text:
Talk:Guanyin

Opening remarks
Can't we just have a link to Gutenberg instead of copying it here? -- Zoe

gutenburg might not be around forever. if you have a link that dies, what do you do then? i have been using the internet for...over 10 years, and i learned a long time ago not to expect things to be around in one place consistently, certainly not at the exact same link. that is assuming you can find the appropriate footnote when you get to the appropriate link anyway.

We don't normally keep original texts in Wikipedia articles. -- Zoe

fine do whatever you like.

 * It's not keeping an original text Zoe, it's a citation of a footnote out of an entire book. Did you follow the link? --Brion

No, I didn't, Brion, thanks. It just looked like a long paragraph plopped down in the middle of the article. -- Zoe

---

Changed the title to standard romanization. (either pinyin or Wades-Giles use Guan)

 * Are you sure? I have no expertise in these matters myself, but I've only ever seen it written as "Kuan-yin". --Paul A

 * Wade-Giles uses Kuan-Yin, pinyin uses Guanyin. The most common spelling is Kuan-Yin, with its variant of Kwan. I'd honestly keep it to that, just for the sake of immediate readability. -- Hidoshi 18:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Is Kwan-yin the same as Japanese Kannon?

 * Yes. Jpatokal 12:58, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please add
14/11/2009 Mr. Ma's Wife/Fish Basket Kuan Yin

I added the legend of Mr. Ma's Wife/Fish Basket Kuan Yin. Why was this removed? This legend is in fact rather popular in oral traditions and definitely has a basis in written literature. In fact it is even cited in Kuan Yin, the Chinese transformation of Avalokitesvara by Chun-Fang Yu, who painstakingly pored through multiple sources that documents Mr. Ma's wife story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savras (talk • contribs) 15:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

From the footnotes of "A RECORD OF BUDDHISTIC KINGDOMS"

Being an Account by the Chinese Monk Fa-Hien of his Travels in India and Ceylon (A.D. 399-414) in Search of the Buddhist Books of Discipline

Translated and annotated with a Corean recension of the Chinese text

By James Legge http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext00/rbddh10.txt [out of copyright]

---

Guan-Yin does not hold the title of 'Goddess of Mercy' in Chinese. Reverse translate 'The Goddess of Mercy' into Chinese, and no Chinese would know who you are talking about. This title was probably 'created' by an English speaking Christian with no regards for accuracy in translation or other people's beliefs. Christians have justified their view that other religions are false on the basis that they are polytheistic. By claiming that Bhuddists worshipped many gods and goddesses, the Christians could justify to themselves that the Bhuddist 'religion' must be false, and thus should be converted to the 'true' religion. However, Guan-Yin and other figures in Chinese beliefs are not gods or goddesses or deities. Neither are there any inherent gods in Bhuddism. The Chinese figures are based on real flesh-and-blood human beings, and as such they are equivalent to 'saints' in the Christian scheme of terminology (although Christians also say their god became flesh), or martyrs in the communist scheme of terminology.
 * Please see the Cannon company explantion of Kannon/Kwannon/Guan-Yin in the references which refers to Kwannon in this way.--Timtak (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

JC-24 Aug 06 --

 * Kwan-she-yin and the dogmas about him or her are as great a mystery as Manjusri. The Chinese name is a mistranslation of the Sanskrit name Avalokitesvara, "On-looking Sovereign," or even "Onlooking Self-Existent," and means "Regarding or Looking on the sounds of the world" = "Hearer of Prayer." Originally, and still in Tibet, Avalokitesvara had only male attributes, but in China and Japan (Kwannon), this deity (such popularly she is) is represented as a woman, "Kwan-yin, the greatly gentle, with a thousand arms and a thousand eyes;" and has her principal seat in the island of P'oo-t'oo, on the China coast, which is a regular place of pilgrimage. To the worshippers of whom Fa-hien speaks, Kwan-she-yin would only be Avalokitesvara. How he was converted into the "goddess of mercy," and her worship took the place which it now has in China, is a difficult inquiry, which would take much time and space, and not be brought after all, so far as I see, to a satisfactory conclusion. See Eitel's Handbook, pp. 18-20, and his Three Lectures on Buddhism (third edition), pp. 124-131. I was talking on the subject once with an intelligent Chinese gentleman, when he remarked, "Have you not much the same thing in Europe in the worship of Mary?"

Avalokiteshvara
Barring loud objections, I will move this page to its original Sanskrit name Avalokitesvara -- it's the most neutral and accurate way of describing a deity known throughout Asia under an amazing variety of names. Jpatokal 12:58, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * "Developed from Avalokitesvara..." != "...is Avalokitesvara". --Menchi 05:24, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * If they are indeed separate, then they should be on separate pages.  However, I don't really see why they should be separated, because Guan Yin/Kannon is how even Buddhist theologians quite familiar with the origin and meaning of the deity address it.  The page needs a thorough rewrite to describe the historical evolution though...  Jpatokal 06:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Avalokitesvara has now been shunted off into a separate article. The mutual content could use a little more rationalization... Jpatokal 14:33, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Guan Yin and Avalokita
Nice new image, I like it. But what's the point of having separate pages for Avalokita and Guan Yin? - Nat Krause 15:37, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * For the same reason that Yahweh and Allah are separate; the origin may be the same, but Tibetan views of Chenrezig holding a skull while in sexual union with his consort and Chinese Taoists worshopping a white-robed woman are quite far apart in practice... Jpatokal 00:12, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, the Yahweh and Allah articles are mostly about the words Yahweh and Allah. So, if I were king, I would not make Avalokiteṣvara and Guan Yin different articles unless they are mostly discussing etymology.  However, the current set-up is totally fine, especially insofar as Guan Yin has been incorporated into religions other than Buddhism.  I do think the articles should be a little clearer that Guan Yin and Avalokita are basically the same person, because I suspect that most Buddhists think they are; they even talk specifically about her/his ability to manifest in diverse forms. - Nat Krause 04:18, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Samsara
Prat, why "samsara" instead of "(secular) world"? Does 世 gloss as "samsara"? It thought samsara was something like "lianhua". This wouldn't be a problem except that most people who read this probably won't know what "samsara" means. - Nat Krause 11:20, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not familiar with the particular issue here, but I will say that "secular" is, in an encyclopedic context, a purely sociological term, basically meaning "non-religious". -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 00:12, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * I changed it because it made sense. Reasoning was probably: samsara has an article behind it, which means that "most people who read this" can at least click on through and inform themselves.  If we use 'secular world' it might sound to some like it means monks and nuns, which is totally the opposite of Guanyin's popular image (at least in China).  I mean, if you call yourself Buddhist I wouldn't start labelling you as "of the secular world"... just sounds better to me to use samsara and have a link.  Besides, I think Guanyin is probably supposed to listen to all people, secular or otherwise.  Isn't that the whole point of the whole pure land deal? prat 13:36, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

 * Sorry I was very tired and re-read that post. I sound a bit like an asshole.  Oh well.  I think an improvement would be "... who listens"  (without and 'of the...')"  What do you think? prat 23:03, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

 * Well, I've got no idea who included "secular" in there originally, but it seems to me beside the point. We should probably leave it out.  I do think that requiring people to follow a link to understand the definition, especially one in the first line of the article, is not desireable.  I may be missing some context here, but it seems to me that guan means "observe", shi means "world", yin means "sound", and pusa, of course, means "bodhisattva."  Therefore the most straightforward translation would be "the bodhisattva who observes the sounds of the world".  We could make it "... the sounds (of the people in) the world" if that enhances clarity. - Nat Krause 08:58, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The problem may also be influenced by the Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit etymology of Avalokitesvara, but I really don't know what that is; all I can tell you is that it isn't good Sanskrit. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 19:53, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Split out section on Tie-Guan-Yin (tea)?
I notice a couple articles (Oolong, Chiuchow cuisine) are linking here for the section on the tea variety known as tie-Guan-Yin. Is there any objection to spinning off that section as an article? A-giau 19:23, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Good idea. - Nat Krause 03:16, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, done. A-giau 23:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Name of article
Wikipedia's policy is most common name. So we have the following Google hits:

 * "kuan yin" - 78000
 * "kuanyin" - 9660
 * "kwan yin" - 65000
 * "kwanyin" - 6170
 * "guan yin" - 20600
 * "guanyin" - 35100
 * "gwan yin" - 331
 * "gwanyin" - 199

Hence, I am moving this page to Kuan Yin. —Lowellian (talk)  06:14, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * This is faulty logic. First of all searching Google for "Kuan Yin" gives you BOTH "Kuan Yin" and "Kuan-yin."  Second Pinyin Guanyin is a close second place with 565,000 sites. --Naus 19:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Searing google for Kannon, the Japanese name, gives about 789,000 hits, which is more than twice as many as "kuan yin" 331,000. Can I change the article name to Kannon?!--Timtak (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Kannon is a derivative of Guanyin, which is a derivative of Avalokitasvara. Searching for "guanyin" OR "guan yin" OR "kuan yin" OR "kuanyin" yields 4,530,000 so it appears that the Chinese name is most common. I should also mention that non-Pinyin forms of names are basically old and non-standard these days for Chinese. Guanyin is the only spelling of the Chinese name that is both modern and accurate. Tengu800 22:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Chinese characters?
Why are the original Chinese characters removed? Mandel 07:11, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't scroll down. But those characters ought to be shifted up you know. Mandel 07:13, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree and have moved the characters table to the top. —Lowellian (talk) 17:19, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't agree with moving the characters table up. They constitute something of an eyesore right at the beginning of the article, as well as duplicating some of the information provided in the opening paragraphs. There's nothing so important about the characters that they need to appear before the TOC. - Nat Krause 08:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Now there are more than 10 lines of characters with more than five languages. Should I remove those non-Chinese names out? --manop 07:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Why? China doesn't have a monopoly or even first invention rights on Avalokiteshvara, she/he/it is also a big deal in Japan, Korea and Vietnam. Jpatokal 09:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I did, however, take the liberty of removing some duplicate info: chu nom/hanja are the same thing as Chinese characters, nobody uses Korean Wade-Giles, McCune-Reischauer was incorrect. Jpatokal 09:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I had thought adding Thai name(s) (กวนอิม / Kuan Im) there. But it seemed like Wiktionary to me.--manop 19:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article
This comment was in the References section. The point should probably be addressed. --Jake 08:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Kannon and Canon is not accociated with each other AT ALL.Canon is not a religious product. They are pronounced differently too. Canon (like that song by Pachelbel) means "repeat", and the brand Canon means to repeat in life (since it's a camera company).

