Talk:Ching Hai

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 

WikiProject Vietnam  
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Requested move 15 August 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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



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

  • Hi. This should not and would never fly at Wikipedia, per POV and The Manual of Style. Honorifics are not part of a person's name. Naming conventions, however, exist to differentiate similar terms and names, see Wikipedia article naming conventions. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 19:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:HONORIFIC and speedy close as editor comment above. Not in a million years. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Agree. I don't see any reason and sense for the people who oppose. Supreme Master Ching Hai is the dharma name of her. Why should we change other people's name just because you think it is neutral or not. If you don't understand what dharma meaning, very easy, you might know 14th Dalai Lama, right? Dalai lama is actually a title given to spiritual teacher in Tibet. But you see the name 14th Dalai Lama as the title name of Tenzin Gyatso in wikipedia. Same as artists, they can call whatever they want for their professional name, like Lady Gaga, why don't you suggest wikipedia to use "Gaga" as the title name instead of "Lady Gaga"? Why such difference, people? Moreover, Supreme Master Ching Hai is the name used in all official documents, media and all her publishing books as an author. There is no issue of neutrality regarding this name. And so I agree with username Orwuck to move the name to the proper title "Supreme Master Ching Hai". -- Plumablue (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Plumablue (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose per WP:HONORIFIC. Article names should be the shortest unambiguous form found in RS. If there were another individual with same name a qaulifier might be added but even then the preferred form would be Ching hai (spiritual leader)not an honorific. Martinlc (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Agree: I search on the internet, and I found that Supreme Master Ching Hai is not only a spiritual teacher but also an artist and book author. Since her publication uses the name of "Supreme Master Ching Hai" as the author title, I think it is reasonable to use her professional name as the title of wikipedia. Moreover, the name "Supreme Master Ching Hai" is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources as well as governmental awards and official recognition certificates issued by governments in many countries and international organizations. -- Noblemedic (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Noblemedic (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Agree I also think it is more logical to move the title to "Supreme Master Ching Hai". The name "Ching Hai" is too ambiguous if you want to translate it into Chinese. If I hear the words "Ching Hai", I might think it refers to a province of China "青海 ", same pronunciation and translation in English. I might also think it refers to "情海", which means affairs or "Love ocean" literally. It can mean many other things but I would not think of a person's name in the instance when I hear "Ching Hai". If according to the above comments, "Supreme Master Ching Hai" is the most commonly seen name in English reliable sources, and it is acknowledged as the stage name or pen name of the person, I think it is better to use this title. - Tomwan17 (talk) 04:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • neutral to say, honorifics are not part of a person's name, but in the present case, "The Supreme Master Ching Hai" is the translation of its Chinese original version, in which "the supreme master" is by no means honorifics, but just part of the name, which exists from the very beginning (1980s, if my memory is correct). Also, the term "Supreme Master" is not honorifics in general conception or is being used as honorifics in any other case, apart from the case of Ching Hai. Which simply means: it is merely a part of her name. On the other side, many people strongly against her prefer to deliberately call her "Ching Hai". Wikipedia should be free from this bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.248.188 (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
    • It is really funny. The person who opposes the idea keep posting the guidelines of Honorific titles, but he/she did not even read thoroughly the entire explanation. It says in the guideline, Honorific titles used with forenames only (such as "Sir Elton", "Sir David", "Dame Judi") should be avoided unless this form is so heavily preferred in popular usage that the use of the surname alone would render the entire name unrecognizable. As I see from the explanation of the above people in favor of the move and reading in Chinese, the name "Ching Hai" is too vague to be used to refer to the subject. And therefore, even though I don't think "Supreme Master" is regarded as an honorific title, it is ok to use "The Supreme Master Ching Hai" as the title for the subject without any violation of the guidelines of wikipedia, since it is widely used in public sources. -- Saisahi (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Saisahi (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose per WP:HONORIFIC. As an example, Wikipedia's article on the current monarch of England is Elizabeth II even though the majority of English language source refers to her by her honorific title. The same for her father George VI. —Farix (t | c) 11:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    • the WP:DUCK quacking is loud here. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
      • The fact that all of the support comments follow the same format and are all from new accounts, there is a strong possibility. There is also the possibility of off Wikipedia canvasing for support. —Farix (t | c) 01:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Whatever you think it might be, the reasons in favor of the move make sense, and are in conformity with the principles and guidelines of Wikipedia. :) -- Plumablue (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree The example of Elizabeth II is not persuasive at all. The term "Elizabeth II" is clear enough, but the term "Ching Hai" means so many things, as Tomwan17 already pointed out. How about the term "Alexander the Great"? Would you also suggest that we should change it to "Alexander" ? In the case of Alexander the Great and the Supreme Master Ching Hai, "the Great" the "the Supreme Master" is not purely honorific, but part of their name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.254.102 (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC) 2.247.254.