Talk:Thích Nhất Hạnh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Thích Nhất Hạnh was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 26, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
December 19, 2007 WikiProject A-class review Approved
May 26, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


Discussions about the article on Thich Nhat Hanh. This page has been archived. If there is a discussion topic in the archive that you would like to continue discussing, please start it as a new topic here.

What's in a name?[edit]

Please do not move this article to change the title from "Nhat Hanh" to "Thich Nhat Hanh" before reading the extensive discussion of that issue in archive 1, then posting your point of view here for further discussion. Thanks! Nightngle 13:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To further verify that titling the article "Nhat Hanh" rather than "Thich Nhat Hanh" is appropriate, a friend of mine has a book that was autographed for him a couple of years ago, and the signature is "Nhat Hanh". Nightngle 15:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Could we have a better quote?[edit]

I'm not an expert, but "Other people can occupy your country, they can even put you in prison, but they cannot take away your true home and your freedom." doesn't seem like the best quote to have. It has obvious flaws to anyone who has undergone torture, violence or trauma. I don't think it was his brightest moment - or maybe it just needs a lot more explaining - in which case it doesn't stand on its own as a quote. Not as good as this other quote: "There is no path to peace. The path is peace." Which implies that if you are trying to get "to peace" then you should ask yourself what path you are on. 18:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, and the quote is one of those things that is hard to grasp and accept. Lots of people believe that Buddhism is a touchy-feely religion that just talks about easy things, but Buddhism is actually quite hard! It confronts our notion that our external circumstances give us peace and happiness. TNH has endured the hardship and horror of war first hand so he is qualified to tell us that peace is possible, even when tortured, imprisoned, impoverished, exiled, or persecuted. Definately not easy - not something that I could teach having had a relatively easy life compared to those in poverty or who live day-to-day in war. I do think the quote stands in the context of the passage and the link is available to anyone who would like to read the whole article for more explanation. I went back and re-read the article in Shambhala Sun, so I thank you for prompting me to do that - the article is quite deep and a valuable one. Thank you for your comment. Nightngle 20:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If "The path is peace." then ending a lack of peace is getting on the path. I don't seen any flaws in the quote and see nothing from the complainant except complaining. It seems that the complainant is in dire need of the teachings of Buddhism and was drawn to this page because of this generalized dissatisfaction (one way of translating the term usually translated as "suffering") and is seeking help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Lloyd Rankin (talkcontribs) 23:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a Buddhist, but feel that I totally "get" this quote. He's saying that one's Italic texttrueItalic text is a spiritual home, not a physical country, and that one's physical body may be tortured, but this not torture the truly mature spirit. I don't claim at all to arrived at that point, but feel that I have its gist and regard it as a brilliant summation of a philosophy. 2600:1004:B164:42C:88F6:4E17:95E9:F3B1 (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Portrait used for the article[edit]

There have been a couple of questions about the portrait of Thich Nhat Hanh used in this article, and each time, the use of the fair use portrait here has been upheld. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. The image used in the article, Image:Thich Nhat Hanh.jpg, is clearly appropriate within all of the terms, because the subject of the portrait himself authorizes the photo to be used in this application. I see no difference between mining a CC photo from flickr or other source that does not allow commercial use, or sometimes not allowing derivative works (making it still copyright restricted) and this photo. The photo does not belong on Creative Commons (and, in my opinion a CC photo with restrictions doesn't either), but it is very appropriate here. It has nothing to do with whether I like the photo better or not, but the appropriate use of a portrait to clarify the article. This article has had peer reviews, biography project reviews, A-class review, and discussions with people involved with images on wikipedia, so I stand by the use of this image which has been reviewed a number of times and upheld. Nightngle (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That was long before a free alternative (Image:Thich Nhat Hanh2.jpg) had been found. Let us ask those editors who reviewed the article about this difference in opinion. Wikipedia serves to bring free content to the world; that portrait is not free, regardless of its status as a press photo. (Mind meal (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

