Talk:Nhat Hanh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Nhat Hanh was a nominee for good article, 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.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
User:Nightngle
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
To-do list for Nhat Hanh: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:


    • Add a section on TNH's teachings, emphasizing the impact of his teachings on Western Buddhism
    • Assure that all citations are correct and consistent
    • Convert citations to Harvard referencing
    • Refine the writing so that the prose is "compelling, even brilliant"
    • Make an audio recording of the aricle

    This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nhat Hanh article.
    Article policies
    Archives: 1, 2


    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 This page has been archived.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.

    Contents

    [edit] What's in a name?

    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)

    [edit] Could we have a better quote?

    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. 71.161.218.208 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)

    [edit] Portrait used for the article

    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))

    [edit] Fixed the first paragraph

    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)

    [edit] Fixing broken link

    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.

       http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/people/thichnhathanh.shtml

    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)

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

    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)

    [edit] WIKI Buddhist "project"

    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))

    [edit] GA review

    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 archive.org
    • 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)

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

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

    Refs:

    • 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." - http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/people/thichnhathanh.shtml -
    • TIME Magazine / time.com - "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." - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555013,00.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)