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Agree Searched on the internet, the term "The Supreme Master Ching Hai" is her official name as appeared in government documents and international events. It is by no means honorifics, but simply a complete term that represent this unique individual. Thus, I suggest using "Supreme Master Ching Hai" as an adequate title. Tiggerluvi (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC) Tiggerluvi (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Agree We believe that each individual has the right to choose a name to represent himself/herself. Since 1980s, "Supreme Master Ching Hai" has been the official name she chose to share the Quan Yin Method. Thus, we, editors of Wikipedia, should respect the full title as "the Supreme Master Ching Hai" instead of "Ching Hai." As Wikipedia aims at becoming an encyclopedia that collects knowledge disseminated across the globe, giving readers authentic information is what we should do. Thus, we should make the titles of the subjects match up public information as precisely as possible. Consequently, I agree using "the Supreme Master Ching Hai" as an adequate title for this article.Sululight (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ″Agree″ Wikipedia is a place for pieces of information to be presented for people to understand things they are interested, but a place to confuse all the viewers. Following this, a simple and clear information is necessary and a must. That is, should JFK be a less confusing or right page title than John F. Kennedy? The answer is very clear. John F. Kennedy is better known and more understood than JFK for most wikipedia users, which is also the final and current page title used. Once again, I would like to reiterate editors are here to make information organised and clear for the readers, but for a stance, a POV, or a judgement, not to say make the users confuse. I am pro "the Supreme Master Ching Hai" as the page title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estebanpai (talkcontribs) 17:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree. For those who keep clinging to the honorific issue, I suggest you to please spare more of your time to move the title of these real honorific titled articles instead of trying to change a person's name: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh / Prince William, Duke of Cambridge / Prince Harry / Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon / Princess Leia / King Arthur / Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother / Queen Victoria / Queen Latifah / Princess Alice of the United Kingdom / Princess Stéphanie of Monaco; Actually there are many more, if the above names are still not enough for you to spend your leisure time, I can try to spare a little more of my time to list out some more titles for you to have fun. -- Plumablue (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is against existing guidelines so if there needs to be a consensus to change them first.--76.65.42.75 (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Agree to move the title to "The Supreme Master Ching Hai" The answer is very clear. "The Supreme Master" is by no means a conventional honorific title used to describe a person of high position or honor. It is part of the name of the spiritual teacher and author "The Supreme Master Ching Hai", and that is the most adequate and best known title to be used in the Wikipedia to refer to the subject. Even if you insist in claiming that the name "The Supreme Master Ching Hai" is an honorific title, in accordance to the guidelines of Wikipedia, it is still reasonable to use this title to refer to the subject as this is the ONLY title we can clearly and unambiguously identify the subject without any dispute or confusion. For those who read Chinese or are expertise in translation, the words "Ching Hai" can mean many things, and you will never think of a person with merely these two words because it is not even a complete name, I wonder if you can tell which is the first name and which is the last name? In this case, those editors who don't even know Chinese or don't even know much about the subject surely will not be able to judge whether the title of this article is correct or not. Since the name "The Supreme Master Ching Hai" can be found in most of the reliable second-hand sources as well as in her official documents and websites, and also is widely and well-recognized by most people, organizations, media and world governments, I believe "The Supreme Master Ching Hai" is the best title to this article.-- Plumablue (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to possible WP:NOTAVOTE violations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Your relisting reason is too vague. Please explain in more detail what you mean by "WP:NOTAVOTE violations"? I see no violation. The explanations and reasons for the move are very clearly stated in the above discussion, while the ONLY reason for opposition "is" relatively too weak and untenable. I was expecting that Wikipedia administrators should be fair and not bias. -- Orwuck (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
@DrStrauss: No worries there. I wanted to give the future of the discussion the benefit of the doubt, but I fully endorse your close. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I was wondering, how do you define a "Well-established" account? And from which guideline in wikipedia, did you see that new accounts can not participate in discussion? I was expecting "talks" to be conducted by "persons" not by the "contributions", hmm? Shouldn't we talk by reason and with logic regarding the issue, instead of debating according to wikipedia "contributions"? -- Orwuck (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Orwuck:--That we were very gracious, we abstained from launching an investigation on the tremendous job by your virtual accomplices.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 17:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Orwuck: well-established accounts belong to users who are here to contribute to an encyclopedia. As Godric on Leave notes, a suspicious number of the accounts that !voted in that move discussion appeared to be linked and we can always start a sockpuppet investigation into the matter. Consensus isn't merely determined by numbers but also by strength of arguments which is why single-purpose accounts are rarely effective for their nefarious purposes. I have conducted an extensive re-write of the article so that it complies with our core policies. DrStrauss talk 20:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Steel1943:--Just my two cents:--That was an un-necessary relist and should have been avoided.None of the two valid oppose votes made any sense or stood by any policy.And with the proposed change directly contradicts a policy (It was as far from borderline as one could get!), and that some established regulars have already !voted in oppose, it was an easy call--Not moved.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 17:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric and Godric on Leave: I have to respectfully disagree as I have seen other discussions, such as ones that happen on WP:AFD, relisted with even worse WP:SPA/WP:CANVASS/WP:NOTAVOTE issues. Also, consensus for WP:IAR can always be applied to anything if there is clear, strong, unbiased consensus to do so. And as I said, I relisted with the benefit of doubt that the discussion could eventually have constructive comments, but willingly conceded to someone else closing the discussion; I myself had doubts, but not enough to close the discussion, especially due to assuming good faith from the nominator. So, with that being said, I stand by my actions in this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
User talk:DrStrauss It's even more funny to see your answer. Who was born with an wikipedia contribution? i came to contribute my knowledge about the subject but it is opposed by people who don't even know about the subject, and you call that contribution? The people who are in favor of the move gave reasons and tried to communicate with all editors, but you use "not well-established account" as an excuse to deny all our efforts in trying to communicate. The reasons of opposition are really weak. Wikipedia is provide accurate information to the readers, not a place for you to define what you believe or express your point of view, just go and make some research, how many people will refer "Ching Hai" to the subject of this article.-- Orwuck (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

