Talk:Seungsahn

Tone of Article and Matter Relevant to Scandal

The article is OK, but it reads almost as if written by a follower--defintely seems to lack a NPOV. As documented many places, including Rick Fields's excellent book, How the Swans Came to the Lake (2nd Edition), Seung Sahn had sexual relationships with many women who were followers of his. One such was Soeng Hyang. This caused tension in his community, as well as resulting in many followers of his leaving. Despite this, he never relinquished his position, and websites produced by the Kwan Um school and other sources with links to him do not, to my knowledge, mention any of this.

I do not wish to diminish any good Seung Sahn or any of his organizations may have done. Nevertheless, I think it is very important for the public to be able to make informed decisions regarding religious figures and organizations, especially in this day and age. Moreover, materials on Seung Sahn's behavior are publicly available and have been for a long time. Thus, I think that adding them is a matter of balance. Ironically, the Wikipedia article on Soeng Hyang does in fact mention the affair Seung Sahn had with her.

Thus, with all this in mind, I have edited the article to add a short section, "Controversy" on this issue. Once more, I do not intend to cast aspersions about Seung Sahn, but to make sure there is balanced information in the article. Turmarion 03:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, where did it go? I found that relevant. 67.36.180.141 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed uncited claims regarding some things in the controversy section. A cite was requested in April of 2010 and still has not been provided. From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Please feel free to reinstate the changes if you can also include a verifiable source.JS747 (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You also deleted cited material. As it happens, that citation was applicable to the whole paragraph, so I've reinstated it with the reference after every sentence.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, the criteria for inclusion in WP not only requires verifiability but also reliability of the source being used. Simply because a printed book states something, does not alone meet the requirement of reliability. Has this information been fact checked by a reliable, independent third party? The information presented in that source is nothing more than hearsay. One could technically argue that it is not a reliable source and remove the whole thing in accordance with WP source reliability policy. However, I will leave it and change the wording a bit to reflect the fact that this information is not a fact but rather hearsay.JS747 (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you review the policy on [reliable sources] and Identifying reliable sources. There is nothing about the source that is questionable--it is a book written by a respected journalist with a number of books to her credit and published by a major publisher. Furthermore, the book was published while the subject was still alive and was most certainly vetted by the publisher's lawyers to make sure it wasn't libelous. Nowhere in the guidelines is there a requirement that second source is necessary. The information presented in the source is not hearsay--it features interviews by the author with the woman making the allegations, who is named. The wording of the paragraph is fine as it stands now--it is already clear that it is Alexander making the allegations.Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It states that allegations were made, I would agree. However, whether or not the allegations are true or rumors, it does not even address that. Your source does not support any factual information other than the fact that allegations were made and nothing more. It most certainly is Hearsay. "Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience." How does this interview not fit that definition? Someone told her that this happened and she published it in a book. That does not support the idea that it is a fact that this took place. It only supports the fact that allegations were made. I don't not have a problem noting the fact that allegations were made. I have a problem with the way the article presents the information assuming that the allegations are true when there is no proof of that other than "he said that she said that this happened", which is simply not good enough to assert that this actually happened. The fact that it was published while he was alive and checked by her lawyers is irrelevant. All she is doing is saying "This person told me that this happened", which is by definition hearsay...JS747 (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Definitions of hearsay vary, but the legal definition in the US, as given by the American Heritage Dictionary, is "evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony." Alexander in this case is the witness and she offers first-person testimony in her own words. The fact that it is mediated by a book does not make it hearsay.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It does matter that it is mediated by a book that another person wrote. Alexander is not offering anything here. Alexander did not write the book that is being used as a source here. The only person that is offering anything here, with regards to this particular citation, is Sandy Boucher. What she is saying is: I had no personal involvement in this situation, but this is what this other person told me and I have written what they said in this book. Blacks law dictionary defines hearsay as "A term applied to that species of testimony by a witness who relates, not what he knows personally, but what others have told him, or what he has heard said by others." That is exactly the situation here. If Sandy Boucher was pulled into court and was asked to testify against Seung Sahn and all she could say was "Alexander told me that this was true", which is all that she is saying in that book. One can guarantee that it would be thrown out as hearsay.JS747 (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexander is directly quoted in the book. Her testimony is direct, and that is the salient point. If Boucher paraphrased the testimony, that would be different, and it would be hearsay. But she does not.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added two additional high quality sources. That Seung Sahn had affairs with his students while supposedly celibate is not disputed.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That is simply incorrect. "That Seung Sahn was accused of having affairs with his students while supposedly celibate is not disputed." Now, that would actually be accurate.JS747 (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It is correct. Who disputes that Seung Sahn had affairs with his students while supposedly celibate? It is generally acknowledged.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Who disputes it? I do. Why? Because the only evidence I have seen of it is an accusation. It is generally acknowledged by you, yes I would agree. The sources that are provided here only support that accusations have taken place. However, they provide no support or evidence that the accusations are true, only that they took place. Now if one can provide not only evidence that accusations took place but also evidence that the accusations are true, then I would feel differently.JS747 (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That is not the only evidence you have seen. Both of the additional sources, which are highly credible sources, state directly that this happened, without qualification of any kind. They do not say "accusations were made." The one source states directly that Seung Sahn himself acknowledged the relationships (which is in fact true). You have not offered any evidence that anyone disputes that the relationships happened other than you. Why? Because you are the only person who disputes that Seung Sahn had affairs with his students while supposedly celibate.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed parts of this section as per WP:UNDUE which states "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic...Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." The weight being given to this section was disproportionate to the overall significance to the article. The quantity of text in this section was nearly equal to that of the section of teaching style which presents the section with more significance than it should have.JS747 (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The section was not even close to being in violation of undue weight. This is a criticism significant enough to be discussed by several reliable sources. There is no justification for deleting one of those sources entirely.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I treat all this section as a product of an crazy, insane person. I understand that everyone has the right to judge people in his own way, but if you don't like someone you just don't follow him. Accusations you published here are very serious are you absolutely sure that you know the truth?--Pnti (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not I like, follow or judge Seung Sahn is not relevant at all. The point is to have a well-written and informative article. The article can and should include information which is not necessarily flattering to the subject, provided that information is backed by reliable sources. This article is indeed backed by reliable sources.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