This image will be deleted soon per WP:IFD. It fails wp:nfcc#1 since it is already replaced by Image:Thich Nhat Hanh2.jpg. A creative commons picture, which contrary to what you think, is not as restricted as the soon to be deleted image since it allows non-commercial usage and derivative works. Just for general information, only creative commons images without the restrictions no-derivative or non-commercial are allowed on wikipedia (and Commons). Garion96 (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It is absolutely unethical to upload a picture from flickr without asking the user permission. Additionally, this photo has not be verified. There are loads of photos, as we all know on flickr that were uploaded and are not fair use or CC at all. It's one thing to upload information that is verified as legitimate on wikicommons, it's another intirely to mine photos and uploading them willy nilly. I disagree with the decision, and protest the speedy deletion of a photo that does meet criteria without adequate discussion. Nightngle (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Unethical?? The default setting when you upload images to flickr is all rights reserved. You have to chose to release your photo on a creative commons license. So no, it is not even remotely unethical. After all, that is the whole idea behind free content. Telling them that you uploaded their image to wikipedia should be done. Not out of an obligation, but simple politeness. Regarding false information about the images. Always possible, but this looks legit. The verification on Commons is only to check if the license on the flickr page is correct and if the image is not a blatant copyright violation. Neither of that applies here. Garion96 (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
the photo was obtained by asking permission, and will be confirmed in no time. (Mind meal (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Fixed the first paragraph[edit]

Hi, don't know if I need to explain my edit, but here goes (new to Wiki):

I think we need to have a few sentences right in the beginning so people coming here can get a sense of who Nhat Hanh is without stumbling across obscure terms like Shakyamuni and Engaged Buddhism. Look at the entry for Dalai Lama and you will see what I mean. The important pieces are written further down the page (famous, teaches Buddhism to westerners in a simple, non cultural way, peace activist, Nobel prize nomination, etc). We should put some of this up front even at the risk of repeating it. My hope is someone will come to this page and be able to know who he is right away, even if they know nothing about Buddhism (or Shakyamuni and Engaged Buddhism, etc). Thank you for all the great work done on this page). BTW, I am Order member, lived with his monks at Plum village, etc.

I put this sentence later: "He joined a Zen monastery at the age of 16..."

This doesn’t seem useful to the general public so I put it later also: "He coined the term Engaged Buddhism ..." Unfortunately the article on Engaged Buddhism needs a lot of work.

I removed “expatriate” to make this more readable to a general audience. I don’t think it adds anything – the article says later he lives in France so this is obvious.MasonPlum (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixing broken link[edit]

The reference to the page on the BBC website is broken, probably due to a reorganisation of that website.

I did a search and found the following, which may be the original page moved.

I'd make the change myself, but don't consider myself sufficiently familiar with the ways of wikipedia.

Jfine032 (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing "see also" link to one student[edit]

I removed the "see also" link to Caitriona Reed since this is only one of many Dharma teachers ordained by Thich Nhat Hanh, and I don't think it expands knowledge of the article. Perhaps a category of "Notable Students of Thich Nhat Hanh" would be better if linking to articles about those students is desired. (this list would include Natalie Goldberg, Joanna Macy, Joan Halifax, etc.) Nightngle (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well then include them, also. There is no law that says, "Thou shalt not have a see also section." I'll be putting it back in when I get around to it. It certainly does not "detract" from the article. This is not "Your" article. You do not own it. Please remember this. (Mind meal (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC))
And please remember that you don't own it either. To the topic, personally, I think that other of TNH's teachers are far more well known than Caitriona Reed. It's great that she has a practice center, as do many other of TNH's students, but I don't see adding her article to the "see also" area enhances the main article. I just don't think it makes sense to have a long "see also" list of TNH's students. In fact, the peer review recommended that the links lists be shortened, not lengthened. I didn't say that the link detracted, I just don't see how it's in keeping with the over-all philosophy of Wikipedia, when it is repeated over and over that articles are not lists of links, but should be substantive information that adds to the readers knowledge of the subject. An addition to the article of notable students of TNH would be more appropriate. Nightngle (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd actually agree with a notable students section. So make it happen. (Mind meal (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC))
Done - let me know what you think Nightngle (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

WIKI Buddhist "project"[edit]

