Talk:Eido Tai Shimano/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Lou Nordstrom

I am dumbfounded as to what you editors have let happen with this page. There are eight references to what someone refers to as "Lou Nordstrom." The book being referenced is "Namu Dai Bosa" and the sections referenced were written by Shimano himself. Lou was only the editor and wrote the introduction.

This is a travesty.... they have put up essentially an "auto-hagiography" written by Shimano.

Here's a sample:

The shock of Senzaki’s death and years of overly intense practice resulted in illness and Shimano had to spend half a year in hospital, after which he returned to Ryutaku-ji. Soen Roshi again asked him to go to Hawaii to help to lead a small Zen group founded by his lay students, but Shimano lost his enthusiasm about going to America. After Soen Roshi’s persuasion that going to Hawaii would be good for both his on-going recuperation and his academic studies which he could continue at the University of Hawaii, Shimano agreed to go.[8]

This is complete rubbish... Shimano never even met Senzaki, why was his death so "shocking"? He was in his mid twenties at the time, just how many years of "overly intense practice" did he do? And what sort of disease required six months of hospitalization? Was it a psychiatric institution? Then six months might make sense....

How can Wikipedia allow this? All the references supplied at the www.shimanoarchives.com site are "invalid" but a Shimano auto-hagiography is acceptable? What on earth is going on?

Kobutsu (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Kobutsu, i am somewhat knew to this article and am unsure what the problem with Lou Nordstrom, can you explain a little more what the issue is with this? mark nutley (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley, to answer you question Nordstrom is an author, who wrote the book Namu Dai Bosa. I think he is a scholar too, he was a professor at Syracuse University. In early eighties he was a student of Shimano and maybe Kobutsu has a problem with this. My feeling is that whatever will be included as a factual biography of Shimano, Kobutsu will have a problem with, as he did before.

To Kobutsu: Section only states the facts. If you have another reliable source to prove that Shimano never met Senzaki, please, introduce it. Fact that Shimano met Senzaki was included in short four sentence paragraph before. You yourself edited this paragraph several times before, as history shows, why now you question this? Hagiography needs to have peacock terms, please point them out if you find any here. The fact of his illness was mentioned because this was the reason for Soen Roshi to encourage Shimano to go to USA. I do not consider this hagiography... Shimano was exactly 28 years old when he came to USA, can you count? He was ordained in youth, and at least from the dates presented in text was in Heirin-ji and Ryutaku-ji 8 plus years, and several earlier in Empuku-ji. Living people do supply facts for their biography. Who supplied facts for Aitken Biography or other living teachers who have pages in Wiki. You do know very well what is in Namu Dai Bosa, because you yourself edited this page before using it as a reference, why now it is problem for you? You also know by reading it, why Shimano ended up in hospital. As an owner of Shimanoarchive you do have some bias and conflict here. Printed material, books as well as Newsletter by organization are reliable source for facts, to my knowledge. I pointed out earlier that I will be using this book and nobody objected. Maybe you have a problem for this biography to exist at all and what you do want is to have only allegations? Let's be honest about this... I am trying to put more bio material here so it is similar to other biographies and more balanced.Spt51 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Lou Nordstrom is NOT the author.... he is the editor. The authors are Nyogen Senzaki, Soen Nakagawa and Eido Shimano. Lou only edited the book and wrote the introduction. The material appearing on the Wiki page was written by Shimano. If you are really interested in peacock terms... read the book. What is now on the site is material about Eido Shimano written by Eido Shimano.... I don't know how much clearer I can get.

Here is the Amazon listing for Namu Dai Bosa: Namu Dai Bosa : a transmission of Zen Buddhism to America / by Nyogen Senzaki, Soen Nakagawa, Eido Shimano ; edited, with an introd. by Louis Nordstrom [Paperback] Publisher: New York : Theatre Arts Books; 1st Edition. ""The Bhaisajaguru Series"". edition (January 1, 1976) ASIN: B001R6G1X6

Kobutsu (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And I edited "this paragraph".... oh really? Show me..... cause the last edit I made here was 10:39, 30 June 2010.

Kobutsu (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

yes, and Nyogen Senzaki was there and you did not make the issue out of this...

so why suddenly now?

"Lou Nordstrom is NOT the author.... he is the editor." So what? How do you get facts? As an editor, Nordstrom takes responsibility for content and in references his name is included. Besides, as you know, there are original letters included, correspondence between Shimano and others, which Nordstrom edited too. Shimano supplied biographical material - facts. He did not write every single word...You do have problem with Shimano this is why you critic and undermine the book. The part included in Wiki has only few facts, the book material is much bigger. Be honest about this.Spt51 (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking only insofar as the citation goes, Kobutsu is correct. Nordstrom is the editor, not the author, and must not be cited as the author. I have corrected the citation in the References using the appropriate template, and I have updated the Harvard references in the article per WP:HARV to read "(Senzaki et al. p. 171)" etc. As previously cited, an independent editor would have had difficulty verifying the references, as they would not have found Nordstrom as the author of the book. It would be no different than listing whomever edited the Harry Potter series as the author of those books, rather than J. K. Rowling. I am not expressing any opinion about the remaining statements made in this thread, merely addressing the citation. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Spt51: You seem to have a dog in the race here... judging from YOUR interest. Please note that the paragraph we are talking about in the present iteration:

