Talk:Ching Hai/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Critical discussion

I just reverted to restore some information which seemed critical of Suma Ching Hai. I think, from an outside perspective, that this material is essential balence to the article. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 16:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, a lot of cultists come to this site and blank stuff all the time in an attempt to do advertising for their leader.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You two guys are demonizing a real-Buddha. Stop worshipping demons. Sumachinghaidisciple 04:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your ignorance of either-or fallacy can be seen in your second sentence and you think you know what a "real-Buddha" is? Springbreak04 09:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ò

Erm... Non-followers of Master Ching Hai can think what they think? I think it would be acceptable for Wikipedia to have some "critical" information. After all, it's Wikipedia, and it's supposed to reflect general knowledge/belief. Just that people should know that they need to take things with more than a few pinches of salt. ~


"You two guys are demonizing a real-Buddha. Stop worshipping demons. " That is one of the most retarded statements I've ever heard. This person is a deluded fraud who distorted the original Buddhist sutras at best and a swindling cultist at worst. Your ingorance is appaling. Intranetusa 22:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit unofficial story

Fixed several errors in unofficial story. As noted above, My Lai had not occurred so I fixed the tense. Thakar Singh is not Buddhist, nor was her studies primarily Buddhist. She stayed in a Sant Mat ashram, as well as Hinayana and Tibetan Buddhist temples, at least, while in India and Thailand. Re: the American soldiers, daughter, and suicide, this is hearsay. While preparing an undergrad thesis, I attempted to verify the story as recounted in Eric Lai's undergrad journalism thesis (the source for all the cited critical articles). Unfortunately Lai had moved to China. As it was in an undergrad thesis, his documentation was rather incomplete, without any named citation for this information. Apparently all of it was a rumor he heard in one interview in Little Saigon. I personally interviewed Ching Hai's own family members and an associate who had known her since childhood--all dismissed the story outright. Nor did I hear it from others who were critical. It does offer an example of rumor in the Vietnamese community. As there is already a more substantial criticism in the article, the only possible reason to include such an isolated rumor is within a much longer discussion of Ching Hai's role within the Vietnamese community, certainly not within a factual account as presented.

Sorry, but the original version does not have any indication that the claims are in dispute. "The article reveals..." "She was..." The implication of the whole section is clearly that the "official story" is propaganda, which I presume it is, and that the suicide story is some kind of real investigative journalism, which it is not. Why do I care about this? Because I think this is an interesting subject worthy of real study and criticism, and the article is simply weighted down by gossip. I presume that the person who reverted it is also interested in criticism, but frankly, this is not helping our case! Much better would be a an educated anaylsis of the cult psychology and sociology regarding Ching Hai. As I said before, I studied this group in college and I am preparing a book on it. I have done a huge amount of research and interviews, and in particular I have tried to trace this particular story about the daughter, which would have been very fascinating. Alas, there is absolutely no evidence for it, and there is every reason to believe it is completely fabricated. I have heard quite a few other bits of gossip about her from interviews with Vietnamese people, which is interesting from an ethnographic standpoint...however, uncorroborated. The story about the American soldiers is a classic paradigm in Vietnamese-American (pejorative) discourse. It's also scandalous, which is why it really doesn't belong in this article. Since you really want to keep it for some reason, I'm not going to make a big deal about it, except that you really have to include a caveat about the source, as I revised. Otherwise we are just muddying the waters. I know, because from speaking with Ching Hai's family, etc, they are extremely offended about this story, and at least for her family, I can sympathize. It is always more effective to criticize from the agreed facts, regarding personality worship and cultic behavior. Then people will begin to use their critical reason. I realize that you are probably unaware of the backlash against the suicide story. I can provide documentation. To be honest, I think the article is a good beginning, and there is much, much more that can be done to create a documented, objective account which might actually inspire Ching Hai followers, and others, to employ critical reasoning. The psychology behind cults is extremely, extremely complex, as well as interesting! The suicide story, I am afraid, is just the last straw. It is so unsubstantiated and inflammatory that it really draws down the article for anyone who knows anything about it. I just want this subject, to which I have devoted so much of my life to studying, to have a solid Wiki entry! Final note: lest we get into a cycle of reversions, perhaps we should request a mediator according to Wiki policy? This is actually my first time and I don't know how any of this works. And I would appreciate if you would explain before just reverting. Thanks very much for your interest.

  • Thank-you for the contributions and thought you've put into the changes in the article. I see that you've gone to great lengths to prove your point above. I agree that some sort of disclaimer is warranted because both articles sited as sources use the same original source, from Eric Lai's thesis "Spiritual Messiah Out of Taiwan." As the original source isn't available on the internet in it's original wording, and it's original sources uncited, it is difficult to determine if it's sources were credible or not. --209.121.35.193 10:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I just reverted to re-add the same section, about the vietnamese-american child. It seems like the article does make it clear the evidentiary basis of the assertion. I am curious to see more documentation of the suicide story and/or the backlash against it. Further thoughts? --TeaDrinker 07:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Her Picture

Would be alright to add her picture found the Quan Yin article to her biography article? If so how? Thanks 154.5.1.117 03:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I have added a picture placeholder so that it is easier for anyone to put up a valid picture. Truthexplorer 10:00, 3 Apr 2007 (UTC)

It's important we get this right...

At the very top of this page is a link to the Wikipedia policies on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. We should adhere to this. This is ESPECIALLY important to those of us who are disciples, as the consequences of any errors or perceived bias will be more severe. Remember at all times that the Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Maybe what's needed is some serious effort at finding sources. As it stands, going by Wikipedia policy, a great deal of what's on the page should be deleted.

If you're not sure at any time how to go about things, can I suggest treating it as if you were writing a college/university essay on someone you'd never met before.

Currawong2007 00:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Currawong2007

A Call for Unbiased Biography

I have researched the internet sources cited in the biography and revised the biography to more accurately reflect what was written. I didn't delete any information previously stated -- just made it more concise and organised. I also removed all the biased and weasel words and phrases to give a more neutral POV. This is, as stated before, a living person's biography, and as such we must follow the guidelines given. I respectfully ask BInguyen to give a valid reason for reverting my work. Thank you. Sg2ns5 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops

I apologise for my oversight---I did not realise that her father being Chinese are only merely reports and not in official biography--however other people might not have a similar foresight. Anyway, I thank truthexplorer for reminding me. Mr Tan 13:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  • It's cool. It's not your oversight, but rather I think this article is too fragmented that it's quite easy to get misled. Due to the many insertions & reversions, the article just isn't flowing. It jumps from one idea to another in the same paragraph. I will see if I can reorganize so that it is more coherent. That's why the article is still rated 'B'. Truthexplorer 18:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Add citaton and some information

1. "Afterwards, 19-year-old Trinh married a German international relief worker, moved to Britain, and then to Germany." Although this comes from the citated reports, but till today no one could ever show any evidence, witness or even the German international relief worker that is described in the sentence. It is better not to put on things according to the reports that sometimes were based only on somebody "I heard from..., it was said..., I supposed... or it was very likely...", even if they found them wrong later, they didn't bother to correct them or made any claims later, and by far no real evidence was found and no person ever showed up that could prove this event first hand.

