "Sect Appeal". Willamette Week.
• Chua-Eoan, Howard (1996-01-20). "Clinton's Buddhist Martha Stewart". Time Magazine.
• Gibb, Eddie (1999-05-30). "Cult leader visit causes stir over mind control". Sunday Herald.
• Rommelmann, Nancy (2002-07-04). "Why Not to Write About a Supreme Master of the Universe". LA Weekly.
• Forgrave, Andrew (2009-11-05). "Woodland Trust criticised for accepting cult's cash in North Wales campaign". Daily Post.

I might look for more later. AndroidCat (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that's good. I will add some of this to the article soon. I am not too keen on the way some of these journalists write in such a sneering-down-their-nose way against these quirky but harmless religious groups. My edits won't include such sentiments. The facts are what matter. Though I was going to add more from the Thornton source, since this group does not seem to have come under nearly as much academic study as other groups, so the number of book chapters or journal articles is relatively smaller. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you TheSoundAndTheFury, I heartily concur. I know nothing about this group or its leader but I resent Wikipedia being used as a repeating station for Anglo-centric journos trying to amuse or outrage their readership for a buck. I have also noted that eastern religions that have arrived in the west have often represented (albeit eccentrically) revered schools of thought and spiritual endeavour. They make an easy target for newspapermen who know nothing of the antecedents (and probably wouldn't care.) Let's look hard for academic sources. Rumiton (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A similar dynamic, in some ways, seems to have evolved in portions of the Falun Gong articles, though the problems over there appear to be rather more internecine, protracted, and difficult.

I have a question about the reference to Singer here, too. In the "God Inc." article she is quoted as saying "Singer warns that Ching Hai is well on her way to building a "gigantic empire." ... "It appears to be one of the most well-organized and fastest-growing cults in the United States and the world... It's growing faster than the militia movement, and there's a real concern that followers are getting taken."; but what Singer (whose work, as I understand, has been discredited among her peers) actually means remains unclear. She does not elaborate on precisely how this group is a cult, or what harm it does to those who obey its leader. I wonder if we need this opinion if it does not add any insight into the subject, but merely throws a label on the subject.

The other point is about the reference to a primary source from a Vietnamese local government (it's a doc file so I won't link it). The notability of this is unclear. My view would be to delete both of these, and leave in the criticism of the group's techniques which allows the reader to understand something along the way. If Margaret Singer wants to pander to the stereotypes of her audience, that's her business - it's how she made a living, in part, after all. But do we have to do that? If this particular point of view is never elaborated, and remains only a kind of "label," then is it useful at all? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What is apparent from various refs is that we don't really know much about Ching Hai and her organisation in the English speaking countries. In Vietnam, China, Taiwan etc it is apparent that she has more support but also far more direct criticism. I don't have a particular POV on this topic other than to note it is very evident that despite good deeds, there is plenty of less savoury business dealings and activities. I believe the official government style refs are some of the more valid we have in this article and I would oppose their removal. We need to avoid falling into the trap of using one ref for the majority of cites. Thornton is one of a number of (somewhat contradictory) sources.

Any opinion piece is going to be POV by it's nature. The distinction is that many of these web based sources are considered to be a valid for citing and it would be a challenging precedent to classify them as unsuitable for this article as that would be applicable across all of WP. The lack of mainstream press content on Ching Hai, as compared to a zillion other charitable orgs, is another clue that things are not as benign as they might otherwise appear. Efficacious (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be advantageous if you refresh your understanding of living biographies. The sources we use need to be of a higher standard than those for other articles. We are not detectives, let alone judges and juries. We just report what the best sources (for a living biography) say about the subject. This is not a "challenging precedent", it is core Wikipedia policy. Regarding Margaret Singer, I feel her life was an illustration of the principle that "If what you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail." Her work during the Korean War with ex-POWs gave her a lifelong sympathy for victims of governments and other powerful groups, but in her later years she went a little overboard on the subject (to say the least.) Rumiton (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep I'm up with BLP and the focus has been to find more scrutable sources but, as has been noted regularly on this article, basically all of the first hand refs are rife with spin and self promotion while the 3rd party refs are generally critical. This can't be entirely groundless and is supported by some of the better quality refs. Unless a ref is entirely unsuitable then we find the best source from what is available. In some cases it may not be ideal but if it is sufficient then it should stand for the time being.

