Talk:Cheri Huber

message: I am really curious about the references to Cheri being controversial. I'd love to see some kind of documentation proof and citation. I have never heard of her being controversial among Zen practitioners. --CH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.34.0 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's so controversial about Cheri?

message: The first paragraph and this article seems to be rewritten from time to time by partisans of Ms. Huber. To state her refusal to name her teachers is of little consequence is to misstate the facts. Whether she is a good spiritual guide or not, Ms. Huber's refusal to name her teacher or teachers puts her at the edge of the Zen world. James Ford's "Zen Master Who?" discusses the matter of self-declared teachers within western Zen and why they should be approached with caution.
I also deleted the assertion she studied briefly with the late Jay DuPont. If there is some way to corroborate this it should be reinserted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ordinarydharma (talk • contribs) 16:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard from others that Cheri Huber studied for a year or two with Jay DuPont. From the same sources I understand he did not give her permission to teach. But this never raises above Zen student gossip. I've not read this anywhere. I've done standard web searches and there's barely anything about Jay DuPont and nothing that actually connects him to Huber. DuPont himself appears to be one of several people who have claimed to receive their authorization as teachers from Nyogen Senzaki. I have read most everything by Senzaki in print, and nowhere does he mention a Dharma successor. At best this all seems to be very fringe stuff for Zen which desipte, as the previous editor notes, the repeated assertions to the contrary by some contributors to this article, does indeed make a big deal about who gave whom permission to teach. The question of authority in Zen is explored in the Wikipedia article on Zen Buddhism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenstudent (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The question of who studied with whom etc is not an appropriate question to be discussed here. The above comments about "partisans" "gossip", "corroboration" and "authority" are not particularly helpful and are taking things in an unsavory direction. I hope we can please end any further discussion along these lines. Please be conscious that one cannot draw conclusions from an absence of found information. Others may know more. Not to say however that it should ever appear here. I have removed all such materials from the article itself. L -- edited on 11/3/06. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.91.183 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ignoring the question of authority for someone who claims to be a Zen teacher is not a solution to controversy. Please note the section on "teachers" in the Zen section of the Wikipedia article, John McRae's "Seeing Through Zen" and James Ford's "Zen Master Who?" As long as Cheri Huber asserts she is a Zen teacher but refuses to name the teacher who authorized her as one there is an important question as to whether she's simply a "self-declared Zen teacher." When references to this question are deleted from the article, it creates a defacto POV. And that is what the previous editor has done.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenstudent (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the "neutrality" tag. It's not "neutral" to kick off an article with a negative about its subject. The way that this can be approached is to have a (short) section about this issue, appropriately sourced. If there are no reputable sources on this score, we must remain silent about it. We should not allow Wikipedia to be a battleground for doctrinal squabbles, however important they seem to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reverse Gear (talk • contribs) 09:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New section

message: I am absolutely tickled to see open dissent--real dialog--in a discussion here. I can see there are many passionate, thoughtful people who don't see eye to eye. Fabulous! I propose we trust the process--and the spirit--of Wikipedia to hear many points of view. In fact the discussion pages are just the place for that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.32.238 (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  imagine--open dialog! 

message: Can someone who is editing/monitoring this page please expand on Cheri's notability for inclusion?  The page reads as if written by a press agent and/or Cheri herself, filled with self-promotion-type language. Of course, I could have the only opinion regarding this, in which case I will withdraw my request.  In the meanwhile, thanks for looking into the possibility. Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability, please? 

message: Thank goodness for some sense in the last 3 entries here. Yes this is not " a battleground for doctrinal squabbles." Just the facts. But let me put in some comments about the issues brought up here.
Why is there a Cheri Huber entry here? Sadly if you read the very first wikipedia entry you will find it totally offensive. This person has no knowledge of Ms Huber at all except for the reaction Ms Huber has elicited in him/her. It's all a projection...since then it's been an uphill battle by various persons just to write something decent and correct which quickly ran into detractors. So I don't think there should be an entry on Ms Huber at all. There should never have been one. If someone here has time can they please petition to delete Ms Huber's entry? I think it would be best since there isn't anything new which anyone can't find by just googling her and this will distance her from the "doctrinal squabble" here which has nothing to do with her.
Let me say that Ms Huber is definitely notable for a wikipedia entry but the current article is certainly is not worth keeping. However it would take someone a good effort to write an article that does justice to her. On top of that with the guidelines of being able to reliably source information as well as detractors it will almost certainly get shot down right away. Most of the most interesting and insightful information just isn't in the public domain. The fact that the mention of Ms Huber in this discussion page has elicited some strong opinions gives some idea that she is a force to be reckoned with.
So unless someone writes something good I think deletion is a good idea
U233 (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete?

message: James Ishmael Ford has written in his book Zen Master Who? that Huber falls into a category of teachers that has declared themselves to be an authority on Zen. While he says she may have studied under Jay DuPont, there is no documentation that he had ever given her authority to teach. Furthermore, his own authority is questionable. This is a reliable reference that needs to be included in the article. Ninety-nine percent of Zen teachers in America have a clear lineage that they speak openly about in interviews, but Huber's lineage is unclear and confusing. For those who know her, I would recommend to her that she speak to future interviewers about her lineage; specifically, who gave her authorization to teach. Because in Zen transmission is integral to having authority in the teaching arena, this information is relevant and shall be included. I removed many of the projects she has worked on or plans to work on in the article because these were referenced on her own website, which is a self-published source. Such mentions violate WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability. (Mind meal (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You said, "Also I don't think he is a reliable reference at all since all he has to say is "may have". Totally non-committal." The irony is that his statement is the most clear out there to ever be published. That says something. Just my opinion here, also. Yes, it does bother me that someone who has no lineage calls themselves a Zen teacher. It is like someone waking up and deciding they are a Catholic priest because they say so. I care very much about the credentials of a teacher! Just as I care that my doctor has a license. Just as I care that the police officer isn't someone pretending to be a police officer. The biography should not be deleted because notability has been established and supplemented with verifiable sources. The arguments you state are those typical of individuals who care not to discuss such matters. Those without legitimate teaching authority typically like to make a game out of criticisms. They ask, "Why the obsession with authority?" They assert, "...she has her own take on zen, but this sure don't mean it ain't zen." They may even say, "This is America. Land of spiritual freedom." This isn't about freedom of religion or spirituality. this is about Zen being a school of Buddhism. It isn't some new age spiritual movement people just invent. There are no self-declared teachers. It is, in my opinion, dishonest to use a time-tested term like Zen by adding it to one's "teaching credentials" without any authority to do so. If Cheri is not obsessed with authority herself, perhaps she could drop the word Zen from her books. Because, in so doing, she evokes the ancient authority we know as Zen Buddhism—and, it appears to be done without ever having been given transmission or even teaching authority. I'm just going off of what others have written on her. In terms of a biography, there isn't much there. That is probably because she doesn't do much self disclosure. (Mind meal (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Authority to teach