I agree with Jake's comment. See the image of Kuan Yin in Canon's original logo from the company's official website. Kowloonese 10:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Manifestations
This gets into serious theological hair-splitting, but the basic issue is whether Kuan Yin is considered a 'stand-alone' goddess/boddhisattva, or whether s/he's is considered just one of the many manifestations of Avalokiteshvara. Jpatokal 06:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Even in China, Kuan yin is not always female. There are some category problems here:

The Name
Kuan yin is simply the Chinese for Avalokiteśvara, just as John is the English for Johannes, Ioannes, or Yochanan. In any Buddhist sutra, where the Sanskrit has Avalokiteśvara, the Chinese has either guān yīn or guān shì yīn. When Avalokiteśvara is depicted in male form, in earlier Chinese or other Buddhist traditions, the Chinese name is still guān yīn. The same goes, mutatis mutandis, for Kannon and Kwan Um.

 * How do you get Guan-Yin from Avalokitesvara? 81.151.237.102 (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The Gender
While some depictions of Kuan yin may be clearly feminine, for the most part they are not so much female as androgynous (or perhaps gynandrous) -- in pictures, even very recent ones, of Kuan yin one rarely sees more than a hint of breasts or a feminine shape, and the costume tends to cover the form pretty thoroughly. This follows on a long tradition of East Asian depictions of androgynous bodhisattvas, though only in Kuan yin's case has the matter gone far enough that the bodhisattva is generally perceived to be female. The change is not, however, one of "manifestation" and has little to do with Avalokiteśvara's ability to appear in different forms (something that could be said of many buddhas and bodhisattvas); it's more a question of changes in artistic style, and consequent revisions in popular thinking about the bodhisattva, including the thought that it would be more appropriate to pray to a quasi-maternal figure for children.

Early Tang depictions of Guanyin were however, mainly masculine. While he may seem feminine in most visual depictions, he is in fact still male and can be mainly seen through the exposure of his feet, which is not a proper act for traditional Chinese women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltag06 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The Context
It can also be contended that the character of Kuan yin has, in a way, "jumped the fence" and is no longer a purely Buddhist deity but a fixture in Chinese folk religion. While that is doubtless true, it has little to do with the perceived gender switch and nothing to do with the Chinese name. It is also true of other deities of Buddhist origin. However, it's doubtful that the particularly Chinese developments are such that, from a Chinese point of view, Kuan yin the "goddess" has become a different person from Kuan yin the bodhisattva of the sutras. And some of the most dramatic legendary transformations took place entirely within the Buddhist tradition.

In short, while there are interesting Chinese developments to Avalokiteśvara/Kuan yin, that could justify a separate article, it also seems to me that they could just as well be handled in an article about Avalokiteśvara; it's not as if a legendary figure acquiring local characteristics is anything terribly surprising, and an account of those developments helps in one's understanding of the figure as a whole.RandomCritic 18:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Kuan Yin? Guan Yin?
Why is this article at Kuan Yin? I thought Naming conventions would place it at Guan Yin, unless the Buddhistava has a personal preference for WG spelling? --Sumple (Talk) 11:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 * this issue has already been addressed. Apparently Kuan Yin won much to my dismay. Hanfresco 05:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

 * What you mean the dodgy google poll there? That's full dodgy. --Sumple (Talk) 05:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

 * What naming conventions? My understanding is that "Kuan Yin" is more common, so we should use that. I, personally, prefer Guan Yin as well.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

 * If you check "What links here", the majority of internal links actually point to "Guanyin" or "Guan Yin", not "Kuan Yin" or "Kwan Yin". What evidence is there that "Kuan Yin" is more common, beyond the google poll? Your average non-Chinese person probably haven't heard of either. I would suggest that in an ambiguous case like this, we should use the pinyin transliteration, which is the usual standard. --Sumple (Talk) 03:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't see what's ambiguous about it. We only have one piece of information, the google test, and it indicates that "Kuan Yin" is more common. If we had two contradictory data points, that would be different.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 06:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The contradictory point is the number of internal links to "Guanyin" or "Guan Yin" versus "Kuan Yin" or "Kwan Yin" in Wikipedia. I only called it "ambiguous" to be polite. As far as I have seen, contemporary (academic) works on Buddhist art or Chinese Buddhism almost exclusively use "Guan Yin" or "Guanyin", not "Kuan Yin"; see, for example, (to pull something off the shelf) Jackie, M. (1990), Asian collection: handbook, Art Gallery of New South Wales, Sydney. ISBN 0730574555
 * Here is a recent study of the deity which uses "Guanyin":
 * Karetzky, P. (2003), Guanyin, Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN 0195930886
 * While I have no doubt Kuan Yin is also used quite commonly, a Google hits search is simply not nearly reliable enough to hold such sway.
 * As to your first question, naming conventions as in Naming conventions (Chinese). Names should be transliterated into Pinyin unless (1) there is another name more familiar to English speakers, or (2) the person/group involved is more likely to prefer an alternative romanisation. Now, I would contend that Kuan Yin/Guan Yin is not a term so well-known in English as, say, Sun Yat-Sen, and so does not fall within the first exception. (How many non-Chiense English speakers do you know who would know what Kuan Yin/Guan Yin is?) The second exception is self evident. --Sumple (Talk) 11:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I've been thinking about this for a few days. I was never very happy about the move of this page to Kuan Yin, and I'm not going to object much if someone moves it back. However, I don't think I can really endorse such a move. I like pinyin, but what I really like is Wikipedia's policy of using common names. Now, I agree that a Google search is not very reliable. However, I just don't see any reason here to think that any other information we have on the subject is any more reliable. "As far as I have seen, contemporary (academic) works on Buddhist art or Chinese Buddhism almost exclusively use 'Guan Yin' or 'Guanyin', not 'Kuan Yin'" is probably true, but completely anecdotal. The google test is much-maligned, but I've rarely seen a better alternative.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC) P.S.: As for how many non-Chinese English speakers I know who would know what Kuan Yin/Guan Yin is, I know more than a few of them, thanks. However, they seem to mostly refer to her as either Kannon or Kwan Um. Go figure.

The Google test is quite irrelevant. Older scholarly literature uses Wade-Giles (Kuan-yin, not "Kuan Yin"), modern sources use Pinyin (Guanyin, not "Guan Yin"). I suggest moving the article to Guanyin, in accordance with the naming convention, recent scientific literature, and the Pīnyīn spelling in the Xiàndài Hànyǔ cídiǎn 现代汉语词典 (Shāngwù yìnshūguǎn 商务印书馆 1996), p. 463. —Babelfisch 07:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. Kuan Yin looks awkward too.  And yes, the proper Hanyu Pinyin spelling is Guanyin, not Guan Yin. --Naus 19:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Searching on Google for "Kuan Yin" gives you both "Kuan Yin" and "Kuan-yin." So the search results are inflated. The current spelling of "Kuan Yin" is simply wrong. It's not Wade-Giles. It's simply an ignorant spelling. --Naus 19:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved it to what I could. Going to have to get an admin to change it to Guanyin as it's currently a redirect. Zazaban 22:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I vote for "Guanyin" which is the correct hanyu pinyin (ignoring the absence of tone marks). "Kuan Yin" is not wrong, but increasingly out of date, and causes consistency problems with other romanized Chinese.Dawud (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Now the article doesn't mention "Kuan Yin" or "Kuan-Yin" in the body at all. Perhaps the form(s) should be at least mentioned, since it is still commonish out there, even if it's mostly in older sources... Orbst (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Guanyin is one word
According to Hanyu Pinyin orthography standards, Guanyin is one word, not two as used here. --Naus 09:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, the whole article is a mess. One of the cases where Wikipedia's weaknesses crowd to the fore.

 * Bathrobe (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

An actual template?
I am tempted to replace the woefully-customized html table with Template:Chinese since it can handle all the languages. Will people actually be offended by it since this is a religious symbol across many nations? Benjwong 11:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

 * This is an example of a "no-nonsense" template; the "Chinese" template still has the strange yellow "hidden" bar which really seems unnecessary. This template just has the various names in order, without a lot of teminology like "Guan," "Yue," and two lines for each romanization name and romanization. Badagnani 06:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Replace it. The current table is ugly as hell, and Chinese will do the job better and make it look much tidier. PC78 18:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

crap
bull crap i need help with mythology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.91.117 (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Then you came to the right place! Guanyin helps all who cry out to her.

