Talk:Hòa Hảo
Latest comment: 2 months ago by 103.219.21.33 in topic Is this propaganda?
 | Hòa Hảo (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 29 January 2022 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | Hòa Hảo was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 29, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
Han Tu
editAre there han tu for this? Is it 和好教? Badagnani 01:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Removed link: * Web site of the Hao Hao ancestral temple
the site has been deleted.
Move discussion in progress
editThere is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cao Dai which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Copyvio
editMost of the non-wiki'd text is a copyvio from several sources, copied word for word. Secretlondon (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
edit Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30171434 https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.4159/harvard.9780674433700.c13/pdfhttps://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA80757463&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=10358811&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7E111321f2. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Secretlondon (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Religion or sect
editWithin the text, I believe there should be a consistent designation for this group. I've struggled to come up with a single label because the sources disagree on the nature of the Hòa Hảo. Are they a syncretistic religion or a sect? --► Sincerely: Solavirum 20:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Follow what the reliable sources say, per WP:STICKTOSOURCE.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Farang Rak Tham, the problem stems from there. I could not find a scholarly consensus about it, some call it a sect, others call it a religion. I could form a standard based upon Google (Hoa Hao religion, 464,000; Hoa Hao sect 185,000,) or Google Scholar results (Hoa Hao religion, 4,630; Hoa Hao sect, 11,500), but I don't know how okay that would be. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 08:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Britannica says its an NRM. Maybe basing the "religion version" on a third-party source (i.e. Britannica, an encyclopedia) is better than trying to count down the numbers of second-party sources. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 08:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Solavirum, both methods would be acceptable following Wikipedia standards, but i'd prefer the method with counting hits on Google Scholar.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Britannica says its an NRM. Maybe basing the "religion version" on a third-party source (i.e. Britannica, an encyclopedia) is better than trying to count down the numbers of second-party sources. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 08:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Farang Rak Tham, the problem stems from there. I could not find a scholarly consensus about it, some call it a sect, others call it a religion. I could form a standard based upon Google (Hoa Hao religion, 464,000; Hoa Hao sect 185,000,) or Google Scholar results (Hoa Hao religion, 4,630; Hoa Hao sect, 11,500), but I don't know how okay that would be. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 08:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
GA Review
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Hòa Hảo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 21:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Overview
edit- I'll take this on for review as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Good_articles/GAN_Backlog_Drives/January_2022. I'm interested to find out more about Hòa Hảo, which I know very little about. Comments coming in the next few days, which should fit well because the nominator Solavirum said on their talkpage "5–28 January, winter exam session in my university. Very unlikely to respond during this period". I note also that there is an open peer review request at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hòa Hảo/archive1 - open since January 2 and with no replies so there shouldn't be much of a clash. Mujinga (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Mujinga, thank you for taking the time to review this. I wrote it from scratch; I did paraphrase a lot, though I requested a CE just to be sure. The CE process is still ongoing, however, I don't believe there are many grammatical and prosaic errors left at this point. I'm able to respond more freely now than I was earlier this month, but of course, take you time. Also, I'm guessing that this is by mistake? --► Sincerely: Solavirum 21:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Solavirum Oh gosh sorry about the weird botfail yes that's an error, I think it's something to do with the diacritics, I haven't even started my review yet. Looking forward! Mujinga (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note that the requested CE is now completed. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 05:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oh that's good timing on the copyedit; i was talking about the peer review request, which should prob be closed per Wikipedia:Peer_review/guidelines#Step_4:_Closing_a_review:
- When can a review be closed?
- If you are the nominator, you can close the review at any time, although this is discouraged if a discussion is still active.
- If the article has become a candidate for good article, featured article or featured list status
- comments should be coming in the next hours Mujinga (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note that the requested CE is now completed. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 05:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Solavirum Oh gosh sorry about the weird botfail yes that's an error, I think it's something to do with the diacritics, I haven't even started my review yet. Looking forward! Mujinga (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Mujinga, thank you for taking the time to review this. I wrote it from scratch; I did paraphrase a lot, though I requested a CE just to be sure. The CE process is still ongoing, however, I don't believe there are many grammatical and prosaic errors left at this point. I'm able to respond more freely now than I was earlier this month, but of course, take you time. Also, I'm guessing that this is by mistake? --► Sincerely: Solavirum 21:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Progress
editGood Article review progress box
|
Copyvio check
edit- earwig gives 76% clash with https://www.ecoi.net/en/document/2057132.html, can you explain this?