I'm far more concerned about the constant issues with POV creeping in which ranges from well intended attempts at balance to outright idolatry. The example of Margaret Singer is consistent with this as the issue of whether she did become overly involved and compromised her judgement is an opinion that is not expressed in her wp artice. ;) Efficacious (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

So do you think it is OK that we include Singer's remarks without explaining or elaborating on how they are true, or to be made sense of? I thought that including a simplistic label without any explanation of how that label was applicable, or how the group so identified carries out activities consistent with the label, would not be useful for readers. I could be mistaken in this line of thinking - going down the road of what you may be terming a 'judge' or 'jury.' I support information in the article that seeks to inform the reader of the issue, and help them understand it. But I don't think it would be useful to include information that only invokes a stereotype without being informative. Is my concern clear? Is it legitimate? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say entirely clear and quite legitimate. Some sources provide a lot more heat than light. If they get used, the reader should know some background. It seems that in her day Margaret Singer saw parallels with North Korean brainwashing techniques in just about every minority religion around (there are interesting sources for this). If her opinion is to be used, the reader should be told about that. Primary sources need to be used with great caution (for the reasons Efficacious gives) but it is not the case that if only second class sources are available, then we should go with them. The way it looks to me, if no quality sources are available in a BLP, the article should be stubbed. We must not put in a bunch of weaselisms, gossip, innuendo, guilt by association and all the other stand-bys of poor journalism and say, "Gee, that's all we could find." Rumiton (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This article goes through edit cycles (I've seen quite a few over the last couple of years). I originally started pruning uncited (and uncitable) content but it was replaced with even more unsuitable content that only used Ching Hai's own web sites as cites. Context is definitely important but we need to be careful not to dismiss content and associated refs just because we would prefer better quality sources. Some of the refs considered to be perhaps too much POV share views common across multiple refs so although the phrasing may not be optimal, it is evident that it is applicable. The definition of what constitutes a valid ref comes down to POV at the fringes and seems to be particularly problematic in this article.

Taking a step back, the current article can be loosely summarised as "Ching Hai has a dedicated following who contribute money via the purchase of goods and services she sells which she then very publicly distributes to various charitable endeavours as she sees fit in a manner which has attracted criticism questioning whether her intentions are as altruistic as her followers would like to believe". Contributing editors have mostly fallen into the overly negative and overly positive which has created most of the churn. Very recent edits have been far more structured which is a good sign! Efficacious (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We seem to disagree on using second rate sources, but that may not be a problem. I think the current article is fairly neutral in tone. Scholarly sources might give a comparative religions aspect to her teachings, which would be interesting, but if they do not exist then what we have is probably OK. It might get attacked by editors with strong feelings but that will have to be dealt with if it arises. Rumiton (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the conclusions I'm going to take from the above is that no one will begrudge me removing Margaret Singer's swipe at the subject of this article. And remove it I shall. And now. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Using Ching Hai's own web sites as cites runs into the problem that Ching Hai's sites are not secondary sources, whereas if not mentioned elsewhere, then not notable. (I don't advocate blanket removal. That tends to provoke messy bother, and you don't want to go there.) Personally, I don't have a problem using a group's official sites for their position and views—carefully however. AndroidCat (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the WP position is that primary sources are acceptable for non-contentious material (simple facts, dates, members of a subject's family, etc.) Primary sources should not be used promotionally, nor should they be mined for material that, taken out of context, might bring discredit on the subject of a living biography. Rumiton (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources may also be used to articulate the views of the subject on an issue pertaining to the subject. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Only with an enormous amount of care and the strictest regard for neutrality. This one is a minefield. Rumiton (talk) 14:45, 7 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: [2]

• 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)

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)

Propagational

Not a word? Google returns many hits and I have encountered it in several New Religious Movement articles I have worked on, used by the organisation itself to describe their own written and recorded material. I agree the proper adj from propagate would be propagative, but in the non-botanical sense it seems to have fallen into disuse. Anyway, I agree it may have a slightly disapproving aroma to some, and the article needs to avoid that. Though I do prefer "Her book...states" to "In her book...it is said". Rumiton (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right although I think propagandist would have been a better (although no doubt more contentious) word. Efficacious (talk) 21:26, 28 March 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)