 * If this doesn't work, try St. Jude.Dawud (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Kannon/Virgin Mary
Here is an image of the Virgin Mary disguised as Kannon (Guan Yin) from 17th century Japan. Feel free to insert it in the article. Cheers PHG (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Kannon is big in Japan and presumably other East Asian countries but this article is very China centred. There is mention of Maria Kannon but it does not even get a section unlike "Guanyin in Chinese Buddhism" "Guanyin and Chinese folk belief." One might point out that she originated in China as justification for the China-centrism but then she didn't she originated in Sanscrit India.--Timtak (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this her mantra?
Literal Translation:

* Namo (Sanskrit)- Homage to / Refuge in   * Guan (Chinese) - Observe / Care * Shih (Chinese) - World * Yin (Chinese) - Sound / Voice * Pusa (Sanskrit) - Bodhisattva

 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.196.119 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's her mantra, alright. For the hanzi, it's this: 南無觀世音菩薩 (nam mo guan shi yin pu sa) (for it's Sino-Korean equivalent, it's this: 남무관세음보살)

I was also wondering why no one was putting this mantra in the article. Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, Namo Guanshiyin Pusa is the most common mantra or mindfulness practice for Guanshiyin in Chinese Buddhism. Om Manipadme Hum is also associated with Guanshiyin and is quite common in East Asian Buddhism as well. There are other mantras as well, which are very popular in Chinese Buddhism and related to Guanshiyin. One very long mantra is the Great Compassion Mantra (Mahakaruna Mantra, also known as the Nilakantha Dharani), which is very common. Another is the Cundi Dharani, which is a popular method for an esoteric form of Guanshiyin. Tengu800 (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guan_Yin&diff=296748482&oldid=296747905
 * ..::Namo Guan Shih Yin Pusa::..
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.204.77 (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Taoist bias
To say that "Taoism" is "the original religion of China" is hopelessly POV. In fact "Taoism" is one of several words used for a diverse and evolving family of religious practices and beliefs with both elite and popular manifestations. Its self-identity coalesced slowly, and probably in tandem with the entry of Buddhism into China.

And you can't say that Guanyin was "originally" a Taoist goddess who got stolen by the Buddhists. For one thing, borrowing very obviously worked both ways--often it was Taoism imitating Buddhism rather than the other way around. Beyond that--at the risk of stepping on people's religious toes--it's not like Guanyin actually exists or anything. All we have are stories. Guanyin *is* the character in her stories, which (unlike details of say, the Star Wars canon) have no locus classicus to guide us.Dawud (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

An inquiry about external links for the Wikipedia entry on Guan Yin
I'm writing to ask if someone could add a couple of External Links to the Wikipedia entry about Quan Yin.

I manage a discussion group about Kuan Yin at eons.com. Anyone can view the group, and membership is open to anyone, though you must make a request to join (the group's status is Public With Approval). The group features a library of texts about Kuan Yin -- articles, sutras and sutra excerpts, and so on -- and some useful audio recordings; an image gallery; and a message board. The group is called The Chapel of Kuan Yin, and here is its URL:

http://www.eons.com/groups/group/the-chapel-of-kuan-yin

I believe, though I don't know this for sure, that the group has the largest amount of material related to Kuan Yin available in any one place online.

I have also written an informative blog about Kuan Yin, which includes several current links to additional information:

http://www.eons.com/blogs/entry/75264-Kuan-Yin-My-Buddhist-Patron-Saint

I check and update these links regularly.

You can contact me at my e-mail,

bluebard@comcast.net

Thank you very much for your consideration. Bless you.

Kuanyindevotee (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Page Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Guan Yin → Guanyin — Guanyin is the correct pinyin. Philg88 (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

 * If we're going to move this, it ought to be moved to Kuan Yin, which is most common in English (but see the brouhaha above). Guanyin is the correct Pinyin, of course, but established names in English should take priority over that. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a valid point Gavia immer, so maybe change the move page request accordingly (although I think the correct WG tranlisteration would be Kuan-yin)? Or just move it and delete the template? Philg88 (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Support Guanyin, oppose "Kuan Yin" (or anything else). There's plenty of debate above, and I don't see any evidence that Kuan Yin (etc) are sufficiently more popular than Guanyin to not use WP's standard pinyin for this. Jpatokal (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Support per nom. Current title is incorrect pinyin.  Also note the previous discussion above.  —   AjaxSmack   19:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

removable hands of guan yin?
what is the idea of figures that have one or two hands which can be removed? is this a typical feature of guanyin figures as in blanc de chine ceramic figures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabuki8 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Avalokitesvara vs Guanyin
Avalokitesvara is literally "lord who looks down". Guanyin is literally "observes sounds"; Guanshiyin is literally "observes world's sounds". These are not literal translations of each other. Jpatokal (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Guanyin is a translation of Avalokitasvara, which is the original name as it was used prior to around the 5th century CE. When the Lotus Sutra and the other early Mahayana texts were translated, Indian Buddhism was still using the earlier form Avalokitasvara. The later form Avalokiteshvara was a name change that probably followed the Karandavyuha Sutra and other sutras which associate in some manner Avalokitasvara with Maheshvara (Ishvara = Shiva), to appeal to practitioners of yoga in India, because Shiva is the lord of yoga. However, the earlier translations such as Guanyin and Guanshiyin all correspond to the original Sanskrit form Avalokitasvara. Sanskrit: Avalokita = contemplate or observe, asvara = sound. Chinese: Guan = contemplate or observe, yin = sound. The variant Guanshiyin is translating "lok" as "loka" or "world" in addition to the other meaning, so the translation is expanded in meaning slightly as Guanshiyin, but still directly from Avalokitasvara, and still with the same basic meaning. The Sanskrit has implications of vipasyana, or meditative contemplation. The Chinese word guan is also the main translation of this concept. When the Indian name was altered to Avalokitesvara, to adapt to the new conditions in India, then Chinese translators such as Xuanzang also modified their translations of this name to Guanzizai, which is in turn a direct translation of the meaning of the newer name. Therefore, the Chinese form Guanyin or Guanshiyin is actually closer to the original Indian name Avalokitasvara, than is the modified form Avalokitesvara. Tengu800 (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Western Paradise
Before my edit was reverted, I changed "Western Paradise" to Sukhavati, because "Western Paradise" is an inaccurate colloquial term for Amitabha's pure land of Sukhavati. The western pure land has Xitian as one of the names in Chinese, which means literally "Western Heaven". It is more accurately called Jile ("Ultimate Bliss") or Anle ("Peaceful Bliss") in Chinese, both of which are direct translations of the Sanskrit name Sukhavati. As for Avalokitasvara Bodhisattva attending to people who are reborn in lotus flowers in Sukhavati, you can read about this for yourself in the Longer Sukhavativyuha Sutra, which is the source for this belief. It is available on Wikisource in full translation from the Sanskrit text by Max Mueller. It is also a widely known fact that in texts related to Amitabha Buddha, which are some of the earliest sources mentioning Avalokitasvara, that Avalokitasvara Bodhisattva and Mahasthamaprapta Bodhisattva are the attendants of Amitabha Buddha in his western pure land of Sukhavati. Again, the earliest Indian sources for Avalokitasvara Bodhisattva and translations of doctrines related to him/her are no mystery if people actually take the time to read them and understand how they relate to Chinese culture. Pure Land Buddhism was extremely influential in traditional Chinese culture, and it should be no surprise that Chinese "folk beliefs" about Avalokitasvara are often not folk beliefs, and come directly out of the sutras. However, earlier orientalists were not familiar with the Chinese Buddhist traditions or the Mahayana sutras. Tengu800 (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reinserted the "pure land of Sukhavati" since as you say "Western Paradise" is an inaccurate term. However, this may invalidate the reference since I suspect Johnson himself used the term "Western Paradise". Philg88 (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He probably does use the term "Western Paradise", which is no doubt a translation of Xitian, which means literally the "Western Heaven" (see: Sukhavati). This is one of the Chinese names for Sukhavati, but it is a colloquial name, and therefore lacks accuracy for an encyclopedia article. In general, the practice in articles related to Buddhism, is to use an original language such as Sanskrit or Pali for proper names, where the name exists across Buddhist traditions which use various languages. For example, everyone in China says Amituofo, the Chinese name for Amitabha Buddha, but all Wikipedia articles should use the Sanskrit form Amitabha. Similarly, region-specific names for Sukhavati should be avoided, such as the Tibetan "Dewachen," or Chinese "Xitian" in this case. Tengu800 (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Xitian (西天) is the commonly used term but it is not "ideologically" correct. Philg88 (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Taoists v Daoists
This is almost negligible, but in the introduction, I found the sentence including "Chinese Taoists (sometimes called Daoists)" to be misleading, as "dao" is the closest approximate pronounciation of the Chinese character "道", and is the correct spelling according to the dominant Hanyu Pinyin system of transcribing Chinese phonetics in the Roman alphabet. "Tao" however, is an outdated and less accurate spelling originating from the Wade-Giles system. The page on "Taoism" devotes an entire section to this issue: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism#Spelling_and_pronunciation". So while "tao" may remain the popular spelling of "道" in the West, the sentence in the introductory paragraph should truly read "Chinese Daoists (sometimes called Taoists). Once again, this is perhaps a very minor distinction, but it is a matter of accuracy and correctness.