- hmm also a few sentences a bit too close to https://www.rfa.org/english/news/vietnam/hoa-hao-buddhists-in-vietnam-beaten-10072019165527.html
- @Solavirum: can you look into this before we move further into the review? because copyvio is a quickfail. in case you don't know earwig, i am using this to check - https://copyvios.toolforge.org/
- Mujinga, I do remember checking it out before nominating the article. Research Directorate is basically the only thorough source about the contemporary situation of the religion. The source and what I wrote have a lot of quotes that shouldn't use WP:WIKIVOICE, so I just kept them quotes (like "standing up against dictatorship"). I tackled the issues and paraphrased the problematic parts. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 15:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- just checked earwig and it's now giving 0% copyvio across the board, which seems bizarre so I'll wait and check again. as previous talkpage discussions have already made clear, copyvio is a big problem, so i do want to get this sorted before continuing the review Mujinga (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Mujinga, I wholeheartedly understand your stance. I further paraphrased the text, but it still gives 39.8% copyright violation ("Violation Unlikely", per the tool), but the tool's assertion is problematic. It picks up the titles of the sources (i.e. title of the RFA news article, which I can't alter) and out place words (such as the phrase "pure sect"), as well as government agency names which I cannot change (such as "Commission on International Religious Freedom"). --► Sincerely: Solavirum 06:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yup Solavirum today I'm getting 39.8% as well and like you say, titles are fine. I'm glad the rest of the copyvio is gone and we can continue the review. I'm not sure how much time I'll have today but comments will come in the next days. Could you cancel the peer review request as I asked above? You can say the GAR is ongoing, so anyone else who wants to make a comment can do so here as well. Mujinga (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Mujinga, sure, go ahead and take your time, I don't mind. Also, the peer review request is now canceled. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 12:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- just checked earwig and it's now giving 0% copyvio across the board, which seems bizarre so I'll wait and check again. as previous talkpage discussions have already made clear, copyvio is a big problem, so i do want to get this sorted before continuing the review Mujinga (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Mujinga, I do remember checking it out before nominating the article. Research Directorate is basically the only thorough source about the contemporary situation of the religion. The source and what I wrote have a lot of quotes that shouldn't use WP:WIKIVOICE, so I just kept them quotes (like "standing up against dictatorship"). I tackled the issues and paraphrased the problematic parts. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 15:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Prose
edit"The religious movement was named after the founder Huỳnh Phú Sổ's native village of Hoa Hao[1] (Hòa Hảo;[2] Vietnamese: [ɗâːwˀ hwàː hâːw] (audio speaker iconlisten); Chữ Hán: 道和好; literally "peace and plenty"),[15] in what is now An Giang Province's Thốt Nốt District.[16] " please start with "Hòa Hảo is a religious movement" or similar and please say the province is in Vietnam
- "known as Đạo Bửu Sơn Kỳ Hương." could this be translated?
- "He was afflicted by an unknown illness since he was 15, a failed candidate for the Cao Đài." link using and?
- "This prompted him to leave his native village of Hòa Hảo" what prompted him?
- " Sổ founded the religion" prob best to say Sổ founded Hòa Hảo
- On a reference spotcheck, I've found more copyvio with 'The Hoa Hao: A Half-Century of Conflict' by
John B. Haseman:
- You say: Sổ became a wildly popular leader as his faithful group grew in size. His influence quickly expanded beyond religious matters, and he became a powerful figure in lay affairs as well.
- Haseman says: As the religion expanded, Huynh Phu So also became an immensely successful popular leader. His influence soon transcended the purely religious; he became a powerful authority in lay affairs as well.
- You: The Hòa Hảo grew from a purely religious movement to encompass an impressive lay power structure centered on Cần Tho Province.
- Haseman: Beginning as a purely religious movement, the Hoa Hao sect came to encompass an impressive lay power structure centered on the French Can Tho Province.
- You: Sổ's religious prescriptions quickly merged with nationalist, anti-colonial sentiment, and he quickly rose to prominence as a key nationalist figure.
- Haseman: His religious prescriptions rapidly blended with nationalist, anticolonial sentiment, and before long So had emerged as an important nationalist leader
- You: The group grew into the Mekong Delta's most powerful nationalist force, with strong sentiment against the colonial French rulers and the landlords who dominated the agriculture of Cochinchina. The Hòa Hảo played a crucial role in the anti-colonial, nationalist fervor that grew in the years leading up to World War II.
- Haseman: It developed into the foremost nationalist force in the Delta, where feeling against the French colonial rulers and the landlords dominating Cochinchina agriculture ran high [...] The Hoa Hao assumed critical importance in the anticolonial, nationalist fervor that began to mount prior to World War II.
- You: İt ultimately became a homegrown political movement in the region.
- Haseman: To the Hoa Hao, their religion became a home-grown political movement
- Your writing is simply too close to the sources. You are changing words but not rewriting in your own words. I'm sad that you have repeatedly been warned about this but it's not getting through. I'd love this article to be a good article, but it must be written with your own words. To be honest you would probably be better off starting again. So I'm going to quickfail this on copyvio concerns. Mujinga (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
No prejudice against renominating if the article is brought to GA status.
( )
- ... that Hòa Hảo is a folk and one of the major religions in Vietnam? Source: "folk": McAlister, John T. Jr (1969). Vietnam, The Origins of Revolution. New York City: Alfred A. Knopf for the Center of International Studies, Prince University. LCCN 69010690, page 95; major religion (fourth largest): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/831143/VNM_FFM.pdf
- ALT1: ... that Hòa Hảo is a folk religion and one of the major faiths in Vietnam?
- Comment: article size expanded nine times by me.
Created by Solavirum (talk). Self-nominated at 13:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC).
- Comment - Hook doesn't make sense " that Hòa Hảo is a folk and ...". Something needs adding - various choices in para 1. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
This is a very interesting article but unfortunately it doesn't look like it meets the DYK criteria. Most of the expansion was in December, and only minor edits were made in the 7 days prior to nomination. In fact, there's only minor edits throughout January, so I don't think there's any way to fudge the "recent" part of the requirement here. The existing article is also so long and in-depth that I can't imagine it being possible to expand it 5x again to meet requirements. The other problem is the unresolved copyvio/close paraphrasing issues from the closed GA nom, which also disqualify the page from DYK. If it was ever resubmitted for GA and passed, then it would be eligible for DYK again. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I added ALT1 to fix the clarity issues pointed out above, but I think it's a moot point because of the other issues with the nom. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- I understand. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 08:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Is this propaganda?
editThe group is described as a cult and having formed a "private army" to benefit it's leadership. I can't tell if this is propaganda or a joke. 103.219.21.33 (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)