2."In the years after her enlightenment, Ching Hai lived the life of a Tibetan Buddhist nun." "Tibetan Buddhist nun" here is a misnomer. It is more proper to put it this way "After her enlightenment, Ching Hai lived the life of a Buddhist nun." In Oriental tradition, the life style of "Tibetan Buddhist nun" is different from "Buddhist nun" at that time.

3. "She continued to dress as a nun up until around 1990 when she began wearing her own fashion designs and grew out her hair.[citation needed]" The citation could be found at "http://www.godsdirectcontact.com/audioclips/videolist.html" inside the "921030 Love Between Master & Disciples Yang Min Shan, Formosa" viedeo. She mentioned this issue inside this Yang Min Shan video series. So the more precise year should be around 1992.

Expollai 04:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Add ciation of Teachings

1. "Not until one becomes fully enlightened through meditation," Ching Hai says, "will true happiness and permanent freedom from suffering be obtained."[citation needed]

The citation needed here could be found at http://www.godsdirectcontact.com/meditation/Inner_Peace.htm

2."Thus, she often tells her disciples that she is always with them, supporting and protecting them, even if her physical body isn't near.[citation needed]"

The citation needed here could be found at http://godsdirectcontact.us/sm21/enews/www/163/index2.htm Master Says Catch Up with the Pace of Universal Development and also http://www.godsdirectcontact.com/lectures/Is_God_A_Being_Or_A_Non-Being.htm#SEC6 Open This Power Within Through The Correct Technique

3."Eric Lai's thesis "Spiritual Messiah Out of Taiwan." As the original source isn't available on the internet in it's original wording, and it's original sources uncited, it is difficult to determine if it's sources were credible or not." This thesis is a graduate thesis in journalism at Berkeley written in 1995(According to the website). It looked lke the sources of this thesis mostly were not first hand or from persons being familiar with Ching Hai. Because what were said were foreign to the persons who were with her or familiar with her during that period of time. After so many years, still no supporting evidence was found that could support most of what were said inside the article. Actually some official goverment documents could offer good prove and clarification. But they involve a person's privacy. If there is anything that Ching Hai didn't claim, then the person that claimed it should at least show certain definite evience to support his words, otherwise it is better not said or let reader know it was without definit or reliable base.

Expollai 04:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Politics

Reverted "cultist member" Charlie Trie. 10 years after 1996 crisis between Taiwan and China, both the Chinese and American military department declassified a part of secrete documents. The facts disclosed in those documents proved what Trie's concern and the writtings about the America's intervention in China's military exercises being conducted near Taiwan. At that time he sensed war with China was a possibility should U.S. intervention continue:

“ ...[O]nce the hard parties of the Chinese military incline to grasp U.S. involvement as foreign intervention, is [sic] U.S. ready to face such [a] challenge[?]... [I]t is highly possible for China to launch [sic] real war based on its past behavior in [sic] Sino-Vietnam war and Zhen Bao Tao war with Russia — Charlie Trie in a letter to President Clinton, March 21, 1996[4] ”

Although only parts of the documents were released, and some aborted actions still remaining unknown to the general public, but the declassified parts are enough to prove certain insights and facts at that time.

Expollai 04:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

about dispute

She is a dispute person in Taiwan and other Asia country. She have Followers,But local newspaper always pointed out that She earn too much in her religion activities. According to news ,She can earn more than 300M US dollars in one activity.The Traditional Buddhists call her heresy and bouncer.--Oriontw 03:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is insufficient reason for putting this wiki under dispute. All the information has been properly cited and referenced. Please refer to WP:AD. Sg2ns5 18:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Most of the reference come from Ching Hai's, not third party's reference.Now this article more likes her personal promotion.--Oriontw 07:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
If you read the references clearly, all information cited about her are 3rd party. All other non-3rd party references (mostly by Expollai) points to her actual speeches. Please do not discredit a lot of people's work here. Also, please read the Living Bio policy referenced at the top of this page. Potentially libelous remarks are to be avoided. Truthexplorer 00:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The third party's reference should be reliable and could be proved or at least first hand, not just hearsay or some information being produced at home. For example, some reported that her formal highest education was master degree and some repoted that she only graduated from high school, didn't even receive college education. Anyway, no one ever show solid evidence about this, and she didn't make any statement about this, so, it was not mentioned here. This is not a place to put all unverified informations on, and hope all related persons would clarify themselves. Another example, if one person was reported secretely married 5 times, and actually he only married once, how could he prove himself. Under this condition, the reporter had the responsibility to show the evidence; and if that person didn't clarify publicly, or issued a lawsuit about this, it didn't mean that he admitted what was reported and acknowledge that information. Maybe he was occupied with other much more important things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Expollai (talk • contribs) 10:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Vietnamese

The link to the Vietnamese translation is busted.

Also please add the Chinese characters of her Vietnamese name. Jidanni (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Celestia De Lamour

- Shouldn't the fact that she also goes by the pseudonym Celestia De Lamour <"Mysterious, illegal island found in Biscayne Bay, linked to sect." Miami Herald (Miami, FL) (March 18, 2004)> be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.22.2 (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

-

Added. 59.167.63.132 (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting criticism

The link above has been reverted a number of times without explanation. Although a bit roughly formatted it does provide quite a few opposing views and details around Ching Hai which I think is very pertinent to the article. 59.167.63.132 (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Official Bio is copyvio

The official version of her bio is basically a straight rip of http://sb.godsdirectcontact.net/SampleBooklet/Modules/OnlineReading/Viewer.aspx?PageNumber=7 with some very minor rewording.

I would delete it per db-copyvio but there is no alternative source other than the unofficial version. 59.167.63.132 (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Significant updates

I have done a big cleanup on this article to make it sound less like idolisation and to remove a large chunk of significantly similar content to the quan yin article. I have also added facts around a range of claims on her various websites in the interest of balance. 59.167.63.132 (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A Master dedicated to the cause of the Human Being

I really appreciate the contents that you guys have contributed to other articles of Wikipedia, the Open Source Encyclopedia. I really acknowledge the hard works that you've been doing to make the encyclopedia a rich source of knowledge. In fact, I am also a strong advocate of Open Source, and GNU Free Documentation.