GA-review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

While the article is reasonable well written, I think it should be reformatted to make the entire thing flow better and make it more visually appealing. The main thrust of the article is this person’s biography, yet the entirety of the information is set in subheadings. Alternatively, the biography could be placed under one large heading (with expansion to the material in the subheadings, of course) and items related to his teaching style and criticism of his methods could be made separate headings. I think the article has a lot of potential, but just isn’t quite there yet. In that respect, I’m putting the article on hold for a little while to see if improvements can be made. If so, I’ll review the article again, and if not, I will change it to a fail.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There have been some questions raised on the talk page as to NPOV. In checking the edit history, I cannot tell if these concerns have effectively been addressed.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   there has been a lot of activity over the past two dozen days, so I can’t speak to stability, though the article seemed stable before the recent edit frenzy. I don’t think it’s enough to warrant fail since all the edits were made by the nominator, but it is something to be cognizant of.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

jackturner3 (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Bilrand: I did not make "arbitrary" edits; I wikified the page, fixed wikilinks and spelling issues and broke down very long paragraphs. I did not removed cited information, remove or add cites or engage in any shenanigans. Would you like to discuss what you object to here instead of reverting everything I did? I routinely edit pages for these reasons. Ogress _smash! 16:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, what should we do about the last section, which has been tagged as extremely problematic for quite a while now? Ogress _smash! 16:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Now your going to edit war. If you have specific issues mention them here first. That's what the talk page is for, don't just make changes. Changing spellings of names or institutions is inappropriate and arbitrary. You seem to have had this issue in the past. No reason to do so again here. Bilrand (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot. So as not to engage in an edit war like you have started, I will let you put the page back to the original state. Individual changes can be talked about here in a civil way. Bilrand (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, WP:AGF. First of all, what on earth do you mean, "You seem to have had this issue in the past"? Second, talk page is for talking: what are you talking about? I reverted you because you undid everything I did to improve the article. If you have specific complaints or problems, please speak up. I don't know what you are talking about if you don't talk. Are you talking about Hwagaesa? That's the wikipedia standard format for Korean temples: just look at the list on Korean Buddhist temples. Ogress _smash! 21:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Seungsahn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070222183016/http://www.uiowa.edu:80/~iareview/tirweb/hypermedia/joel_weishaus/para-1.htm to http://www.uiowa.edu/~iareview/tirweb/hypermedia/joel_weishaus/para-1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Seungsahn or Seung Sahn

The article title has his name as a single word, but throughout the article the form "Seung Sahn" is also used, and in the bibliography, "Sahn" is treated like a surname. Furthermore, the introduction also has "Haengwon" as part of his name, but this is never mentioned again, so it's all very confusing. —howcheng {chat} 21:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's confusing—I'd like to see the article title changed to "Seung Sahn" and the spelling standardized throughout the text. The "Seung Sahn" spelling seems to be what's used in all publications I've seen. Does anyone have a source for spelling it "Seungsahn"? Suomichris (talk)