RFC requested[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion is closed early without resolution. This WP:RFC detracts from the move request above since it is essentially another move request, and thus an unintentionally distracting discussion fork. If the policy should be changed, I recommend starting a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies or Wikipedia:Article titles. Either way, the above move discussion seems to be bringing in comments from possible WP:SPAs, which in turn makes this discussion vulnerable to comments from the same set of possible WP:SPAs; in effect, this discussion may not produce the results and effectiveness the creator of this RFC had intended to achieve. So, I am closing this discussion without prejudice to another similar discussion being started at either a more effective time or location. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tendentious Move Requests[edit]

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

@Robert McClenon: I've cleaned up the article and removed as much promotionalism and other tagged issues as possible however the article's heavy reliance on a couple of sources warrants the blp tag remaining IMO. I have removed the honorific per WP:NOTPROMO except to mention that it is how her followers refer to her (see the lead). Thanks, DrStrauss talk 20:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
User:DrStrauss - Thank you for cleaning up the article. I don't plan to be involved further unless there is disruptive editing, but any further attempts to change the primary title of the article are both disruptive and lame, because Supreme Master Ching Hai has been a working redirect for ten years, so that any of her followers who want to look her up using that form can do so. Why is the difference between a redirect and a primary title so important (except of course to make work for administrators?)? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Robert McClenon - Agreed. There are legitimate cases such as a move between Donald Trump and The Donald but this is just blatant promotion. Terry Wogan doesn't have "Sir" in its title for example. Protection may be needed if such disruptive efforts continue. DrStrauss talk 08:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
User:DrStrauss I saw your edit and it is really ridiculous. Who is Hai????? Please go and search on the internet and please learn some Chinese, or ask any one you think would know the subject, who is Hai? I saw many titles in wikipedia where people use "Prince", "Princess", "Queen" to refer to a subject, and no one say these titles are against wikipedia guidelines, it is very obvious that you are bias when referring to the Supreme Master Ching Hai. Discussing with you is waste of time.; User:Robert McClenon I wonder if you can change the title "Dr. Dre" to Andre Romelle Young instead because it is an honorific name? Or change the name of "Mother Theresa"? or Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,Prince William, Duke of Cambridge ]], Prince Harry, Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, Princess Leia, King Arthur, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Queen Victoria, Queen Latifah, Princess Alice of the United Kingdom, Princess Stéphanie of Monaco; Why some people deserve and can have their pen/stage name and the other not??? Please give me a fair answer. As I said very clearly, Ching Hai is a very ambiguous name or phrase. Very few people (maybe only those who opposed to the move) will refer the two words "Ching Hai" to the subject. You can try with your friends if you like, but I know as it can mean many things in Chinese, even English. I will try the Move Review , thanks for the info. -- Orwuck (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Orwuck: please don't fragment the discussion. This one originally took place on Robert McClenon's talk page where you've already posted this exact response. DrStrauss talk 10:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
User:DrStrauss It is the same discussion, and we should make things clear for others to understand, too. Please give me a fair answer, will you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orwuck (talkcontribs) 10:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2017[edit]

This part

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 September 2017[edit]

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

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK Discuss 16:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
The source of the artificial island controversy is from the Washington Post... Efficacious (talk)