Good quality image
It has been suggested in this featured picture candidacy, that this image be added to the article. I'd be happpy if somebody familiar with the topic could do that. Thanks. bamse (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a good example of Guanyin as a bare-chested male figure, complete with thin moustache and beard. Tengu800 22:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

More Information About Other Traditions?
It seems strange to me, since there are no separate articles for the other "versions" of Guanyin/Avalokiteśvara, that only Chinese traditions are mentioned in the article. This seems to imply that Kannon, for instance, is nothing more than Guanyin by another name, with all beliefs and traditions surrounding the figure identical to those found in China. While I admit that I am no expert on the subject, my impression is that this is clearly not the case (the theory of honji suijaku being an obvious example). Unless the article is to be split into separate articles for the various national traditions, could a contributor more knowledgeable than myself please write up sections on those traditions in the existing article? Maitreya (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Why would there be different "versions" of this figure, just because there are some different beliefs? For that matter, why is there a separate page for "Guanyin", since this name is a straight translation of Avalokitasvara? Remember also that the Japanese name Kannon is just the Japanese pronunciation of the exact same Chinese characters for Guanyin. Would we have separate pages for Jesus or Moses, just because there are different beliefs in various parts of the world? Tengu800 23:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I think the main reason for existence of a separate article for Guanyin is because there are a lot of differences between Guanyin and Avalokitasvara besides name. For example (quoting from the article): "Avalokiteśvara was originally depicted as a male bodhisattva, and therefore wears chest-revealing clothing and may even sport a moustache. Although this bare-chested and moustached depiction still exists in the Far East, Guanyin is more often depicted as a woman in modern times." There are lots of Chinese only traditions/stories about Guanyin like Miao Shan and Chen Jinggu. An example of a Western tradition similar is how there's an article on Black Madonna/Mary. I wouldn't be opposed for Kannon for example, however, I'm not very knowledgeable about Japanese characteristics. DemonicInfluence (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, except the bare-chested male depiction of Guanyin is very common in China as well. Tengu800 23:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

 * "Version" was perhaps a poor choice of word, but my main point was that there are significant variations in the legends and traditions surrounding the figure, with honji suijaku, as mentioned, being a very clear example. Despite this, the article only describes Chinese legends and veneration. Now, as I stated in my original post, I do not think there necessarily has to be separate articles, but there should at least be separate sections in the article describing these variations. As you say, Tengu800, we would not have separate articles for different beliefs about Jesus, but the Wikipedia article on Jesus does in fact mention not only different Christian beliefs about Jesus, but also Jewish, Islamic, historical and scholarly perspectives with links to separate articles further describing these perspectives. Maitreya (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree with this, and I would encourage you to add material regarding Avalokitasvara in Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean, or other traditions. The issue of naming is an unfortunate one again in this regard, because this article is somewhat assuming that Guanyin is different from Avalokitesvara, and that Guanyin is the most common name, when each tradition has its own pronunciation of the Chinese characters for "Avalokitasvara" (i.e. Guanyin, Kannon, Gwanseeum, Quán Thế Âm, etc.). Tengu800 23:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"Some Chinese of the overwhelmingly Roman Catholic Philippines"
What the hell does that mean, it's grammatically gibberish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.99.131.84 (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Some Chinese of the overwhelmingly Roman Catholic Philippines, in an act of syncretism, have identified Guanyin with the Virgin Mary.[14]" the reference is an audio clip, talking about a Virgin Mary carving that's created by a Chinese carver. That hardly "identified Guanyin with the Virgin Mary" It's actually talks about the influence of two cultures upon each other during colonization, which is AGAINST the idea that Guan Yin is the Virgin Mary. I suggest this sentence deleted or re-worded. 50.99.131.84 (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The articles talks about how the western market of Virgin Mary statues stimulated and inspired the Eastern market of Guan Yin statues. It's in every way against Guanyin is Virgin Mary. 50.99.131.84 (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Eleven-faced Goddess of Mercy edit.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Eleven-faced Goddess of Mercy edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 3, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-04-03. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

no mention of connection to willow (salix) tree
I was hoping to find some mention of the connection with the willow tree (salix). I know nothing about this and was hoping to find it here. Much appreciated if someone who is knowledgeable about this could write a few lines.

DLW, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.28.4.110 (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

 * In China, it was used for its medicinal properties (e.g. monks cleaned their teeth with a makeshift willow twig toothbrush). In India they used neem for these same purposes. Tengu800 08:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Male/female
The text of the article says that Guanyin though originally described as male is venerated as both male and female. Therefore I have removed the word "mistakenly" in the opening sentence (it read "mistakenly as a female"). I do not hold to this edit dogmatically, but before reverting somebody should find a reference substantiating the use of the word "mistaken:ly". As of present I did not manage to find one in the article. 93.80.49.8 (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You have a valid point so I wouldn't worry - "mistakenly" is not neutral. I've removed the "see below" as that is inferred. ► Philg88 ◄ star.png 14:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! 93.80.49.8 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Guanyin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.indologica.com/volumes/vol13/vol13_art13_CHANDRA.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090311011104/http://www.gywh.net:80/guanyin/xingxiang.shtml to http://www.gywh.net/guanyin/xingxiang.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140110220403/http://bdcitta.net/kanwu/fubao/zhuanti/2010-07-20/565.html to http://www.bdcitta.net/kanwu/fubao/zhuanti/2010-07-20/565.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Guanyin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060701134547/http://www.fsu.edu:80/~arh/events/athanor/athxix/AthanorXIX_kim.pdf to http://www.fsu.edu/~arh/events/athanor/athxix/AthanorXIX_kim.pdf#search=%22sudhana%20legend%22

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Guanyin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090812031043/http://surangama.drba.org:80/ to http://surangama.drba.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Guanyin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326083837/http://fathom.lse.ac.uk/seminars/21701773/21701773_session4.html to http://fathom.lse.ac.uk/seminars/21701773/21701773_session4.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130731011706/http://www.cbeta.org/result/normal/T20/1060_001.htm to http://www.cbeta.org/result/normal/T20/1060_001.htm
 * Added tag to http://bzzz.china84000.com/Article/sjyj/200807/Article_10.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614021001/http://taipei.tzuchi.org.tw/tzquart/99spring/qp99-11.htm to http://taipei.tzuchi.org.tw/tzquart/99spring/qp99-11.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guanyin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090926021058/http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/sculpture/audio_proms_talk/index.html to http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/sculpture/audio_proms_talk/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:The Guanyin Oracle
What is salvageable from that draft (if any) should probably be merged here to prevent redundancy. — Paleo Neonate  – 13:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Foreign names of Guanyin
The names of Guanyin listed in the template are the most popular equivalents to the English term "Guanyin" which in itself is a shortened translation of the Chinese term Guanyin Pusa or 觀音菩薩 which is an abbreviation of the longer Chinese term Guanshiyin Pusa or 觀世音菩薩. The equivalent Chinese, Japanese and Korean articles for Guanyin are as follows :

::For Japanese - https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/観音菩薩 (i.e. Kannon Bosatsu) ::For Korean  - https://ko.wikpedia.org/wiki/관세음보살 (i.e. Gwan-se-eum Bosal)

The names of Guanyin listed in the template for other languages are also the most popular equivalents to the English term "Guanyin" n.b. Some of them are not at all derived from the Chinese term Guanyin and some of them may include other additions such as traditional honorifics not reflected in the English term.

Guanshiyin Pusa is the search item for 93% of hits for the Chinese article. 7% of hits are for all other variants including "觀音" which is the functional equivalent to the English mistranslation but correctly reflecting English usage.

Likewise Kannon Bosatsu is the search item for 95% of hits for the Japanese article. 5% of hits are for all other variants including "観音" which is the functional equivalent oF the English term.

You can also look at the translations for the Avalokitesvara article's foreign language equivalents- the Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese - all have the word “菩薩” or "bodhisattva" in it's translation of Avalokitesvara; n.b. they are the exact same terms as used in this article's Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese equivalents which I have corrected.

Although these terms are not exact equivalents to the English term, just as the English term is not an exact equivalent to the Chinese original term, they are the most popular and least offensive term referring to the same topic. Hanbud (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 * If you believe that "Guanyin pusa" is somehow the "correct" form for the entity I know as Kannon-sama, then you should be starting a discussion on moving the page. ¶ There is a difficulty with this page, which is that its subject is the Buddhist entity whose Chinese name got written 観音 (and variants thereof). But Wikipedia has to use titles written in Roman letters, and avoids horrors like writing "Guanyin / Gwan-se-eum / Kannon", so perforce the title is a romanised version of the Chinese reading. I think this is very sensible. Given the difficulty of explaining to the non-Han literate reader the fact that these CJKV readings are all representations of the same characters, and that the article is about the Sinosphere version of Avalokiteshvara, adding the title Bodhisattva to all of them does not help explanatory clarity, which is what WP is about, not "religious truth". You also added a lot of names for Kannon-sama in langauges unrelated to the Sinosphere, for which I can't see any justification.

 * To give a comparable example more familiar to most readers, the Emperor Diocletian was a Roman emperor. He is very often referred to as the Emperor Diocletian, but his name was Diocletian, which is why this is where the WP article is. 菩薩, similarly, is the Chinese version of Bodhisattva, which is a title, honorific, what you will, not a name.