As far as I know, The Supreme Master Ching Hai has always been a pacificist trying to spread the message of Truth and Virtue all over the world through her teachings that are meant to bring mankind towards the realization of God and Truth. I know the many so called "Masters" out there, but not a real one like the Supreme Master.

Those baseless criticisms, that are published by the so called "cultists" do not sound a good Gift for such a Holy person.

Anyway guys, is there a person on Earth who is totally flawless, and does not have any dark side? If there is so, please do tell me. Don't you have done anything wrong in your whole life? What if someone characterizes you wrongly for the things that you've not even done?

The Beautiful "Moon" that looks so beautiful in a full moon day, looking at which "loving couples" can spend the whole night, does have thousands of Craters which the modern Astronomy has not yet discovered.

That is why we need to be optimistic, that's what ancient sages including Buddha, Mohammed and Jesus Christ have taught us.

Think like a Buddha

Act like a Buddha

Then you will be a Buddha

~ The Supreme Master Ching Hai

So, I think we really need to learn the to be a good citizen of Earth by respecting the teachings of a living Master who is so much dedicated for the cause of the human beings.

Some excerpts of relief works from the Supreme Master International Association volunteers can be viewed on:

Relief works in Pakistan Earthquake [1]

Relief works in Flood Victims in Mainland China [2] many more efforts

Global Disaster Relief and Charitable Activities from Jan. to Dec.2005 [3]

Posted by: ldp_linux10:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Biography seems to come from here: [4]. DHN 04:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


Why does she call herself or let herself be called Supreme Master? I only found about her recently, and I did a little googling and it's not mentioned in this wikipedia article, but she insists that people prefix Supreme Master. I think we should cross-link this article with Sai Baba as well, as the two both attempt to represent themselves as divine beings transcended from God. I'm still wondering whether this is real or not?

This doesn't seemed to fit anywhere in the main article and I have moved it here instead as it answers your question.

The title "Supreme Master" is a reminder of the supreme master power that everyone has.[1][2][3] TruthExplorer10:26, 15 Sep 2007 (UTC)

---

If the criticisms are as baseless as you would like to believe, please provide WP:FACT, rather than spreading some beliefs. Springbreak04 09:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


I love Suma Ching Hai!Ann 04:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

CooL! ;) Good 4u & Have a Blessed New Year! Keep rocking in 2006!

Please refrain from such outbursts as wikipedia is not here to glorify people.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How about a section on SMTV?

There's a link to Supreme Master Television website, but there's no section/article on it. How about writing one? I could to do it myself, but I'm not good at writing... So... Someone? It would be good for increasing awareness.

Please refrain from such outbursts as wikipedia is not here to glorify peopleBrutaldeluxe (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Politics section

I removed the second reference to the un-cited comment about her earning more than Clinton, as it's already at the top and has nothing to do with politics. What I should do is, remove EVERYTHING that has no citation. A large amount of un-cited material relates to the Quan Yin Method - maybe that entire section should just refer to the main Quan Yin Method article, so that the work of obtaining proper citations can be done there. That way, Wikipedia's standards for biographies is being followed.
Supreme Master Ching Hai was also recently present at UNESCO World Theatre Day, so if someone else doesn't write up a section on this, I will at some point (I don't have sources at the moment). Since this page is her biography, it should focus on her and things she has done, with proper references. If proper references aren't available, clarify the source, eg, The Supreme Master News Magazine stated such and such or whatever.
If we are very strict about this, then it's better. If everything un-cited is removed, and things added ONLY when we have a citation (even if it's not perfect) - it's better to have little or nothing than just what we want to have.

  • I agree that there is too much duplication of content between this and Quan Yin Method page. A reorganization seems warranted to make things more concise and remove duplicated contents. Truthexplorer | Discuss 19:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

I have reverted most edits by 59.167.63.132 as there is many biasness in the edits and quite clearly this person is not neutral. There are also too many distorted facts cited. For example, Mayor Frank_Fasi was clearly still in office when he awarded the Ching Hai Day award on Oct 25 1993, but it was written deceptively as if it was otherwise. Truthexplorer (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I spent a good deal of time working through what was previously a self substantiated and biased writeup that was almost entirely based on references from the Ching Hai web site. I also went to some effort to ensure references were validated. I'm happy to work through any discrepancies based on real research rather than bulk reversion. I concur that Frank Fasi was indeed mayor in late 1993 as he did not lose to Jeremy Harris until the following year. I will correct that once the article is unprotected. The non-existent status of the award remains unchanged however. 59.167.63.132 (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} in the Awards section please change:

On October 25, 1993 she claims to have received Honorary Citzenship of Honolulu and an International Peace Commendation from the mayor of Honolulu Frank F. Fasi, however Fasi was no longer mayor on this date and the commendation does not exist.

to:

...however Fasi was no longer mayor on this date and the commendation does not exist.

Again, this is wrong info. The commendation has been recorded in video. The dinner gala is attended by hundreds including Mayor Fasi presenting the award in person. To say "commendation does not exist" is clearly inaccurate and worded without benefit of doubt. Truthexplorer (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

59.167.63.132 (talk)

Unprotected by Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). You should be able to make the edit yourself. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 23:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography Section

I think we should remove the bibliography section completely rather than add every single work that she has done as it serves no real purpose. It is already been established at the beginning of the article that she is a painter and author. I am not aware of any other biography wiki entry having a list of titles of their own works.

