Talk:Eido Tai Shimano

Second Question: Uncited "Hagiographic" assertion that this was the "first" Rinzain lineage

Area of agreement

I've been looking at the controversial edits and although he doesn't go out of his way to smooth people's feathers when he rebukes them, Tao2911 isn't violating edit policies on all of these edits. As stated elsewhere, I agree that he can do [[1]] although a case can be made that it is true, relevant and appropriate, perhaps. But without citations, it is road spam. So that's bathwater down the drain. It can be contested, but, for starters, what is "lineage", exactly, in Japanese, and what constitutes "establishment of a lineage" and where is the secondary source that says that this was the first one? ( - Geof )

Third Question: it seems like the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

But it is not so clear whether this other edit would withstand Noticeboard scrutiny. Rather than take it there or to RFC, it seems that perhaps dialogue between the parties might work to a resolution.

Unresolved redaction

Q:Is this content redacted?

A: Yes: [[2]]

Q: What was the comment?

A: The comment is "removed link to promotional ephemera - violates NPOV guidleines" [S.I.C.]

Q: What is the redacted content in question? ===

In 2005, the Society for the Promotion of Buddhism (Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai) initiated a TV Series shown in Southern California. Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai was founded in 1965 by the late Rev. Dr. Yehan Numata, a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley. Eido Roshi was one of the featured teachers and a video segment filmed at Dai Bosatsu Zendo Kongo-ji remains available at Dharmanet, a non-sectarian "eDharma" resource of Ashoka established by Kondanna (Barry Kapke).

Issue # 1: Is this content proscribed "promotional" content

There is no citation to any WMF policy or guidelines so the edit comment is not resilient. We all know that such policy & guidelines exist, but they were designed primarily for spammers who put up company brochures as calling cards.

Footnote to Issue #1

I have seen relatively new Buddhist organizations put their intellectual leaders high up in mainspace on WP as "expert" sources, and without even the courtesy of putting these "expert" commentators names in the footnotes, where they would be more appropriate, if they were even the notable expert opinion to be cited. But often as not, they are neither contemporary academics nor established ancient commentators: they are people who are making a living as "dharma teachers" and their followers are peppering WP with blatantly promotional "quotes" from their venerated leaders. As far as I am concerned, it makes the whole Buddhist enterprise questionable and I have publicly distanced myself from Buddhism but not dharma.

My current position on issue #1

So - I would not be opposed to rewording this, perhaps, but it is unclear what exactly the policy is at WP and somebody needs to ferret that out. I am open to concensus either way, despite the fact that I did actually write the copy.

Issue #2: is this "ephemera? If so, so what?

I checked and the video footage is still available. Also, since this is a biography, events which are in the past, "ephemeral", would still be pertinent. There is not cited WP policy regarding "ephemera". Lacking presentation of any such policy, this objection does not pass muster.

Issue # 3: Does this content violate "NPOV"?

That objection appears to itself be POV in that there is nothing POV in the content to complain of. The content does not state "this is an absolutely wonderful blah blah blah and will truly revolutionize the way you live your life blah blah blah..." there is none of that. It is merely the presentation of ah historical fact of the career of the BLP subject. Please elaborate why this constitutes POV, and present alternate non-POV wording, or release that objection.

Preliminary Conclusion regarding the Third Question

Of the three elements of the edit summary, the only one which seems to have resilience to scrutiny is the suggestion that there is an element of promotionalism in the content. There is no citation of which specific WP policy or guideline is invoked. Lacking that, the edit is unsustained and fails for simple lack of prosecution. If the specific policy or guideline materializes, the question will then be narrowed to focus on whether the content is in violation, and, if so, what the remedy shall be.

Please comment, thanks. GeoBard^Rap 01:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eido Tai Shimano. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tricycle.com/p/2067
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tricycle.com/p/2271

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Shimano Archive

It seems very clear to me that emails and open letters published on an activist website are not appropriate sources per WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS. I will be posting at the WP:RSN for confirmation. Slp1 (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Actually it was already discussed back in 2012 and the clear consensus was that it was not a reliable source which you explicitly accepted. [3]. If you want to use the source, please go to RSN and see if you can get a different consensus this time. --Slp1 (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, not wholeheartedly, but I appreciate your effort. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Let me just add that Jeff Shore is a respected Zen-teacher, one of the few westerners who really followed the rigorous Japanese monastic training-program. There are good reasons that Sherry Chayat consulted precisely him on Shimano's absence on Nagawaka's lineage chart, as the info you removed diff reveals. Jeff Shore has the formal and informal contacts in the Rinzai-shu to inquire this, and to instruct the involved persons how to deal with it. Nevertheless, I compliment your thoroughness; highly appreciated. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)