 * You declare yourself a "secular Buddhist", which means you have to be careful not to introduce a POV slant to the article. I cannot understand several of your comments about (for example, what do you mean by "the search item for 95% of hits"?); but in particular can you explain the meaning of "least offensive term" above? Thanks. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're over-simplifying with regard to the relationship between Guanyin and the title Pusa. My understanding is that Pusa is functionally an honorific but it's one that is so specific to Guanyin that it generally can act as a stand-in for the name within Chinese discourse. So calling the goddess Guanyin, Guanyin Pusa or Pusa would all communicate the same connotation. I know, for instance, when my mother in law gave me a Guanyin pendant, she referred to it as Pusa. I doubt a Chinese speaking person would be likely to identify the term Pusa with anyone other than Guanyin, unlike 皇帝, which could refer to many different people. Pursuant to this, we can't really use the Diocletian example as an appropriate comparison. I think a more appropriate parallel that might be familliar to a general Western audience would be Jesus Christ. Christ, in this case, is an honorific. But whether you talk about Jesus, Jesus Christ or Christ, you are clearly talking about the same figure. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Imaginatorium said: "You declare yourself a "secular Buddhist", which means you have to be careful not to introduce a POV slant to the article..." I don't see where you get this from. Have you mistaken me with someone else? Actually wikipedia is open to everyone who wants to make constructive edits.  I know there are many Christians and other religious people who edit articles on Buddhism and vice versa.  It shouldn't be a problem.Hanbud (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 * My goal is 'not to change the title of the English wikipedia article' "Guanyin". I merely state the most common encyclopedic usage of the Chinese equivalent of the English wikipedia article entitled "Guanyin" is
 * Guanshiyin Pusa (in English it means Guanshiyin Bodhisattva or Avalokitasvara Bodhisattva which means in English 'One who perceives the sounds (cries) of the world') -
 * along with Guanyin Pusa (an abbreviation of the previous term)
 * and Guanzizai Pusa (Guanzizai Bodhisattva or Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva or 'Lord who gazes down on the world'
 * These three make up 94.5% of Chinese Wikipedia readers in contrast to Guanyin which only makes up 2.1% of readers). Therefore the Chinese language term indicated inside the info box should be Guanyin Pusa, Guanshiyin Pusa and Guanzizai Pusa.  (cf : https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=zh.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-90&pages=觀世音菩薩) The Chinese terms that you currently have in the English wikipedia Guanyin article info box makes up less than 6% of readers and if you want to be literal in the foreign language translation of Guanyin to only include (Guanyin=觀音 in a literal sense) only 2.1% of Chinese wikipedia readers.
 * A similar situation exists in the Japanese and Korean foreign language terms in the current article's info box. A strict translation of the English term "Guanyin" (i.e. Kannon=観音) in the Japanese wikipedia article only sees 1.9% of readers; BTW your suggestion of Kannon Sama (I've included both 観音様 and 観音さま) only has 0.1% of readers. Therefore the most common encyclopedic usage of the Japanese equivalent of the English wikipedia article entitled "Guanyin" is
 * Kannon Bosatsu (in English it means Guanyin Bodhisattva (an abbrev of Guanshiyin Bodhisattva or an abbreviation of Avalokitasvara Bodhisattva which means in English 'One who perceives the sounds (cries) of the world')
 * along with Kanzeon Bosatsu (the previous unabbreviated form)
 * and Kanjizai Bosatsu (in English it means Guanzizai Bodhisattva or Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva).
 * These three entries all which have the word Bosatsu have 94.8% of the readership. (cf: https://tools.wmflabs.org/redirectviews/?project=ja.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-90&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&page=観音菩薩)
 * The situation is even more extreme with the Korean language wikipedia article for Guanyin. Kwan-eum=관음 which is the literal translation of the English term Guanyin.  Kwan-eum only sees 1.2% of the readership.  This is in contrast to the readership of
 * Kwan-eum-bosal 관음보살 (an abbreviation of Kwan-se-eum bosal),
 * Kwan-se-eum-bosal 관세음보살(in English it means Guanshiyin Bodhisattva or Avalokitasvara Bodhisattva which means in English 'One who perceives the sounds (cries) of the world')
 * and Kwan-ja-jae-bosal 관자재보살 (Guanzizai Bodhisattva or Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva or 'Lord who gazes down on the world' which make up to 97.1% of readership. (cf:https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=ko.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-90&pages=관세음보살).

 * Therefore based on the above, the most common encyclopedic entry for the equivalent article Guanyin all include the words Bodhisattva as inscribed in the Chinese, Japanese Korean and Vietnamese language version of Wikipedia. And therefore the names in the info box should revert to what I had previously. With regards to the multiplicity of terms per language, these are the terms used in those languages.  I have only selected the most common encyclopedic terms for those languages and if you examine the number of redirect topics they are at least 20 others per language with approximately 5% of the total readership.

 * With regard to the other names in languages which are unrelated to the sinosphere, I see that the current version has the sinhala name (ie. Theravada Sri Lanka). The way this article is written is not totally accurate because the English term "Guanyin" not only refers to the forms of Guanyin specific to the Sinosphere but also to the forms prevalent in Vajrayana and various Indic traditions. I will give an example from the morning recitation used primarily by Buddhist monastics (but also laypeople) in China, etc.,  The altar statue of Guanyin is in the Chinese female form of Avalokitesvara.  One of the mantras recited is the Nīlakaṇṭha Dhāraṇī which refers to an Indic form of Avalokitesvara (or Guanyin) with 1000 arms.  A few mantras down, the recitation of a fuller version of Om Mani Padme Hum mantra is recited.  This recitation is also of an Indic form of Avalokitesvara (or Guanyin) and has a special place in Tibetan Vajrayana.  Then the Heart Sutra is recited which has another Indic form of Avalokitesvara.  Throughout all these religious activities, the term used is Guanshiyin Pusa which literally means Avalokitasvara Bodhisattva. However whether the form worshipped is Amoghapasa Lokesvara, Avalokitesvara, Miaoshan Guanyin, etc., the term used is Guanshiyin Pusa or Guanyin Pusa.  Sometimes there is also walking meditation with chanting of 'Namo Guanshiyin Pusa' --

"Homage to Avalokitasvara Bodhisattva". The difficulty some people have is the multitude of forms and names Guanyin can take. The Sinosphere practitioners do not see this as a problem, for they all use Guanshiyin Pusa to refer to all these forms including forms not practiced in their home countries; nor do serious practitioners of other forms of Mahayana Buddhism - I have observed Tibetan lamas making offerings in Mount Putuo. Guanyin manifest according to the ability of the supplicant to accept his/her/its assistance. Anyone familiar with the relevant literature should know this. And it has been explicitly stated by many East Asian and other Buddhist monastics. This multiplicity of forms is not only indicated in the Lotus Sutra but is also corroborated and expanded in other sutras.Hanbud (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please sum up your argument concisely per WP:TLDR? Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Sorry it's very long- the nature of the question deals with several languages which I've tried to provide the English equivalents while maintaining a link to the original language so English-only readers can read foreign language wikipedia statistics charts for themselves. Briefly, the info box's Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese terms for Guanyin should have the word pusa or bodhisattva appended as it is the most common encyclopedic heading for Guanyin in Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese (cf respective language wikipedia statistics).

 * The term Guanyin as used in China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam encompasses the entire spectrum of Guanyin including the familiar female Miaoshan Guanyin, etc., as well as the 1000 arm Guanyin (each phrase of the Nīlakaṇṭha Dhāraṇī or Great Compassion Mantra is seen as a form of Avalokitesvara), Amoghapasa Lokesvara (in Nepal there are 108 represented forms but a total of 365 total forms; the Tibetan forms numbering approx. 1000), the 33 forms of Guanyin found in the Lotus Sutra, etc., This can seen in the daily religious practices of Buddhists doing their morning recitations (reciting text or mantras relevant to Indic and often male forms of Guanyin) BUT before a statue of a female Guanyin. The different forms whether male or female are all seen as forms of Guanyin. (see above for details).

 * Guanyin appears in the form most acceptable to the supplicant. Therefore in India, Guanyin will sometimes appear as Brahma, Sakra, etc., Gods of the Hindu pantheon.  In China and other places, these forms will not be relevant and therefore a different set will manifest. Guanyin is only able to help the supplicant when the supplicant can accept his, her, its help.  This view is not only the viewpoint of East Asian Buddhists but also the viewpoint of other Mahayana Buddhists. (cf Tibetan lamas making offerings to Guanyin on pilgrimage to Mount Putuo)

Hanbud (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So the really, really short version is you're proposing renaming the article to Guanyin Pusa? Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 * No that's not my proposition at all. The title and main body of the "Guanyin" article should remain unchanged.  The infobox's foreign translation of "Guanyin" should reflect encyclopedic usage in their respective languages which in the case of China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam includes the equivalent of the word Pusa.Hanbudtalk) 19:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 * OK, now I'm clear what's going on. So here's the issue. My opinion? It's probably warranted including Pusa. Wikipedia's opinion though is that my opinion as a lapsed ch'an buddhist / atheist doesn't matter in the slightest - sources do. And we can't use other versions of Wikipedia as a source. So my suggestion, in light of my comment above that the most commonly understood use of Pusa is as part of Guanyin's name, I'd ask if you have any sources handy that support your, and my, assertion that this word is more likely applied to Guanyin than to Bodhisattvas in general. (I mean I'm sure we could bog down this page in a WP:NOTFORUM argument about wherther Xiaofo and Amitofo count as bodhisattvas, but I'd really rather not. I'd rather just cut to what RSes say.) Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 * 佛光山大辭典 Foguangshan Great Dictionary has a headword under Guanshiyinpusa (Avalokitasvara Bodhisattva).
 * 英漢-漢英-英英佛學詞彙 （中華佛典寶庫編）English-Chinese/Chinese-English/English-English Vocabulary (Compilation of the Treasury of Chinese Buddhist Scriptures) has under the headword Avalokitesvara 觀世音菩薩 or Avalokitesvara /Guanshiyinpusa
 * I will add more when I find them. Hanbud (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to spend more time on this later, but briefly: my issues are almost entirely linguistic and practical. First, please stop describing "guanyin" as an "English term". It isn't. It is the Chinese reading (name) of a Buddhist character better known to many of us (English speakers) as Kannon. I understand how 観音 gets read as "Kannon" in Japanese and "Guanyin" in Chinese, but I think the purpose of the "Chinese" infobox should be to help other readers understand it. Similarly the names in other languages are not "translations" in any proper sense. (And do all of these languages really derive from the Chinese 観音 rather than the original Avalokiteshvara? I don't know. Not Khmer at least...) And I only really know about Japanese: of course in Japanese people are likely to search for the more formal name, but figures of 0.1% look a bit suspicious to me. I happen to have to hand a database of Japanese jigsaw puzzles: here is a list of the ones whose title includes 観音: 5 out of 9 include the "bosatsu". The part which is common to all is of course Kannon.