Hi, I was wondering why this article wasn't part of the WIKI "Part of a series on Buddhism". It seems a pretty integrated set of articles and I was wounding why Nhat Hanh was not part of it? An oversight, or deliberate. I would add the template myself but don't know how; plus wasn't sure if this was deliberate. Anyone know? Maras brother Ted (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean - the portal icon is in the info box, and the Buddhism project information is at the end of the article. If you mean the huge information box that many articles have, I think that when an article about a person has an info box, the large box is distracting visually, and the smaller one at the end of the article is better for helping people find more information. If this isn't what you're talking about, feel free to clarify further and we'll see if we can find the answers. Nightngle (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, nightngle. It was that box that I meant - guess I don't find it a distraction and feel its makes some sense as everything in Buddhism is related and that for those coming to the subject form any one of its areas it gives them some "guidance" to explore. However, I'm not an editor on this article and as people have obviously done such a good job I wont labour the point. And thanks for your reply. Maras brother Ted (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree about the distracting nature of the large box, and I've removed it from many articles in the past. I think the {{buddhism2}} template is sufficient enough. I used to see stubs with just a blurb about the individual or subject, and then this huge buddhism box that spanned the entire page; it looked downright unprofessional. (Mind meal (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

GA review[edit]

Hello. I'll be doing the GA review for this article. Here are some things to fix before the article can be promoted:

  • Full dates should be linked. For example: January 25, 1967 is not linked in the lead.
  • The lead should be fully sourced or not at all. There are some statements that could use a ref right now. EX: His main goal of those travels, however, was to urge the U.S. government to withdraw from Vietnam. He urged Martin Luther King, Jr. to oppose the Vietnam War publicly, and spoke with many people and groups about peace.
  • One of the best known Buddhist teachers in the West, - according to who? see WP:PEACOCK
  • Refs should be at the end of sentences or behind punctuation.
  • Thich Nhat Hanh has become an important influence in the development of Western Buddhism. - important? WP:PEACOCK
  • "It is time for North and South Vietnam to find a way to stop the war and help all Vietnamese people live peacefully and with mutual respect." - quotes need refs, unless the ref is the one at the end of the paragraph.
  • It might be a good idea to combine some of the smaller paragraphs in the During the Vietnam War section.
  • I would try and replace the dead links, or see if they are available on
  • The quotes look out of place to me. Are they all entirely necessary? WikiQuote is for the majority of a person's quotes. It seems like the important ones could be incorporated into the text somehow.
  • The references needs to be formatted with Template:cite web, including the last accessdate.
  • Some of the books in the Bibliography and further reading don't have isbn numbers. Is this because they don't have them? They also need their authors listed. See Template:cite book.
  • Some of the external links may be inappropriate. See WP:EL on what should and what should not be included in the external links.

The article will be on hold for one week for improvements. After the week is up, I'll reassess the article and decide whether I will pass or fail it. Good luck! Nikki311 20:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The week will be up soon, but I'm failing the article due to lack of progress. Good luck with improving the article in the future! Nikki311 03:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, the person who nominated this article did not follow through. I've done a great deal of work on this article, but had not requested a nomination for GA or FA status because I was aware of some of these issues but have been swamped with other things and have been unable to make these corrections. When I find the time, I'll make the above corrections and request the nomination again. Seems like the person who nominates an article should be prepared to make any changes required rather than just tossing in the article's name, then disappearing. Oh well, such is life. Thanks for your time and the suggestions you've made, Nikki, this will be a good to-do list for me - I appreciate it! Nightngle (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Nikki311 wrote: "*Some of the books in the Bibliography and further reading don't have isbn numbers. Is this because they don't have them? They also need their authors listed. See Template:cite book."
-- Per Wikipedia:CITE#FULL (guideline):
"All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used. Full citations must contain enough information for other editors to identify the specific published work you used.
Full citations for books typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, the date of publication, and page numbers. The name of the publisher, city of publication, and ISBN are optional, although publisher is generally required for featured articles."
-- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

response to GA review: "well known"[edit]

"One of the best known Buddhist teachers in the West" - according to who? see WP:PEACOCK


  • BBC - "Thich Nhat Hanh is a world renowned Zen master, writer, poet, scholar, and peacemaker. With the exception of the Dalai Lama, he is today's best known Buddhist teacher." - -
  • TIME Magazine / - "One of the most important religious thinkers and activists of our time, Nhat Hanh understood, from his own experience, why popular secular ideologies and movements - nationalism, fascism, communism and colonialism - unleashed the unprecedented violence of the 20th century." ... "Nhat Hanh, now 80 years old and living in a monastery in France, has played an important role in the transmission of an Asian spiritual tradition to the modern, largely secular West." -,9171,1555013,00.html -