Anybody have any thoughts? 72.233.9.124 09:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The Bibliography section supports her work as a painter and author. If you check out other wiki biographies of writers (e.g. JK Rowling) and painters (e.g. Picasso), you will see they have their work listed. Sg2ns5 19:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have removed the bibliography section as nn. The difference is that Rowling's books are published by international publishing houses and have extensive third party recognition, rather than self published by Ching Hai. The art of Picasso is almost universally agreed as having significant cultural value whereas the paintings by Ching Hai are amateur pieces only recognised on the Ching Hai web sites. 59.167.63.132 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the bibliography section. Bibligraphy is the listing of works by the person. It has nothing to do with whether it is published by international agencies. So long as the work is original and can be verified via ISBN listing. The same argument goes for her works of art. Whether it has any significance or value like Picasso isn't relevant. It is her work and thus can be listed in Biblography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthexplorer (talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability issues (To Yellow Monkey)

You reverted my edits in discussion? Hallo..this is a discussion page. Hallo?! There are clear untruths in the edits. And this is not allowed at all for living person bio. Can someone back me up? You can't do this without reason and explanation just because you are a member of admin. Truthexplorer (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  • You deleted whole sections of discussion on this page that you didn't agree with. All of your edit history has been positive spin on this one article. This article won't revert to normal editing unless you understand that just because you are apparently a supporter of Ching Hai doesn't mean that adding more balance and noting some differing views is spam, nor that anything that is critical and referenced is an untruth. 59.167.63.132 (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I deleted the sections because the edits are clearly done by a person who professed to know her but don't. There is a big difference between edits done by people who worked with them first hand and people who don't. The edits are clearly wrong and bias. For example, on her humanitarian work..you edited to 'some humanitarian' work. I am involved in only 1-2 aid relief efforts (a tiny portion of the work and money that this lady has done for humanitarian purposes) and I can attest that it is HUGE. Her philosophy is to give aid quietly and to the most needed where aid is not accessible. Since it is inaccessible to most, the media won't be there to record those events and that doesn't mean those events are non existent and trivial. Tell the earthquake and flood victims that she helped that it only 'some humanitarian'. It may not mean anything to you, but to the victims, it meant the world. And to me, it meant your edits are neither accurate nor as fully researched as you have claimed. I hope you can now understand the feelings I felt about your edits knowing the injustice it has done to this kind lady. Truthexplorer (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Google is not a a recognised means of determining notability however practically every award and related external organisation in this article has no reference on google other than Ching Hai's own web site. That would make it highly improbable that any are ongoing or widely recognised. Your enthusiasm for Ching Hai is noted but should not turn this into facts derived from faith, beliefs and personal opinions (note top of this page "This is not a forum for general discussion of personal opinions about or proselytising Ching Hai"). 59.167.63.132 (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I should also note that there are hardly any third party references in this article per Wikipedia:Reliable sources so there is a question re the notability of the subject. 59.167.63.132 (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's funny you pointed out that Google is not a recognized means of determining notability. The awards were given happened in early 1990s. Internet just started and public records then are filed in film archives only. I am guessing that you didn't even know that the World spiritual award was given in India where even to this day, half the population still don't have access to computer, much less the internet. So your assertion that it is 'highly improbable' is both flawed and completely incorrect. Truthexplorer (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It is the case though that if a notable event is not mentioned at all on google, aside from the subject's own web site, that it very likely has little if any international recognition and poses a significant challenge to notability. I note that Ching Hai has given out a range of awards such as the Shining World Compassion Award for looking after homeless cats. This doesn't make the award notable despite the write up using grandiose terms like "International". Likewise the bibliography that I removed as non notable since all the books are self published. 59.167.63.132 (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Awards issues

The issue around awards is very troubling. There are indications that many of the so called international forums, groups and associations are actually all sponsored if not operated by Ching Hai. A quick check of International Federation for Human Rights FIDH makes no mention of Ching Hai. Impressive titles such as World Cultural Communication Association don't appear to exist outside the Ching Hai web sites.

On face value there appears to be a level of deception in creating official sounding groups and inviting meaningless officials to events whose sole purpose is to grant awards to Ching Hai and form the basis for some sort of official acknowledgement of her businesses. Her contributions to various charitable institutions is not disputed. 59.167.63.132 (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that this is just your personal opinion. Giving is an act of compassion. If the sole purpose is to gather publicity, then there are more efficient ways than to do charity. To set the record straight for all wiki readers, this link provides a snapshot and more information on her various philanthropies around the world and the various recognitions and awards that she had received: http://award.godsdirectcontact.net/en/about/master.php Truthexplorer (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This again demonstrates the issue I've raised, all the positive spin is almost entirely on her own web site and basically all of the awards claimed are not mentioned on external web sites. As noted, I am not disputing her considerable donations but then I would be far more philanthropic if I could sell used socks for $800. 59.167.63.132 (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
It is only obvious that only the 1st party has access to private records. Is your bank statements, expenses on any 3rd party site? Moreover, you are double standards. Do you have any physical evidences like a receipt of the $800 sock? May I remind you that as this is a living bio, it is against wiki policy to put such flame against the living person without actual evidences. Truthexplorer (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The $800 socks are cited in the article. I was referring to awards, not donations which I have twice in this thread noted is not (currently) disputed. 59.167.50.109 (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Now, I don't get it. If Supreme Master Ching Hai's awards are fake, how did they get those speeches on Supreme Master Television? You know, the "She exemplifies the aloha spirit" speech? That doesn't sound logical. Kayau (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The work fake was not used but faux international status used for many/most of the awards is certainly of concern. The issue raised is regarding noteworthiness other than self sponsored hype. There are examples in some of the references of Ching Hai setting up her own events to have awards lavished upon her. 59.167.48.220 (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal *completed*

I suggest merging the following articles to this page:

  • A Journey Through Aesthetic Realms
  • The Noble Wilds
  • Noteworthy News
  • Supreme Master Ching Hai Day
  • Supreme Master Television

Reason: These articles are proposed for deletion and it is not easy to expand them by their respective deadlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayau (talk • contribs) 10:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

While it may be appropriate to mention those topics in this article, I don't think a merger as such is appropriate. The articles seem to each be referenced entirely to Ching Hai organizations, which is not a reliable source as they have a conflict of interest. Just on a cursory glance, one of the facts included therein looks highly suspicious: the A Journey Through Aesthetic Realms program is "broadcast to" 90 million people in the US. I am not sure what "broadcast to" means here, but it can not mean watching the program. The total population of the United States is only 300 million, and I am incredulous that fully a third of the population watches this program (that is a viewership on par with the superbowl). --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