 * 観音菩薩マンダラ
 * 龍上観音菩薩
 * 雲上観音菩薩
 * 観音曼荼羅
 * 観音曼荼羅
 * 十一面千手観音菩薩
 * 千手観音曼荼羅
 * 龍頭白衣観音
 * 観音菩薩

My comment about "POV" was just to remind us that the objective is (truth-reflecting) explanatory force, not any sort of "religious correctness", which is why I coulnd't understand what "offensive" could refer to. And I also wanted to remember WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Why are there names of this in 12 languages? The article on Jesus Christ (actually titled "Jesus"!) has no other languages at all. Sorry, too busy now. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems you are too busy to look at the Japanese wikipedia statistics. But I will now give you the details:
 * Kannon (観音) which is the Japanese equivalent to Guanyin 1186/61630 views for a period of 90 days or 1.9%
 * Kannon Sama (観音様　+ 観音さま) which is the term you know Kannon as (I'm sure you also know other terms but...) 76 + 9 / 61630 views for a period of 90 days or 0.1%
 * Kannon Bosatsu / Kanzeon Bosatsu / Kanjizai Bosatsu (all names used in the Buddhist tripitaka - Guanyin is a Buddhist bodhisattva mahasattva) (56527 + 1274 + 612)/61630 views or 94.8%.
 * As a reminder, in your haste to delete all references to bodhisattva in the info box - you neglected to delete the Japanese entry with the furigana on top of the kanji.
 * Hence the Japanese translation in the info box still has the word bodhisattva or bosatsu there. I deleted it in the prior edit awaiting your answer but you were in a hurry and just reverted everything.  I also included the Shanghainese pronunciation for the Chinese translations in that version - something that was present in the older editions from who knows when but was done incorrectly and therefore did not display itself to wikipedia readers. I also included Minnan pronunciations for Guanzizai and a host of other Chinese dialects which were not present in the older edition - but all of it were deleted by you in your haste.
 * It seems you are inconsistent in your rejection of the word bodhisattva for the Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese entry in this article's info box. I suggest you also take a look at the sister article to 'Guanyin' (i.e. Avalokitesvara ---it seems the info box in that article has the words bodhisattva in the Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese entries.)
 * Please refer to the wikipedia statistics page for the Japanese article for Kannon Bosatsu - what I have presented above came from this link - I did not pull it from no where ( https://tools.wmflabs.org/redirectviews/?project=ja.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-90&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&page=観音菩薩 )
 * The info box has been there for several years - I guess if I have time, I can search the article history record to see when it was first added. Up to now, no one has complained about it. But as a reminder, similar info boxes also exists in the sister article for Avalokitesvara and a host of other articles.  I guess their continue presence is appreciated by many wikipedia readers.Hanbud (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It also seems you are too busy to read anything I wrote. But why repeat the WP statistics? I assume this means the proportion of readers who arrived from the various ways of writing Kannon's name. So what? What do you see as the purpose of the "Chinese" infobox for readers of this page? Can you answer that carefully? If you just think a list of the "most formal" titles in as many languages as possible, then you seem to be achieving that. But is that what Wikipedia is for? ¶ Note that I didn't "delete" anything, I merely reverted your changes so they could be discussed. And of course I'm not "rejecting" representations of "boddhisattva"; of course I think these forms could be shown. And I will at some point get around to removing the furigana on the Japanese versions, because there is consensus that this is not helpful to English(-language) readers. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've read what you wrote and have looked at the wikipedia article for Jesus which uses the Infobox person template. That template only allows one name with consideration for the addition of a native name.  However the template we are using in this article is different - it's infobox Chinese which I believe is inappropriate for this article.  I have reduced the size of the infobox by using infobox Buddha which is also the infobox used by the Avalokitesvara article.  You can see it in my sandbox located here : User:Hanbud/sandbox  Please do not make any changes to it.  Also pls read the edit summary as it explains what's going on. Just let me know in a comment what you think?Hanbud (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That I don't actually support, since it seems to presuppose that it's universal in Chinese to included pusa at all times. This is quite plainly not the case. Since the only languages in that infobox I speak are English and Mandarin I can't comment on the other languages. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's true that the addition of pusa is not used all the time but when referring to the generic name of the bodhisattva (i.e. not the specific forms of different Guanyin manifestations), it is used most of the time. However if you still disagree, since Guanyin is a translation of Avalokitesvara and the sister article (Avalokitesvara) also has the pusa included in their infobox, do you think it should be deleted also?  Guanyin Pusa and Avalokitesvara are equivalents but in English, the term 'Guanyin' has attained implications not found in the Chinese word.  Hence the English term 'Guanyin' is different from the Chinese term Guanyin. I think if the pusa gets deleted from this article, then to be fair it should also be deleted from the Avalokitesvara article.  Otherwise it might imply that Guanyin is not a bodhisattva but Avalokitesvara is a bodhisattva - playing p.......l games. What's your opinion?Hanbud (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

No per WP:OSE. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (1)You mean it is an invalid comparison? Or (2)are you saying Pusa should only be deleted from the Guanyin article's Chinese text and not the Avalokitesvara's article Chinese text?  (3) Or are you saying both article's infobox Chinese text should have pusa deleted? Give me any combination of numbers as your answer because I don't understand your responseHanbud (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that this talk page is not an appropriate place to discuss edits to Avalokitesvara and, per WP:OSE, what is done on one page does not set a requirement for what must be done on another page unless delineated by a specific WP policy or manual of style requirement. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your point better now. However what do you think of the changes I've made in my sandbox apart from the 'pusa' issue? Also Avalokitesvara and Guanyin are near equivalents. So if its decided to omit in this article, I will omit it in the other article.Hanbud (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am literally exclusively participating WRT to English and Chinese naming conventions of Guanyin; I have neither the expertise nor the interest to participate meaningfully beyond that remit and suggest you seek other peoples opinions. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

She was a character in Ponyo
She was a character in the 2008 animated movie Ponyo why isn’t that mentioned here? CycoMa (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Chinese shrine to a statue of the Child-giving Guanyin (送子觀音 Songzi Guanyin) in Daming Temple ( 大明寺 Dàmíng-sì) in Yangzhou, Jiangsu, China.jpg
 * Cintamanicakra (Ruyilun Guanyin) - Jade Buddha Temple; Shanghai, China.jpg
 * Hayagriva statue at Baipu Temple in Beijing, China.jpg
 * Shrine to a Tang dynasty (896 AD) stone statue of the Thousand-Armed Guanyin (千手觀音 Qianshou Guanyin) in Shengshui Temple (內江聖水寺 Neijiang Shengshui-si) in Neijiang, Sichuan, China Picture 1.jpg
 * Shrine to a statue of the Eleven-Headed Guanyin (十一面觀音 or 十一面观音; Shiyimian Guanyin) in Huayan Temple (華嚴寺 or 华严寺); Datong, Shanxi, China.jpg
 * Shrine to a statue of the Eleven-Headed Guanyin (十一面觀音 or 十一面观音; Shiyimian Guanyin) in the Drum Tower (鼓樓 or 鼓楼) of Qita Temple (七塔寺) in Yingzhou, Ningbo, China Picture 3.jpg
 * Statue of Cintamanicakra Guanyin (如意輪觀音 Ruyilun Guanyin) in the Tsz Shan Monastery (慈山寺 Císhànsì) in Hong Kong.jpg
 * Thousand-Armed Thousand-Eyed Guanyin statue (千手千眼觀音 or 千手千眼观音; Qianshou Qianyan Guanyin) in Yuantong Hall (圓通殿) of Longshan Temple ( 安海龍山寺 or 安海龙山寺) in Anhai, Jinjiang, Fujian, China 2.jpg
 * Thousand-Armed Thousand-Eyed Guanyin statue (千手千眼觀音 or 千手千眼观音; Qianshou Qianyan Guanyin) in Yuantong Hall (圓通殿) of Longshan Temple ( 安海龍山寺 or 安海龙山寺) in Anhai, Jinjiang, Fujian, China 3.jpg
 * Thousand-Hand Eleven-Headed Guanyin (千手觀音 Qianshou Guanyin and 十一面觀音 Shiyimian Guanyin) - Mount Putuo Guanyin Dharma Realm; Zhejiang, China.jpg

Popular Culture - Psylocke
The Marvel comics character formally known as Revanche, currently known as Psylocke's real name is Kwannon; named after the Japanese 観音 - "Kan'non", her former handler from her time as an assassin's name is Matsu'o 81.108.137.201 (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Supposed relation to Isis
A strong claim about Isis was recently added, which I reverted. Unfortunately I made the revert before fully adding my reasoning, so I'll add it here to avoid confusion. The claim was made by referencing a book by Martin Palmer. Martin Palmer's research is rather contentious, especially regarding Christian influences on China, and the strong claim for the syncretisation of Isis, Mary, and Guanyin will need more backing than his work alone. Moreover, the book in question only discusses the supposed syncretisation in a few lines. And I'll note in passing that Chun-fang Yu's book on Guanyin doesn't mention Isis. If this claim is to find it's way into the article, it needs to be better sourced rather than blankly stated as fact. Moreover, the same content has already been removed from the Isis page by another editor. Retinalsummer (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Guanyin


text:
Regression toward the mean

In statistics, regression toward the mean (also called regression to the mean, reversion to the mean, and reversion to mediocrity) is the phenomenon where if one sample of a random variable is extreme, the next sampling of the same random variable is likely to be closer to its mean. Furthermore, when many random variables are sampled and the most extreme results are intentionally picked out, it refers to the fact that (in many cases) a second sampling of these picked-out variables will result in "less extreme" results, closer to the initial mean of all of the variables.

Mathematically, the strength of this "regression" effect is dependent on whether or not all of the random variables are drawn from the same distribution, or if there are genuine differences in the underlying distributions for each random variable. In the first case, the "regression" effect is statistically likely to occur, but in the second case, it may occur less strongly or not at all.

Regression toward the mean is thus a useful concept to consider when designing any scientific experiment, data analysis, or test, which intentionally selects the most extreme events - it indicates that follow-up checks may be useful in order to avoid jumping to false conclusions about these events; they may be genuine extreme events, a completely meaningless selection due to statistical noise, or a mix of the two cases.