-- **Could someone familar with the editing style of this article please add these refs (or quotes if desired)?** Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Done Tadeusz Dudkowski (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


I would say this article needs a great more references - and not just back to Nhat Hahn's own writings. This feels like a hageography. I have tried to even out the prose a bit and improve the punctuation but it still needs much work, I'd say, to take it out of the register of Nhat Hanh's own promotional material. Spanglej (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Of the 36 citations, 14 of them are from websites relating to TNH and his organizations, which is 38%. However, many of those references are backed up with external citations as well. It's very difficult to get external references for biography articles for living people, especially, so I really don't think that the number is high - it's not objective. Nightngle (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of the refs are from pieces written by his students and colleagues, like sister Annabel, which is not objective or useful, for an encyclopedia. The details of the refs given are patchy and non specific.Spanglej (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You probably should do the count yourself - when you do, you'll see that I counted the Deer Park, Sister Annabel, etc. sources as related to TNH's organization. I don't consider the BBC, Christian Science Monitor, Time, Buddhist Channel News, etc. to be "patchy" - those are very reliable sources. Are you referring to the way the references are cited? I'm not an expert at Wikipedia citations, but they have been reviewed by a number of people who are good at that. Maybe clicking on the resources would help you understand that they are independent information. Again, over 60% of the sources are independent, and that's really not bad for a living person. In checking some other pages, this percentage doesn't seem out of line. Nightngle (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at the task list up top. I'm supposing this list points to why the piece is not catagorised as a "Good Article". "Assure that all citations are correct and consistent.Convert citations to Harvard referencing" it says. You're right, there are some solid sources in there and I'm sure, yes, it is harder to source living people. Six months ago + it seemed that the article was largely written by his students and followers and seemed to regard him as a saint. (I lived in one of his monasteries for a bit and it all sounded very familiar). The language has changed quite a bit since I first saw the article but I suspect the sourcing is the same. That's why it seemed odd to me for an encyclopedic entry to have 40% of the referenced info coming from in and around the person's own organisation. It also cites "blog entry on the Woodmore Village website" as a reference. Is there a Wikip policy on using blogs as refs? But yes, perhaps you're right an we can't improve the referencing any further. I honour all the work you have done on the article. I wasn't meaning to pick holes. Spanglej (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is lack of any information on controversies, of which there are plenty. This article gives the impression that TNH is completely representative of the Vietnamese Buddhist community, which he is not, and those who don't follow him, then to disapprove quite strongly of his unorthodox ideas. He has been involved in many disputes. eg, in the part in the article about him editing the magazine, what was omitted, was that the higher-ranking monks shut down the magazine because of his idiosyncratic viewpoints permeating its contents. I'm working on expanding it. Yes, also the long list of temples and famous disciples he has is massively undue YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd love to find the references for these controversies, that information should be part of the article. I've looked online, but can't find any articles on what you're discussing. I belong to a Vietnamese Buddhist temple, and the monks and nuns in our order admire TNH, so I've asked them about these controversies but they didn't know about it. Any insight you can provide is very welcome. On the other hand, your opinion that this temples and followers being undue, doesn't make it untrue. Nightngle (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for Nobel prize[edit]

Nobel Institue is in sweden, not Norway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. — goethean 21:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nominate for Wikipedias Best[edit]

This is one of the best articles I have read on Wikipedia. It is so packed full of information. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdgnys (talkcontribs) 22:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


The message at the top of the page says there is an archive of previous discussion. Where is it? I can see no link? Thanks Spanglej (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to know this too. I tried Talk:Thich Nhat Hanh/Archive and Talk:Thich Nhat Hanh/Archive_1 as well as a couple of other alternatives. I may go through the edit history to see if I can locate it, unless someone knows it already. please post if so. Thanks. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the archive went! I created it ages ago, but haven't been around for awhile, so I don't know what happened to it. If you find it, we can re-post it to the page. Thanks for noticing! Nightngle (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Links to archives now added Mcewan (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent TNH crises[edit]