'Broadcast to' is can be viewed, I'd say.Kayau (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Besides, we needn't include that on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayau (talk • contribs) 03:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, my broader point is that the sources are unreliable, in that they have an interest to make things seem more favourable for Ching Hai. If we eliminate those elements which are sourced only to the Ching Hai organizations, I think there is very little left. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
As is the case with most of the guff I've stripped from this article so far, it is basically entirely self referential, so if no-one outside of the Ching Hai organisation is paying attention, how can any of it be notable? A b-grade satellite channel is certainly not noteworthy and I have cast considerable doubt on Ching Hai Day being anything other than a bit of hype due to some lavish aid donations 15 years ago which have since become another part of the Ching Hai dogma. 59.167.48.220 (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Separate articles have been deleted as nn with nothing deemed worthy of adding to this article. 59.167.41.126 (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Quan Yin Method does not appear to have any recognition or standing outside of Ching Hai's followers. On that basis, what little content that is of value I propose should be merged into the existing section in the Ching Hai article. 59.167.41.126 (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Support merger. There is a serious lack of independent sources for the QYM. LadyofShalott 20:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have merged what I believe to be the salient and reasonably validated parts of the separate article. I will propose deletion of the separate article in another week and remove the merge tags if there is no other input. 59.167.41.126 (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I object. This is a personal bio and thus are 2 completely different subject matters. The lack of information for Quan Yin Method cannot be the reason for deletion. That's why wiki stubs are invented, so that more information can be added by others later. Truthexplorer (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Quan Yin Method is entirely self referenced and far too detailed bordering on proselytising rather than fact. I don't believe that can be resolved as there don't appear to be any external references on google at least and no effort has been made by people pro the article to address those concerns. I have merged a fair amount of detail re QYM into this article at an appropriate level which is valid for a bio given it is a technique solely provided by her. 59.167.58.31 (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Rather than proposing deletion, to preserve the history after a merge, QYM should redirect to the biography article. LadyofShalott 02:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge and redirect completed. 59.167.58.31 (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable External Link Removed

I deleted the external link: Religious Analysis of Suma Ching Hai's teachings

because it is self-published, biased, and written by a non-expert and therefore does not conform to the WP:BLP guideline:

"External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles."

This source is not high quality because it is not reliable as it is self-published and biased and the author is not an expert. It provides some generally established and reliable information, (most already included in the Wikipedia article on the topic,) mixed with clearly biased opinions held by the author.

A bias is expected based on the following statement stating the mission of the self-published website:

"In 1994 Let Us Reason Ministries was founded as an up-to-date apologetic resource center to instill both confidence and a desire to lead others to Christ." [5]

Blueskys004 (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My removal of a clearly unreliable and low quality external link was reverted by 59.167.58.31 without any explanation even after I laid out all the reasons why this external link does not meet WP:BLP external link guidelines. I do not want to engage in edit wars with this individual because that is against Wikipedia guidelines, unproductive, and uncooperative in spirit. However I do wish to invite 59.167.58.31 to explain his reasoning as to why he reverted my edit. In addition, I also invite anyone else that may be interested in making sure this article meets WP:BLP guidelines to offer their position and reasoning on why this is or is not a reliable external link. Specifically, I think it would be best if anyone disagrees with my explanation of why this is an unreliable and low quality external link, they should start by addressing the issues set forth in the section of this discussion entitled "Unreliable External Link Removed." Any additional discussion that helps in reaching a consensus that reflects the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia and a good understanding of the specific guidelines developed by Wikipedia is very much appreciated.Blueskys004 (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
There have been a series of POV reversions to this article by new editors so removal of links or content without edit summary has lead to reversion of those removals. I concur the external link has some issues as does the article in general, which, if I were to strictly adhere to WP:BLP I'd nominate the article for deletion due to the almost complete lack of external references. I'll let the removed link stand for now pending more verifiable critic. 59.167.58.31 (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't you know that 59.167.58.31 is now the new 'authority' on this page? He/She deleted massive sections and clearly is bias against the subject matter and doesn't even have good grammar. For once, I would actually agree with 59.167.58.31 and support the entire deletion than the existing form under the false and misleading stewardship of 59.167.58.31 Truthexplorer (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Your favourable bias is very apparent in your edits and comments whereas I and others have attempted to remove some of the hyperbole added by followers of Ching Hai and introduce some balance. Feel free to provide 3rd party references to validate or invalidate any of the content you believe to be inappropriate. 59.167.58.31 (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Not true. List a favorable bias that I have contributed. All my contributions are factual, like her bibliography etc. I applaud your quest for 3rd party references. However, in the absence of a reliable veritable source, the best alternative information are from the person's own publications, associates and family. Insisting on a 3rd party when such source doesn't exist yet will pretty much remove all relevant information on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthexplorer (talk • contribs) 22:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The now removed bilbiography in no way met wikipedia guidelines as it was non notable with zero third party review. The article still has significant issues, in particular the multiple references from the Ching Hai websites that do not meet Wikipedia:SELFPUB guidelines. Those will be addressed as better information becomes available. 59.167.40.111 (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
So that is considered favourable bias? If not, please retract your statement about me above.Truthexplorer (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Translation of Ching Hai?

I changed the translation of Ching Hai from "pure ocean" to "green/blue sea" on the basis that Ching Hai is the Wade-Giles spelling of the Hanyu Pinyin Qīnghǎi which apparently does translate to green/blue sea. My edit was reverted with an unhelpful remark "the ching hai is 清 not 青. Another ignorant edit without fact checking". Despite the pinyin spelling in Ching Hai and Qinghai being identical. Can a native Mandarin speaker provide some impartial clarity? 59.167.40.111 (talk) 05:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have posted your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. LadyofShalott 14:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
There are responses at the RefDesk. LadyofShalott 17:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Summarising the explanation: While the pinyin spelling is the same, those are two different characters with two different meanings. 清 means pure or pristine, and 青 means green/blue. 59.167.40.111 (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable External Link Removed

The external link removed is self published with links to positive and negative resources. Some of the negative sources are blogs, forums, and non-expert self-published articles. For this reason, this external link is unreliable and should not be included in this article.75.79.42.189 (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

All content is self published in one form or another. I think what you mean is you have a concern regarding original research however the linked page simple presents links both to Ching Hai's own web sites as well other sites that are positive and negative including sites deemed notable in other wikipedia articles such as http://www.cultnews.com/?cat=25. I believe the external link provides a range of perspectives that are relevant to the context of this article. Although not ideal, there is no suitable replacement and I believe the article suffers in the absence of this information. On that basis I'm re-adding it. 59.167.40.111 (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I've started add more direct references based on the reliable links in the disputed link. At some point this will obviate the need for the contentious link (although I suspect the new links will not be looked on favourably by some of the potentially biased editors of this article). 59.167.40.111 (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This is totally in violation of living bio policy. Since this is only an opinion without proof, this is defamation. Discussion and putting the topic on the actual article are very different things. The Living Bio policy even forbids discussion. I am reporting this to the Living Bio Noticeboard. Truthexplorer (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Notable and verifiable references! If there were any basis for defamation then the source would have been taken down and yet it persists after many years and is therefore a reasonable and valid source. Perhaps you can source some third party reliable references rather than taking issue with every edit that doesn't support your apparently biased view. 59.167.40.111 (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow..now you are coming up with your own definition of notable and verifiable. I think you should look up on your reference and see how 'notable' he is. His work all had disclaimers that they may not be verified. Truthexplorer (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thus far noone else has commented on this situation. I suggest that rather than emotive reversion we wait to see what other editors have to say who have not been focussing on this article. 59.167.40.111 (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
No others? How about this: http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/religious-experts/false-experts/rick-ross/ I wonder who is selective about their sources. I shall revert as long as what you quoted is an personal opinion from Mr False Expert and not a fact. As per living bio wiki policy "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]" Rick Ross as source is contentious enough. Truthexplorer (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that you are confusing three separate issues here. 1 BLP 2 Reliable Sources and 3 Notability. The BLP policy allows the inclusion of well-sourced negative comments that have been reported in Reliable Sources. Reliable Sources are those with professional standards of editorial control and checking. Notability covers how important material is to the topic under discussion in terms of encyclopdic content. So, I would say the Cult comments would merit inclusion under 1 if well-sourced; are they well-sourced? I would say that the book and NYT are good RS, the local paper more marginal. But there is little doubt that the statements as reported were made and that they are relevant. Which leaves the question of notability. I think that the Wikipedia entry for Rick Ross (consultant) is enough to merit citing his opinions here as reported in third-party sources, even if those opinions were, in this case, ill-founded, which is I take it your problem with their inclusion.