Simple example: students taking a test
Consider a class of students taking a 100-item true/false test on a subject. Suppose that all students choose randomly on all questions. Then, each student's score would be a realization of one of a set of independent and identically distributed random variables, with an expected mean of 50. Naturally, some students will score substantially above 50 and some substantially below 50 just by chance. If one selects only the top scoring 10% of the students and gives them a second test on which they again choose randomly on all items, the mean score would again be expected to be close to 50. Thus the mean of these students would "regress" all the way back to the mean of all students who took the original test. No matter what a student scores on the original test, the best prediction of their score on the second test is 50.

If choosing answers to the test questions was not random – i.e. if there were no luck (good or bad) or random guessing involved in the answers supplied by the students – then all students would be expected to score the same on the second test as they scored on the original test, and there would be no regression toward the mean.

Most realistic situations fall between these two extremes: for example, one might consider exam scores as a combination of skill and luck. In this case, the subset of students scoring above average would be composed of those who were skilled and had not especially bad luck, together with those who were unskilled, but were extremely lucky. On a retest of this subset, the unskilled will be unlikely to repeat their lucky break, while the skilled will have a second chance to have bad luck. Hence, those who did well previously are unlikely to do quite as well in the second test even if the original cannot be replicated.

The following is an example of this second kind of regression toward the mean. A class of students takes two editions of the same test on two successive days. It has frequently been observed that the worst performers on the first day will tend to improve their scores on the second day, and the best performers on the first day will tend to do worse on the second day. The phenomenon occurs because student scores are determined in part by underlying ability and in part by chance. For the first test, some will be lucky, and score more than their ability, and some will be unlucky and score less than their ability. Some of the lucky students on the first test will be lucky again on the second test, but more of them will have (for them) average or below average scores. Therefore, a student who was lucky and over-performed their ability on the first test is more likely to have a worse score on the second test than a better score. Similarly, students who unluckily score less than their ability on the first test will tend to see their scores increase on the second test. The larger the influence of luck in producing an extreme event, the less likely the luck will repeat itself in multiple events.

Other examples
If your favourite sports team won the championship last year, what does that mean for their chances for winning next season? To the extent this result is due to skill (the team is in good condition, with a top coach, etc.), their win signals that it is more likely they will win again next year. But the greater the extent this is due to luck (other teams embroiled in a drug scandal, favourable draw, draft picks turned out to be productive, etc.), the less likely it is they will win again next year.

If a business organisation has a highly profitable quarter, despite the underlying reasons for its performance being unchanged, it is likely to do less well the next quarter.

Baseball players who hit well in their rookie season are likely to do worse their second; the "sophomore slump". Similarly, regression toward the mean is an explanation for the Sports Illustrated cover jinx — periods of exceptional performance which results in a cover feature are likely to be followed by periods of more mediocre performance, giving the impression that appearing on the cover causes an athlete's decline.

Discovery
The concept of regression comes from genetics and was popularized by Sir Francis Galton during the late 19th century with the publication of Regression towards mediocrity in hereditary stature. Galton observed that extreme characteristics (e.g., height) in parents are not passed on completely to their offspring. Rather, the characteristics in the offspring regress toward a mediocre point (a point which has since been identified as the mean). By measuring the heights of hundreds of people, he was able to quantify regression to the mean, and estimate the size of the effect. Galton wrote that, "the average regression of the offspring is a constant fraction of their respective mid-parental deviations". This means that the difference between a child and its parents for some characteristic is proportional to its parents' deviation from typical people in the population. If its parents are each two inches taller than the averages for men and women, then, on average, the offspring will be shorter than its parents by some factor (which, today, we would call one minus the regression coefficient) times two inches. For height, Galton estimated this coefficient to be about 2/3: the height of an individual will measure around a midpoint that is two thirds of the parents' deviation from the population average.

Galton also published these results using the simpler example of pellets falling through a Galton board to form a normal distribution centred directly under their entrance point. These pellets might then be released down into a second gallery corresponding to a second measurement. Galton then asked the reverse question: "From where did these pellets come?" "The answer was not on average directly above. Rather it was on average, more towards the middle, for the simple reason that there were more pellets above it towards the middle that could wander left than there were in the left extreme that could wander to the right, inwards."

Evolving usage of the term
Galton coined the term "regression" to describe an observable fact in the inheritance of multi-factorial quantitative genetic traits: namely that traits of the offspring of parents who lie at the tails of the distribution often tend to lie closer to the centre, the mean, of the distribution. He quantified this trend, and in doing so invented linear regression analysis, thus laying the groundwork for much of modern statistical modelling. Since then, the term "regression" has been used in other contexts, and it may be used by modern statisticians to describe phenomena such as sampling bias which have little to do with Galton's original observations in the field of genetics.

Galton's explanation for the regression phenomenon he observed in biology was stated as follows: "A child inherits partly from his parents, partly from his ancestors. Speaking generally, the further his genealogy goes back, the more numerous and varied will his ancestry become, until they cease to differ from any equally numerous sample taken at haphazard from the race at large." Galton's statement requires some clarification in light of knowledge of genetics: Children receive genetic material from their parents, but hereditary information (e.g. values of inherited traits) from earlier ancestors can be passed through their parents (and may not have been expressed in their parents). The mean for the trait may be nonrandom and determined by selection pressure, but the distribution of values around the mean reflects a normal statistical distribution.

The population-genetic phenomenon studied by Galton is a special case of "regression to the mean"; the term is often used to describe many statistical phenomena in which data exhibit a normal distribution around a mean.

Importance
Regression toward the mean is a significant consideration in the design of experiments.

Take a hypothetical example of 1,000 individuals of a similar age who were examined and scored on the risk of experiencing a heart attack. Statistics could be used to measure the success of an intervention on the 50 who were rated at the greatest risk, as measured by a test with a degree of uncertainty. The intervention could be a change in diet, exercise, or a drug treatment. Even if the interventions are worthless, the test group would be expected to show an improvement on their next physical exam, because of regression toward the mean. The best way to combat this effect is to divide the group randomly into a treatment group that receives the treatment, and a group that does not. The treatment would then be judged effective only if the treatment group improves more than the untreated group.

Alternatively, a group of disadvantaged children could be tested to identify the ones with most college potential. The top 1% could be identified and supplied with special enrichment courses, tutoring, counseling and computers. Even if the program is effective, their average scores may well be less when the test is repeated a year later. However, in these circumstances it may be considered unethical to have a control group of disadvantaged children whose special needs are ignored. A mathematical calculation for shrinkage can adjust for this effect, although it will not be as reliable as the control group method (see also Stein's example).

The effect can also be exploited for general inference and estimation. The hottest place in the country today is more likely to be cooler tomorrow than hotter, as compared to today. The best performing mutual fund over the last three years is more likely to see relative performance decline than improve over the next three years. The most successful Hollywood actor of this year is likely to have less gross than more gross for his or her next movie. The baseball player with the highest batting average by the All-Star break is more likely to have a lower average than a higher average over the second half of the season.

Misunderstandings
The concept of regression toward the mean can be misused very easily.

In the student test example above, it was assumed implicitly that what was being measured did not change between the two measurements. Suppose, however, that the course was pass/fail and students were required to score above 70 on both tests to pass. Then the students who scored under 70 the first time would have no incentive to do well, and might score worse on average the second time. The students just over 70, on the other hand, would have a strong incentive to study and concentrate while taking the test. In that case one might see movement away from 70, scores below it getting lower and scores above it getting higher. It is possible for changes between the measurement times to augment, offset or reverse the statistical tendency to regress toward the mean.

Statistical regression toward the mean is not a causal phenomenon. A student with the worst score on the test on the first day will not necessarily increase his score substantially on the second day due to the effect. On average, the worst scorers improve, but that is only true because the worst scorers are more likely to have been unlucky than lucky. To the extent that a score is determined randomly, or that a score has random variation or error, as opposed to being determined by the student's academic ability or being a "true value", the phenomenon will have an effect. A classic mistake in this regard was in education. The students that received praise for good work were noticed to do more poorly on the next measure, and the students who were punished for poor work were noticed to do better on the next measure. The educators decided to stop praising and keep punishing on this basis. Such a decision was a mistake, because regression toward the mean is not based on cause and effect, but rather on random error in a natural distribution around a mean.

Although extreme individual measurements regress toward the mean, the second sample of measurements will be no closer to the mean than the first. Consider the students again. Suppose the tendency of extreme individuals is to regress 10% of the way toward the mean of 80, so a student who scored 100 the first day is expected to score 98 the second day, and a student who scored 70 the first day is expected to score 71 the second day. Those expectations are closer to the mean than the first day scores. But the second day scores will vary around their expectations; some will be higher and some will be lower. For extreme individuals, we expect the second score to be closer to the mean than the first score, but for all individuals, we expect the distribution of distances from the mean to be the same on both sets of measurements.

Related to the point above, regression toward the mean works equally well in both directions. We expect the student with the highest test score on the second day to have done worse on the first day. And if we compare the best student on the first day to the best student on the second day, regardless of whether it is the same individual or not, there is no tendency to regress toward the mean going in either direction. We expect the best scores on both days to be equally far from the mean.

Regression fallacies
Many phenomena tend to be attributed to the wrong causes when regression to the mean is not taken into account.

An extreme example is Horace Secrist's 1933 book The Triumph of Mediocrity in Business, in which the statistics professor collected mountains of data to prove that the profit rates of competitive businesses tend toward the average over time. In fact, there is no such effect; the variability of profit rates is almost constant over time. Secrist had only described the common regression toward the mean. One exasperated reviewer, Harold Hotelling, likened the book to "proving the multiplication table by arranging elephants in rows and columns, and then doing the same for numerous other kinds of animals".