In 2009 - 2010 there have been some problems for TNH's students in Vietnam, at Bat Nha monastery. I am not too clear on them myself, so I don't want to write anything in the article. But I imagine that the contributors to this article must be aware of what is going on? I believe they are worth an update. SOME information can be found at: Nealjking (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I should think there are deep problems at all of TNH's monasteries and through the empire, speaking from personal experience. I can see no news on the and see nothing recent in the media. Spanglej (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the discussion about his Nobel peace prize nomination should be amended to read that he was nominated by Martin Luther King, but it is unknown if he was an actual nominee since Nobel nominations are sealed for 50 years. It is misleading to say he was a nominee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

King nominated THN openly and publicly, which is why King was given a hard time - that is not the prize protocol, nomination is supposed to be secret. Spanglej (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It had already been covered in Vietnamese Wikipedia vi:Vụ_mâu_thuẫn_ở_tu_viện_Bát_Nhã. Google translation might help you a bit in understanding what was happened.--AM (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Which VN Government exiled him?[edit]

"In 1973, the Vietnamese government denied Nhat Hanh permission to return to Vietnam." In 1973, there was the Hanoi-based Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and the Saigon-based Republic of Vietnam. Which government denied him permission to return? And if it was Saigon, why did he not return after the end of the war and reunification? (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Robert Harlen King's book states of 1973: "Then the communist government of North Vietnam seized control of South Vietnam, it made clear that there would be no further role for the Buddhists in the the rebuilding of their country. Nhat Hanh was refused permission even to enter Vietnam." But the war continued after the Paris Peace Accords in 1973 and Saigon didn't fall until 1975. There was no united Vietnamese government until July 1976 when North and South Vietnam were merged to form the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. There is no decent biography out to check exactly who said what the whom. Span (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I think your edit of that sentence is a good compromise. The lead however still says "Vietnamese government". Would we be justified in changing that to "communist authorities" on the basis of King's book? Mcewan (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
It still seems pretty muddy to me, but we could go with that on the basis of the King source. I imagine there will be a posthumous full non-hagiographic biog. Span (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Just found this The Life of a "Lazy Monk" by Arnie Kotler. Not sure about reliability, but it includes this

"In 1966, Thich Nhat Hanh was invited to the U.S. to lead a symposium on Vietnamese Buddhism at Cornell University and also to convey to Americans the suffering of the Vietnamese peasants caused by the war. When he called for a unilateral ceasefire and withdrawal of U.S. troops, he was denounced by the South Vietnamese government and was unable to return home."

So as you say, it's muddy and perhaps best left alone for now. Mcewan (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I am wondering to myself if there is any solid primary evidence that he was exiled at all. Lol. Span (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

peacekeeper quote[edit]

Hey, I'm trying to locate something Thich Nhat Hanh said awhile back about the tricky role of peacemaker/peacekeeper, about getting caught in the middle and/or getting heat from both sides if the mediation doesn't go well. Can anyone help locate this? I've tried various Google searches and come up short. Thanks. (By the way, I think it would make a great addition to the article). El duderino (abides) 07:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


The info box says that TNH is "42nd generation Lam Te". The article "Thiền tông" in the Vietnamese Wikipedia [1] says "Thiền sư Nguyên Thiều (zh. 元韶, 1648-1728, pháp hệ thứ 33)" -- Nguyen Thieu, the founder of Lam Te in Vietnam was of the 33rd generation. How does the counting go if there were 9 generations between Nguyen Thieu and TNH (Tu Dung, Lieu Quan, Luu Quang, Chieu Nhien, Pho Tinh, Nhat Dinh, Cuong Ky, Thich Tue Minh, Thich Chan That)? Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It gets even stranger, here he becomes the 44th in the lineage: -- (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
An excellently researched paper on the lineage of Thich Nhat Hanh can be found on the Order of Interbeing site. If read thoroughly, it indicates that TNH is 42nd generation of the Linji Dhyana School and the 8th generation of the Lieu Quan Dharma Line: Kenleyneufeld (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
This is just POV, like a lot in this entry. It is a machine typed document that does not proof anything except that TNH can't count right (see above). It is not "excellently researched" at all but obviously set up by Plum Village or TNH. --Otaku00 (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thich Nhat Hanh[edit]

In January, 1967, Thich Nhat Hanh came to the United States Army Chaplain School at Fort Hamilton, New York. I have a picture of him with two Catholic Chaplains, taken during the week before their class started. I have not seen any references to his having been an Army Chaplain in on-line material. Walter G. Sandell, Jr (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If he did visit the Army Chaplain School that doesn't automatically suggest he was an Army Chaplain, he may just have been visiting. Having looked about, I can see no mention that he took this role. Span (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I have one where TNH at the age of about 30 has full grown hair. -- (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality doubted[edit]

