Talk:Zhi Gang Sha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Date of Birth (Age)[edit]

I have made an inquiry as to the date and location of Dr. Sha's birth from the Institute of SMBM. The answer I got back was that in Eastern cultures it is very disrespectful to ask or reveal a spiritual master's age or date of birth and none will be disclosed. This information might from obtained from public records. Stillwaterising (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

He was born in 1956 according to His age is important considering all of his teachings on rejuvenation and creating longevity. Realservant (talk) 2 November 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 05:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

so I checked with Sarlo for his source and we'll have to laugh at the obvious answer! :-) ...his birthdate is right on his web site biography - just google "zhi gang sha 1956"Realservant (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What Category?[edit]

In trying to find this author's books in the book store I realized there were many different categories they could fit. In Wikipedia also there's more than one category this bio could fit under. For now Chinese physicians, and Chinese author, seem appropriate while Chinese singer, Chinese Canadian, New Thought writers, and others could be added. Stillwaterising (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Avoid Peacock Terms[edit]

In accordance to Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms terms like "world-renowned" will be removed. Stillwaterising (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Added Section Cleanup template for Sha Research Foundation[edit]

This newly added section does not meet the Wikipedia's quality standards in my opinion. Explanation needs to be more concise without unneeded data. Can be removed after revision. - Technophant (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Agreed...I see it someone has addressed itRealservant (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

PBS documentary claims[edit]

This article claims that he appeared in two documentaries which aired on PBS. I have several concerns about this:

1. The first documentary, "Qigong: Ancient Chinese Healing for the 21st Century" is unknown to This doesn't bode well for it being actually notable in any way.

2. The first documentary, though, is known to Yahoo movies. But Zhi Gang Sha is not mentioned in the credits there.

3. The second documentary, "Power Healing with Master Sha" is also unknown to imdb. I did find a press release from Zhi Gang Sha which says that it aired "nationwide", but I see no independent verification of that claim anywhere.

4. Yahoo movies doesn't know this one either.

Based on all of this, I feel that this information is not very well confirmed at all, and even moreso, the notability is very much in doubt. I am therefore removing this sentence pending further verification from someone, particularly of the notability (a review in a reputable publication, for example).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

General doubts[edit]

A great deal of the information here is only referenced to his website. I believe that once we remove that, there is very little here to establish notability. One might suppose that the bestselling books would establish notability, but unless there are widespread reviews of the sort one might expect of a true bestseller, it is perhaps more likely that the coordinated book buying campaigns outlined here don't actually do what might be hoped in terms of bringing the books to the attention of the press and general book buying public.

I intend to continue slowly working away on trying to confirm information in this article, but I suspect that most of it is just going to go away. If that happens, then I may proposed the article for deletion. A single Wired news item isn't really enough to establish notability.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

So here's where my thinking is now. First, I'm going to start slowing removing material that involves claims to fact but which are sourced only to his website. I don't consider that information reliable enough such that I feel comfortable on us reporting on it. For some information about his beliefs, that can be documented from his website, since he says things there. For other information, it might be possible to say that he "claims that..." but that seems needlessly combative and negative-sounding if it is about random biographical claims... better to leave it out than include it with unwarranted skepticism, I think.

My biggest issue is that outside of the single item in Wired News, there are basically very few sources here that aren't either his own website or links to archives of best seller lists, etc. This article seems contrived to make him seem much more notable than he apparently is.

I'm going slow here rather than following my first instinct to simply take a chainsaw to the whole thing, in the hopes that someone will turn up to help me who knows more about the subject.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

26 July, I took it to AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhi Gang Sha. It was fixed up - stubbed, and refs added - and I withdrew the nom.  Chzz  ►  06:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)