The calculation and interpretation of "improvement scores" on standardized educational tests in Massachusetts probably provides another example of the regression fallacy. In 1999, schools were given improvement goals. For each school, the Department of Education tabulated the difference in the average score achieved by students in 1999 and in 2000. It was quickly noted that most of the worst-performing schools had met their goals, which the Department of Education took as confirmation of the soundness of their policies. However, it was also noted that many of the supposedly best schools in the Commonwealth, such as Brookline High School (with 18 National Merit Scholarship finalists) were declared to have failed. As in many cases involving statistics and public policy, the issue is debated, but "improvement scores" were not announced in subsequent years and the findings appear to be a case of regression to the mean.

The psychologist Daniel Kahneman, winner of the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, pointed out that regression to the mean might explain why rebukes can seem to improve performance, while praise seems to backfire.

I had the most satisfying Eureka experience of my career while attempting to teach flight instructors that praise is more effective than punishment for promoting skill-learning. When I had finished my enthusiastic speech, one of the most seasoned instructors in the audience raised his hand and made his own short speech, which began by conceding that positive reinforcement might be good for the birds, but went on to deny that it was optimal for flight cadets. He said, "On many occasions I have praised flight cadets for clean execution of some aerobatic maneuver, and in general when they try it again, they do worse. On the other hand, I have often screamed at cadets for bad execution, and in general they do better the next time. So please don't tell us that reinforcement works and punishment does not, because the opposite is the case." This was a joyous moment, in which I understood an important truth about the world: because we tend to reward others when they do well and punish them when they do badly, and because there is regression to the mean, it is part of the human condition that we are statistically punished for rewarding others and rewarded for punishing them. I immediately arranged a demonstration in which each participant tossed two coins at a target behind his back, without any feedback. We measured the distances from the target and could see that those who had done best the first time had mostly deteriorated on their second try, and vice versa. But I knew that this demonstration would not undo the effects of lifelong exposure to a perverse contingency.

The regression fallacy is also explained in Rolf Dobelli's The Art of Thinking Clearly.

UK law enforcement policies have encouraged the visible siting of static or mobile speed cameras at accident blackspots. This policy was justified by a perception that there is a corresponding reduction in serious road traffic accidents after a camera is set up. However, statisticians have pointed out that, although there is a net benefit in lives saved, failure to take into account the effects of regression to the mean results in the beneficial effects being overstated.

Statistical analysts have long recognized the effect of regression to the mean in sports; they even have a special name for it: the "sophomore slump". For example, Carmelo Anthony of the NBA's Denver Nuggets had an outstanding rookie season in 2004. It was so outstanding that he could not be expected to repeat it: in 2005, Anthony's numbers had dropped from his rookie season. The reasons for the "sophomore slump" abound, as sports rely on adjustment and counter-adjustment, but luck-based excellence as a rookie is as good a reason as any. Regression to the mean in sports performance may also explain the apparent "Sports Illustrated cover jinx" and the "Madden Curse". John Hollinger has an alternative name for the phenomenon of regression to the mean: the "fluke rule", while Bill James calls it the "Plexiglas Principle".

Because popular lore has focused on regression toward the mean as an account of declining performance of athletes from one season to the next, it has usually overlooked the fact that such regression can also account for improved performance. For example, if one looks at the batting average of Major League Baseball players in one season, those whose batting average was above the league mean tend to regress downward toward the mean the following year, while those whose batting average was below the mean tend to progress upward toward the mean the following year.

Other statistical phenomena
Regression toward the mean simply says that, following an extreme random event, the next random event is likely to be less extreme. In no sense does the future event "compensate for" or "even out" the previous event, though this is assumed in the gambler's fallacy (and the variant law of averages). Similarly, the law of large numbers states that in the long term, the average will tend toward the expected value, but makes no statement about individual trials. For example, following a run of 10 heads on a flip of a fair coin (a rare, extreme event), regression to the mean states that the next run of heads will likely be less than 10, while the law of large numbers states that in the long term, this event will likely average out, and the average fraction of heads will tend to 1/2. By contrast, the gambler's fallacy incorrectly assumes that the coin is now "due" for a run of tails to balance out.

The opposite effect is regression to the tail, resulting from a distribution with non-vanishing probability density toward infinity.

Definition for simple linear regression of data points
This is the definition of regression toward the mean that closely follows Sir Francis Galton's original usage.

Suppose there are n data points {yi, xi}, where i = 1, 2, ..., n. We want to find the equation of the regression line, i.e. the straight line
 * $$ y = \alpha + \beta x, \,$$

which would provide a best fit for the data points. (A straight line may not be the appropriate regression curve for the given data points.) Here the best will be understood as in the least-squares approach: such a line that minimizes the sum of squared residuals of the linear regression model. In other words, numbers α and β solve the following minimization problem:

 * Find $$\min_{\alpha,\,\beta}Q(\alpha,\beta)$$, where $$Q(\alpha,\beta) = \sum_{i=1}^n\hat{\varepsilon}_i^{\,2}

= \sum_{i=1}^n (y_i - \alpha - \beta x_i)^2\ $$

Using calculus it can be shown that the values of α and β that minimize the objective function Q are
 * $$\begin{align}

& \hat\beta = \frac{ \sum_{i=1}^{n} (x_{i}-\bar{x})(y_{i}-\bar{y}) }{ \sum_{i=1}^{n} (x_{i}-\bar{x})^2 } = \frac{ \overline{xy} - \bar{x}\bar{y} }{ \overline{x^2} - \bar{x}^2 } = \frac{ \operatorname{Cov}[x,y] }{ \operatorname{Var}[x] } = r_{xy} \frac{s_y}{s_x}, \\ & \hat\alpha = \bar{y} - \hat\beta\,\bar{x}, \end{align}$$

where rxy is the sample correlation coefficient between x and y, sx is the standard deviation of x, and sy is correspondingly the standard deviation of y. Horizontal bar over a variable means the sample average of that variable. For example:

Substituting the above expressions for $$\hat\alpha$$ and $$\hat\beta$$ into $$ y = \alpha + \beta x, \,$$ yields fitted values
 * $$ \hat y = \hat\alpha + \hat\beta x, \,$$

which yields
 * $$\frac{ \hat y-\bar{y}}{s_y} = r_{xy} \frac{ x-\bar{x}}{s_x} $$

This shows the role rxy plays in the regression line of standardized data points.

If −1 < rxy < 1, then we say that the data points exhibit regression toward the mean. In other words, if linear regression is the appropriate model for a set of data points whose sample correlation coefficient is not perfect, then there is regression toward the mean. The predicted (or fitted) standardized value of y is closer to its mean than the standardized value of x is to its mean.

Restrictive definition
Let X1, X2 be random variables with identical marginal distributions with mean μ. In this formalization, the bivariate distribution of X1 and X2 is said to exhibit regression toward the mean if, for every number c > μ, we have
 * μ ≤ E[X2 | X1 = c] < c,

with the reverse inequalities holding for c < μ.

The following is an informal description of the above definition. Consider a population of widgets. Each widget has two numbers, X1 and X2 (say, its left span (X1 ) and right span (X2)). Suppose that the probability distributions of X1 and X2 in the population are identical, and that the means of X1 and X2 are both μ. We now take a random widget from the population, and denote its X1 value by c. (c may be greater than, equal to, or smaller than μ.) We have no access to the value of this widget's X2 yet. Let d denote the expected value of X2 of this particular widget. (i.e. Let d denote the average value of X2 of all widgets in the population with X1=c.) If the following condition is true:
 * Whatever the value c is, d lies between μ and c (i.e. d is closer to μ than c  is),

then we say that X1 and X2 show regression toward the mean.

This definition accords closely with the current common usage, evolved from Galton's original usage, of the term "regression toward the mean". It is "restrictive" in the sense that not every bivariate distribution with identical marginal distributions exhibits regression toward the mean (under this definition).

Theorem
If a pair (X, Y) of random variables follows a bivariate normal distribution, then the conditional mean E(Y|X) is a linear function of X. The correlation coefficient r between X and Y, along with the marginal means and variances of X and Y, determines this linear relationship:

\frac{E(Y\mid X)-E[Y]}{\sigma_y} = r\frac{X-E[X]}{\sigma_x}, $$

where E[X] and E[Y] are the expected values of X and Y, respectively, and σx and σy are the standard deviations of X and Y, respectively.

Hence the conditional expected value of Y, given that X is t standard deviations above its mean (and that includes the case where it's below its mean, when t < 0), is rt standard deviations above the mean of Y. Since |r| ≤ 1, Y is no farther from the mean than X is, as measured in the number of standard deviations.

Hence, if 0 ≤ r < 1, then (X, Y) shows regression toward the mean (by this definition).

General definition
The following definition of reversion toward the mean has been proposed by Samuels as an alternative to the more restrictive definition of regression toward the mean above.

Let X1, X2 be random variables with identical marginal distributions with mean μ. In this formalization, the bivariate distribution of X1 and X2 is said to exhibit reversion toward the mean if, for every number c, we have
 * μ ≤ E[X2 | X1 > c] < E[X1 | X1 > c], and
 * μ ≥ E[X2 | X1 < c] > E[X1 | X1 < c]

This definition is "general" in the sense that every bivariate distribution with identical marginal distributions exhibits reversion toward the mean, provided some weak criteria are satisfied (non-degeneracy and weak positive dependence as described in Samuels's paper ).

Alternative definition in financial usage
Jeremy Siegel uses the term "return to the mean" to describe a financial time series in which "returns can be very unstable in the short run but very stable in the long run." More quantitatively, it is one in which the standard deviation of average annual returns declines faster than the inverse of the holding period, implying that the process is not a random walk, but that periods of lower returns are systematically followed by compensating periods of higher returns, as is the case in many seasonal businesses, for example.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Regression toward the mean