More generally, if you have an issue with content you should edit the relevant text rather than simply reverting to earlier versions: I take it that my addition of an 'Organisation' section was uncontroversial, but was removed by your reversion.Martinlc (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops..I edited on your version, but unknowingly removed it. Sorry about that. I have renamed the section and remove the personal opinion by Rick Ross. Remember people, this is a living person bio and this is not a place for personal opinions and attack. Stick to only verifiable facts. Truthexplorer (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be the only person disagreeing with properly cited content because you have a personal bias towards the subject. Perhaps you should refrain from editing this article for a while to see what direction it takes as you only appear to be reverting content and adding nothing other than complaints about other people's edits. 118.70.127.108 (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
If you looked at my contribs history, I have made a lot of unbias additions; they just have been mostly reverted. Yes, I have a personal bias toward subject because I know the subject. I take issue because there lots of things written here that are simply untrue. The sources are cited from cult expert Rick Ross. This is already bias. You only get food from a food store. The numerous awards, eg. Excaliber presented by the cancer society, were all removed because the award 'cannot' be found using Google as claimed by 59.167.40.111. Isn't this bias? 59.167.40.111 doesn't even know the meaning of Ching Hai's name and changed it to Green Sea. His edits are all poorly researched. e.g. Claiming Mayor Fasi wasn't a mayor at the time the Ching Hai day award was personally given by him. These are all examples of poor quality and poor intentions. Yet, everyone takes 59.167.40.111's other edit without question. Unless one is 100% sure of the contents, it is better to err on the side of safety and you cannot put 'what you imagined happened' into the wiki. I reverted only contents that I personally know to be false. A living person biography or any biography simply cannot be written by such a person. But I agree with you that I should probably take a break. I hope everyone else can help to monitor in my absence. Truthexplorer (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you are missing an important point. There must be a reason some other editors changes are being accepted while yours are not. Perhaps your personal opinion of the subject makes it difficult for you to accept that the criticisms have some basis in fact. 123.27.222.11 (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have incorporated the criticism in the organisation section in line with Wikipedia's preference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinlc (talk • contribs) 14:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Although there is a case for providing external links to critical websites, the "opposing views" website is anonymous and fails WP:EL and therefore should be removed. I think editors have been battling so long over legitimate critical content that they have been misled here.Martinlc (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

  • Master does not believe in a single religion. She believes in truth.
  • You didn't let Master stand up for herself in the critism section.
  • Original Research in the critisms unless you have references.

Thanks! All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 10:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Err.. to be clear, you have tagged the article as original research and pov but you aren't proselytising Ching Hai?? If you intend the tags to remain on the article you will need to point out the specific areas which you have an issue with rather than a blanket statement. 59.167.50.32 (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Responding to your bullets above:

  • Huh? There is no critical content in the article about her views on religion. Truth is subjective. Not sure what you mean here.
  • Anyone can comment and clarify the criticisms, although deleting them and saying that Ching Hai is a nice person is probably not going to be considered a rational response.
  • The original research in this article is mostly the positive spin from the Ching Hai web sites for which the article is already tagged as needing more reliable references. The more critical sections are fairly well referenced although more and better references would be useful.

Unless you can be crisper about your concerns the tags will be removed. 59.167.50.32 (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography

I don't want to start and be engaged in a fruitless reversion war. However, I just want to refer to policy WP:SELFPUB which states that self published may be allowed so long as there is no violations of the 5 criterias stated. There is no policy to prevent using such references as Anonymous keeps stating as reason for reversion. As a person's work tells a lot about that person, I thought a bibliography section would make this a better article. Truthexplorer (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A bunch of self published books that are not notable and bordering on vanity add nothing to the article and is the reason they keep getting removed by neutral editors. I think they do actually tell a lot about the person but probably not in the manner you intend. 59.167.50.32 (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe they are all removed by just 1 editor who edits under numerous anonymous ip. If that is the case, that same editor is not neutral either.69.105.225.211 (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Bibliography section has been removed twice. Once by an anonymous editor earlier in the year, the second more recent time by a WP admin. I'll ignore the thinly veiled accusation in the last response. Find anything useful to add to the article from a reliable 3rd source would go a long way to building credibility as an editor of this article. 59.167.50.32 (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I see Icleao keeps re-adding the bibliography despite it having been removed a number of times by different people. Here are a few of quotes from Amazon re "The Birds In My Life" that give a hint as to why this self published vanity press is nn: "filled with amusing telepathic exchanges between Master and bird", "On one page there is a photoshopped image of a bird wearing an elegant fur coat", "It is just computer generated pics of personal pets and ramblings of opinions of them". The book is like Moon People without the in joke. 59.167.50.32 (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Mahaveer Award

This seems to be a very nn award although it is from an apparently 3rd party. I note in a recent newsletter on the YIV web site they were complimenting themselves for having 5500 hits on their web site so they are definitely small fry. I'll leave it to others to determine whether it should remain in the article as I have been branded as prejudiced by the Ching Hai zealots following this article. 59.167.50.32 (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this award from the article as the group in question have < 9500 hits on their web site in four years and have basically no referring links from other web sites which is a very strong indication this is a small interest group based in England. 59.167.50.32 (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced comment