This article is now flagged and its neutrality doubted because a whole section of criticism was deleted. The sources given are published and reliable. Here is the deleted part, I will now put it back and see what explanations are given for its repeated deletion (which is to be expected):

"==Criticism== Professor Charles Prebish doubted Thich Nhat Hanh's lineage: "(...) from whom did he himself receive this direct transmission? After all, Thich Nhat Hanh was not a Ch'an master in Vietnam."[1] A CIA-document from the Vietnam war calls TNH a "brain truster" of Thich Tri Quang and a group of "radical Buddhists" who "seem at times to play right into the hands of the Vietcong".[2] According to trade register excerpt HRB 20905, AG Dortmund Nhat Hanh under his civil name Xuan Bao Nguyen is co-owner of "EIAB"[3] in the German town Waldbröl, with a deposit of 10.000 Euro and thus violating his own (and vinaya) precepts which forbid monks to invest in real estate.[4] Otaku00 (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason this keeps being removed and you keep being warned about original research is because it is original research. You are taking online documents and extrapolating for yourself that this must mean Thich Nhat Hanh doesn't have appropriate lineage. Wikipedia is about what is documented not what editors personally feel. Please stop adding your personal interpretations to articles. Helpsome (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
You again mix two things up. I am NOT the one talking about "lineage", it is Professor Charles Prebish, and I cited a reliable and published source for that. It is therefore NOT original research. It is the opinion of an expert in religious studies. Please do not further denounce academic work! You are obviously censoring here. Furthermore, the criticism consisted of three parts, and you have only given an (unconvincing) argument for the deletion of one part. Where are the other explanations? Otaku00 (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
You have one partial sentence from a book which says "Thich Nhat Hanh was not a Ch'an master in Vietnam" and then you have original research about other claims. Unless you have a third party source which claims these are controversial, you are using original research to create "controversy". Helpsome (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
1) Prebish quote. Let's first treat that one separately from the other two inputs: There are actually two (partial) sentences, and if you like to read more, the source is given. So why do you delete those?
An excellently researched paper on the lineage of Thich Nhat Hanh can be found on the Order of Interbeing site. If read thoroughly, it indicates that TNH is 42nd generation of the Linji Dhyana School and the 8th generation of the Lieu Quan Dharma Line: Kenleyneufeld (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

2) Why do you think I "create controversy"? Is this an official Wiki-term or do you derive it from your religion? I quote facts. If you see controversy there, it is in your own eyes. The "third party" resource was given, it is TNHs own rules quoted from his own book. How can a quote from the portrayed person of the article be "original research"? It is just part of his biography, of the things he has done and said.

3) The fact that TNH is co-owner of EIAB ist not original research because it is just given as an additional fact of his life, without any connection (a+b=c). Please review my exact wording, I have put much work in it to avoid "controversy" claims. If any other fact of his life is welcome, why do you delete this one?Otaku00 (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I will answer in order.
1) One person's comment does not a "controversy" make.
2) You took Hanh's rules and interpreted them yourself to say something that source isn't saying at all.
3) The fact that TNH is a co-owner of EIAB is original research because you aren't quoting an article that says this but stating it as a fact as if that in itself means something. It doesn't. Then you go further and use this "fact" to claim he is violating his vows. That, again, is original research. Helpsome (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry, you are referring to an old discussion. Once again, I do not claim that TNH is violating his vows, I have changed my wording. Of course ownership means ownership. Therefore see my suggestions and please look at my wording exactly:

1) You did not give sufficient reasoning for the deletion of the Prebish quote. I will therefore put it in again. 2) You did not give sufficient reasoning for the deletion of the CIA-quote. I will therefore put it in again.

There will be no comment or conclusion, just the facts from those texts, as before. Therefore they are NOT "OR". They are put in a "criticism" section so that they are not directly linked to any other statement, but labelled as criticism because they obviously are not in the tone of the rest of the article.

These are biographical facts from primary sources which directly, by mentioning his name, relate to the topic of this article: Thich Nhat Hanh. This is in accord with Wiki-rules.

