Talk:Hòa Hảo

Han Tu
Are 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
There 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
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * BTPGHH.jpg

Copyvio
Most 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
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
Within 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:  Sola virum  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)
 * , 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:  Sola virum  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:  Sola virum  08:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , 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)