Moving this from the article
[Note from a reader: Whoever wrote this doesn't seem to know that the My Lai Massacre happened in 1968, not in 1950. Also, if Ching Hai was born in the 50s, she was a teen in 1968, and if she did have a child, that child would not possibly be 20 until at least the late 80s, not "at the height of the war".] —This unsigned comment was added by 200.126.205.100 (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

More dubious and inaccurate updates

Anonymous has done it again. An international award handed out personally by the Philippine president is considered not notable, yet a small city decree in communist Vietnam gets a gossip update in Politics? How is a word document even notable if Gusi Peace prize is not? This is clearly an obvious and inaccurate update to undermine Ching Hai's name. Can someone please help put creditability to the wiki pages by this anti Ching Hai dude? The entire Ching Hai page is dominated by updates by 2 Vietnamese in Mr Anonymous (aided by admin Yellow Monkey) whose agenda is solely to defame her. This makes the page hardly fair and inaccurate and getting ridiculously out of hand Truthexplorer (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether the Gusi Peace Prize is really an internationally recognised award is the topic of debate above and not valid as a comparison to your latest reversion. That you question a properly cited government issued statement from the home country of the subject is breath taking. Since wikipedia content is formed by considered process of cited content I would say the article is going fairly well and your comments that the page is getting out of hand are completely unsupported by other editors. If only you could add some content rather than your only edits being emotive statements and reverting things you don't agree with. It is quite apparent that I am not from Vietnam although the relevance of that escapes me. 59.167.42.2 (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


I would caution both of you against continuing what appears to me to be pointless bickering and edit-warring regarding this topic. Based on earlier discussions above, it seems to me that the consensus has already been reached, and without further reliable and verifiable sources to provide sufficient information to change that consensus, the article should remain as previously decided. If you can't reach agreement between each other on this, I suggest you both review WP:DRR and submit to that process. Alan (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Humility?

For someone quoted as saying, "She said that Her followers and Herself never expected any recognition or rewards for anything that they do for the people of various nations around the world.", an extraordinary proportion of her web site is dedicated to self indulgent descriptions of various awards and events in her honour. I think this is relevant to the criticism section. 59.167.50.32 (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who has won awards are entitled to list them as credentials. Just like graduates can say they have a MSc, PHD etc. It would be great to stick to facts and not resort to personal judgement. Truthexplorer (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
A number of the references in the article comment on her flamboyant lifestyle and extravagant functions that are at odds with the quote above, hence my summary comments for comment. 59.167.50.32 (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The language framework of Master/Disciples and other aspects do not seem very humble. However, have you seen her videos in which she is cooking in the kitchen? I have very rarely seen such down-to-earth and humble and unpretentious cooking instructions. I've watched only two but this seems to be the rule for her cooking videos. While I do not agree with their language framework, nor do I believe in reincarnation, and have many other differences with her and her group, this positive element on the cooking shows is notable.

Therefore, while the article should include all information about fancy dress etc criticism, this other side of her should be included as well. I may add a link or two with a sentence (that is not in the present article but worth including as information) that she personally hand cooks in her own kitchen as one of her programs. --Harel (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand the point you are making, however this is hardly note worthy and really adds nothing to the article. 59.167.48.14 (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree (the fact it took me this long to return to this wikipedia page tells you I am neither a "hater" nor a "fan" of hers) I disagree because her dress, is part of her personal life, that is externally seen and visible, and about which people make judgments. Her being very humble and informal while hand-cooking from scratch, is also a) a part of her personal life b) that is externally seen and visible and c)about which peole make judgments. Therefore, if one can use the former (how she sometimes dresses) to comment on her and include in the article, then the same is true about the latter. It's ok with me if you exclude both (exclude comments on her choice of sometimes fancy dress) or include both. But the article needs to be consistent on this point on issues about which a), b), and c) are true (if you really want to criticize her, one thing that annoys me is that her videos with good information on vegetarianism or cooking, or interviewing a scientist about climate, are very very hard to read, painful to watch sometimes, with 10+ language subtitles at once...) But let's be consistent on personal things that are included, on both positive and negative, or excluded on both. --Harel (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I haven't seen the cooking show you mention however it sounds like the indulgence of an interest of hers and reinforcement of vegetarian message. I'd question whether it demonstrates humility rather than self promotion. The comments on her flamboyant lifestyle are fully cited. If there is a relevant fact showing a flip side that is properly cited then it should be added. Efficacious (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
"I'd question whether it demonstrates humility rather than self promotion. " I never said the cooking show was humility rather than self-promotion; not the cooking show, but rather the way she behaved on the show We should not confuse the two. After all the Dalai Lama might have a cooking show tomorrow, and none of us would confuse the purpose of the show (which might be promotion of his message) with his behavior (I am not, at all, comparing the two; my example is only for illustrating the point of how completely different the purpose of a show is (99% of the time, the show is to promote something) from the behavior of any participant on the show)
If you saw the video I'm referring to you'd know what I meant by her behavior being the complete opposite of someone who thinks they are better than others. Now that you have agreed that such cited counter point on her personal life and personal behavior, is a fair counter-balance, I feel the current editors are not one-sided and are publicly stating the right outlook: that both negative and positive aspects of her personal behavior are when cited, relevant. This is good to hear, and is the right approach. We now have principles that will help avoid both problem: blind prejudicial antipathy, and blind prejudicial admiration; both are to be avoided. I may get around to finding that video or similar reference, but probably not any time soon, this being a low priority for me. Those who feel more strongly can do so sooner, now that the general principle, and the relevant criteria has been agreed upon.--Harel (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Gusi Peace Prize notable?

I see that Gusi Peace Prize seems to have fallen on hard times with less that 3900 hits on google and all known web sites associated with the award delisted. On that basis it conveys a false impression of notability that doesn't seem to be warranted. Unless more information is found suggesting the award continues and has any level of international standing, I propose to remove it from the article. 59.167.42.2 (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A simple google search on Gusi Peace Prize reveals 3890 mentions of the prize by various international media and newspapers. There was also an official proclamation in the Official Gazette by the Philippines president to make a notable day. Therefore, notability is not in question or in doubt. What's in question is the status of the award now. The award remains valid accreditation at the time. As such, I am reverting the deletion by Yellow Monkey. Truthexplorer (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
In addition, I will be moving all discussions on notability of Gusi Peace prize to the Guzi Peace discussion page as this is the wrong discussion page for Gusi Peace prize and thus will be removing this section. Truthexplorer (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The discussion is whether Gusi should be referenced on this page so of course the discussion should remain here. It is also poor form to delete content from a discussion page (you've been warned about that before). 59.167.42.2 (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Of the 3890 hits there is a substantial amount of repetition so there aren't really that many unique references and of course many of them are Ching Hai related web sites. of the remaining web sites there is also a predominance of Philippine sites which is natural given this award originates from that country. Outside of that there are few if any mainstream news sites referring to the award which is in line with my view that the award is self promoted rather than internationally recognised and therefore conveys a false impression of notability in relation to ching hai. 59.167.42.2 (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