3) Regarding ownership of EIAB, there will be just the fact. I delete this part of the sentence: "and thus violating his own (and vinaya) precepts which forbid monks to invest in real estate." If you still do not accept the reference to his ownership, I suggest that you delete just that part of the criticism. I would accept that as a compromise.

I think we have exchanged arguments enough, and in the case of a further deletion by you, I will hopefully find help on the noticeboard now. Otaku00 (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

1) Again, one person's passing comment is NOT "a controversy".
2) Again, unless a third party mentions the CIA document and how that would even matter, it is YOUR intepretation and therefore it isn't a legitimate controversy and it is original research.
3) EIAB isn't controversial so it doesn't belong in a "controversy" section. None of this stuff does. You are manufacturing controversy because you don't like TNH. Helpsome (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
1) No, it is a "criticism". 2) The CIA-document is a primary source, an eye witness report. I do not interpret it, I quoted from it, TNH is mentioned in it, and TNH is the subject of this article. 3) If owhership of a monk - who common knowledge says has to be without property - is not controversial for you, it is still a biographical fact. You could shift it to the section about his life, as any other detail mentioned there. By the way, EIAB was discussed controversially in Germany because it is set in a former military building. You could google the German press for it, I am just mentioning this for your information.

Finally, your remark is "ad hominem" and not welcome on Wikipedia. You are wrong, I like Thich Nhat Hanh. I have to report this now. Otaku00 (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Due to the repeated deletion of this text I have asked for dispute resolution on the noticeboard. Otaku00 (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

1) No, it is one person making a passing comment. To create a "controversy" section just to add it is WP:UNDUE.
2) At least you are finally admitting it is a WP:PRIMARY source. As per policy, primary sources should rarely be used and only if a reliable secondary source validates the interpretation. You don't have this.
2) A monk owning something is only "controversial" is reliable sources state it is such. Your view that it is isn't good enough. Helpsome (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Real (civil) name[edit]

Why have you deleted Thich Nhat Hanh's real civil name on the top of the page, Helpsome? It is Nguyen Xuan Bao (Nguyễn Xuân Bảo). I put it in again, in the Vietnamese transcription. Thich Nhat Hanh is only a pseudonym, this name is not used in official documents, but his real civil name is the valid one in his passport. Otaku00 (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Thích Nhất Hạnh. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External Links - Magnolia Grove[edit]

Under External Links, I see that someone changed the description of Magnolia Grove to state that it is near Memphis, TN. What was the reason for this? Why not state where the monastery is actually located? That monastery is approx 1 hour drive from Memphis. Dogscatsbirds (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Vague statement.[edit]

"he also refrains from animal product consumption". This could mean almost anything. "Refrain" includes the connotation "try to avoid", and the phrase "animal products" means different things to different people. In the Oprah interview cited, he says that as well as being vegetarian (strictly meat-free), he also eats no eggs nor dairy products, so the article should clearly state that he is a vegan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

As the vegan article notes, "Veganism is both the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals." It is more than a diet. Unless Thich Nhat Hanh himself declares that he is vegan, the article shouldn't label him one. Dharmalion76 (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

That would be capital-V "Veganism", the philosophy, not the lower-case "vegan diet", but if people have a problem with that, then the article should clearly state that he does not eat meat, eggs, nor dairy products. And as I pointed out, the word "refrain" is weak, and a person could refrain from eating meat, yet occasionally eat meat at a restaurant if there were nothing meatless on the menu, whereas a person who clearly does not eat meat would never make an exception. The statement is poorly worded, which is the norm for wikipedia, but I won't bother to fix it because some territorial buffoon will revert it back to the current unsatisfactory version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Prebish/Tanaka: The Faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley 1998. p. 309, footnote 9.
  2. ^ [2] The Vietnam Center and Archive: "Situation Appraisal of Buddhism as a Political Force During Current Election Period Extending through September 1967"
  3. ^ [3] European Institute of Applied Buddhism
  4. ^ Rule 11 of Patimokkha states: "A bhikshu who lends money with interest, invests money, buys and sells stocks or shares, invests in land or real estate, or plays the lottery, commits an offense which involves Release and Expression of Regret." (Thich Nhat Hanh, Freedom Wherever We Go: A Buddhist Monastic Code for the 21st Century, Parallax Press, 2004).