See your own heading. Your question is whether Gusi Peace Prize is notable. Thus I moved (not delete) to the right discussion location. Whether it is notable a not, I believe it is not for one person to decide and I think it should be decided in the Gusi Peace Prize page and certainly doesn't make sense to be here. How would people know that this page will decide whether the prize is notable? The issue of false impression has nothing to do this wiki. This is your own opinion. She was given the award. This is a fact and verifiable. Not some personal opinions or false information. I also see that the wiki has been reverted by Yellow Monkey. Please at least have the courtesy to acknowledge that it is 2 different topic and restore the accreditation. 69.105.118.16 (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
There is obviously some cross discussion with the award article, however it was raised here in a similar manner to the nn Mahaveer Award as the issue is whether an award should receive prominence in this article if it conveys a potentially incorrect impression that ching hai is internationally recognised other than by her own self promotion. 59.167.42.2 (talk) 01:38, 16 September

2009 (UTC)


The Mahaveer Award doesn't have a wiki page. But since Gusi has one, this correct discussion clearly belongs there and not here. Again, about the incorrect impression etc..these are 1 person's opinion. It may be and it may not. But winning an award is a fact. There is no reason to remove it since it is almost unanimous that it is a verifiable fact. On a separate note, when an award is attended and sanctioned by the President of a country (not a small country either), it has to be note worthy. Otherwise, please specify the exact wiki definition for noteworthiness of awards and then we can see how all awards measure up. Truthexplorer (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the efforts to denigrate the Gusi peace prize out of a concern that mentioning it creates a false impression of nobility is insulting to the Philippine people, the other awardees, as well as to her. The word respect comes from the Greek word meaning to have the willingness to look again. You have seem to have preconceived notions about her and will accept facts that support your world view and seem to be set on denigrating any facts that do not support your view to the point of denigrating the Gusi peace prize. I ask that you respect her, the Gusi award, the Philippine people and the other awardees by having the willingness to look to see if some of your preconceived ideas about her might be false.

First of all, regarding the assumption that you can judge the merits of the Gusi peace prize by looking at the number of Google searches: the Philippines has only a 10 percent PC penetration, only 14% of the population use the internet, and the average per capital income is only US$1,620. http://www.internetworldstats.com/asia/ph.htm So to judge the Gusi Prize by the number of internet google searches from this developing country is not valid. Also regarding newspaper clippings, I have found it difficult to search the history of many Asian papers to find news even a day before for which I had a URL, as many do not, or only recently began archiving news, and their search capabilities are limted at best. So the ability to pull up digital news from past events is challenging, making it difficult to create a comprehensive understanding of the Gusi awards, therefore to denigrate the prize based upon this lack of digital information from a developing country just to keep people from developing a positive view of her seems highly biased, arrogant and disrespectful.

The next issue is whether mentioning the prize conveys a false sense of nobility. She has been involved in humanitarian works and disaster relief in the Philippines for a long time, and she is very well known there and honored for her work. In the early 1990's, she and then-President Corazon Aquino met as part of her efforts to purchase land at the base of Mt Pinatubo to bring Vietnamese refugees living in poor conditions from other areas of Asia. After the deal was reached in 1991, but before the refugees could be moved there, Mt. Pinatubo erupted, becoming the second largest volcanic eruption in the 20th century, killing hundreds of people and displacing many more. She has always taught members of the Supreme Master Ching Hai International Association (SMCHIA) that to serve others, through "love in action" is our highest goal, and she places a huge emphasis on helping the down and out and doing disaster relief. In Taiwan where floods are rampant, a group of association members created a vehicle that could both drive on land, and then as the need arises, propel through water, to help get relief to areas of the country inaccessible due to the floods. So after Mt. Pinatubo erupted, she led the disaster relief efforts of the SMCHIA. Over the years, she has continued to perform disaster relief there, and the Philippine people, including leaders such as former President Corazon Aquino and Fidel Ramos (who has become a personal friend of hers), appreciate her efforts. They chose to honor her with this award. You can say that she did the disaster relief to create a good impression of herself, but to do so, you are making a lot of assumptions about someone you've read a few articles on written by journalists who themselves seem to have a distrust of spiritual groups that are not mainstream, and you are discounting the experiences of those who have worked with her on these relief efforts, or been the recipient of her efforts over many years. So again, I ask that you have the respect and the willingness to look again to see if perhaps your own judgments and preconceived notions might be hindering the creation of a realistic understanding of her.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.67.123 (talk • contribs)


Ching Hai's philanthropic work is not disputed, nor is her level of financial contribution to various charitable groups. Based on the relatively few references to Ching Hai referenced in the article at present, there is a strong sense of degree of self promotion beyond the causes she supports which has lead to criticism. The question around the Gusi Peace Prize Award relates to whether it has the level of international status implied and hence adds import to this article, or whether it has more humble status and hence should have less weight. There are many humanitarian organisations and awards around the world which are all very worthy but are not notable outside an isolated geographical or interest area. 59.167.42.2 (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The question here really revolves around whether the Gusi prize and foundation have been recognised as significant by third parties. Apart from brief mentions in relation to award-winners, the foundation appears to have been ignored completely by the media. If the Foudnation is notable, it should appear in directories of grant-giving bodies, on websites listing important organisations, and as the subject of news articles in itself. In this case it appears that the prize is less famous than its recipients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinlc (talk • contribs)

I have expanded Gusi Peace Prize with a extensive list of refs. Please review and reconsider. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent ref you found to expand the article! On the basis of the detail revealed I have readded the award to this article. 59.167.42.2 (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

multilingual

Ching Hai speaks at least chinese, vietnamese, english and german. [4] 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)

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)

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)

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)
  1. ^ Supreme Master Ching Hai (2002-12-). "God's Direct Contect". Supreme Master Ching Hai International Association Publishing Co Ltd. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Supreme Master Ching Hai (1999-11-28). "God Bestowed Title of Supreme Master". Supreme Master Ching Hai International Association Publishing Co Ltd. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Supreme Master Ching Hai (1997-11-). "The Key of Immediate Enlightenment 8". Supreme Master Ching Hai International Association Publishing Co Ltd. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBD2r3968bE
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ching_Hai/Archive_1&oldid=1136333108"