"The shock of Senzaki’s death and years of overly intense practice resulted in illness and Shimano had to spend half a year in hospital, after which he returned to Ryutaku-ji. Soen Roshi again asked him to go to Hawaii to help to lead a small Zen group founded by his lay students, but Shimano lost his enthusiasm about going to America. After Soen Roshi’s persuasion that going to Hawaii would be good for both his on-going recuperation and his academic studies which he could continue at the University of Hawaii, Shimano agreed to go.[8]"

This paragraph was not present when I did my last edit, it was an entirely different paragraph:

"A few years later Nakagawa planned to send Shimano to the United States to serve as Senzaki's attendant, but before doing so Senzaki died. However, in 1960 Shimano was sent to Honolulu, Hawaii to help at the Diamond Sangha founded by Robert Baker Aitken and his wife, Anne Hopkins Aitken. Shimano returned to Japan and met Haku'un Yasutani, accompanying he and Nakagawa back to the United States to serve as an attendant and translator. In 1964 he moved to New York. Later, in 1967, control and administration of the long inactive Zen Studies Society, founded by Cornelius Crane in 1956, were transferred to Shimano and a group of his supporter’s to provide him with a legitimate organization to support his missionary work."

So since Senzaki did not return to Japan, died on May 7, 1958 in America ( http://www.shimanoarchive.com/PDFs/19940321_ZSS_Newsletter.pdf and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyogen_Senzaki ) and Shimano did not come to America until 1960.. ergo, they never met.

Now, If you look on page 165 of Namu Dai Bosa, Lou Nordstrom states the following: “Because Eido Roshi himself supplies all the necessary biographical information in his own section, there is no need for this editor to do so.” The section Mr. Nordstrom is referring to extends from pages 165 through 221.

Please note the pages referenced in the present Wikipedia iteration: 166, 170, 170-171, 171, 171, 172-173, 176-177, 180, 180.

So yes, the material in the present Wikipedia entry was written by Shimano about Shimano.

I’m being honest…

Kobutsu (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Kobutsu, to clear what I think is your misunderstanding about paragraphs: before I included the extended bio material two days ago, there was only this one paragraph, about Shimano's life in Japan here:

"Eido Shimano was born in Tokyo, Japan, in 1932. In his youth he studied Rinzai Zen under two masters, Kengan Goto and Shirouzu Keizan. Kengan Goto ordained him as an unsui as a young man and gave him his Dharma name, Eido. He trained at Heirin-ji for two years with Shirouzu Keizan and then began his studies under Soen Nakagawa at Ryutaku-ji. While at Ryutaku-ji, Nyogen Senzaki visited the temple from America and left a lasting impression on Shimano."

It says: that Shimano was very impressed when Senzaki visited Ryutaku-ji, and this was in 1995. Shimano went to Ryutakuji in 1954... So, has has seen him. Didn't he? And he was impressed, this was the only time he has met him...

I am taking about this paragraph and it has been in Wiki as long as I look at this biography, perhaps not as long as you do. You corrected this once didn't you?

I extended this to several paragraphs, until the time of him leaving for America. Please, read carefully what the present bio says... I included in it the sentence from this old paragraph.

Personally, I never did see the paragraph you do quote... We seem to be referring to different paragraphs and different times.

Of course the paragraph you do not like was written by me, and only included couple of days ago. It was not there when you edited... but the first paragraph was.

I do not want to argue, but also being accused of something I do not do, does not feel right. Hope this will help you. Peace to you!Spt51 (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I’m not accusing anybody… I do detect accusatory tonality, but it is not mine. I am simply pointing out that material being presented as factual is being cited to references that were written by the subject of the biographical entry. I simply question the acceptability of such material and references on Wikipedia.

Kobutsu (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Taking the first paragraph in the present entry:

"Eido Shimano was born in Tokyo, Japan, in 1932. When he was nine years old and in third grade, the war between America and Japan began. The teacher ordered all children to study, chant and memorize the Heart Sutra. This was his first encounter with a Buddhist scripture. One summer while playing in the temple grounds not far from his house, he saw two Buddhist pilgrims chanting a sutra. When he recognized this was the Heart Sutra that he knew, he was moved to tears and ran home to tell his mother.[1] During the war the Shimano family moved to Chichibu, the mountain city where his mother was born.[2]"

On page 166 of Namu Dai Bosa we find (written by Shimano):

“When I was nine years old, in the third grade, the war between America and Japan began. The teacher of my class ordered all of us to study, chant and memorize the Heart Sutra.”

“That was my first encounter with any kind of Buddhist scripture”

“… not far from our house was a Shingon temple. One summer afternoon, while I was playing in the temple grounds, I saw two white-robed, straw-sandaled men with straw hats”

“Removing their hats, they began chanting a sutra.”

“I recognized what they were chanting as the Heart Sutra”

I ran home, about one mile, and rushed up to my mother.”

On page 170 of Namu Dai Bosa we find (written by Shimano):

“During the war, my family moved to the mountain city of Chichibu, where my mother had been born.”

That’s just the first paragraph. I do not have the time or inclination to dissect the entire Wiki entry but I think people get the drift of what I am trying to point to here. I have just illustrated that the first paragraph of the present Wikipedia entry on Eido Tai Shimano is nothing more that a paraphrasing of Shimano's own writing in Namu Dai Bosa.

Kobutsu (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as source is concerned, this is not up to me. Of course using the book I am paraphrasing it as everyone else does using other sources. The book was published and used by many over the years. I got it from library when searching for some materials for this bio. As I read it I extract what I believe are facts worthy to include here. If you think that this is not a reliable source you can take it to RSN and ask for consensus. Everything in Wiki is done by consensus, it seems, and of course there are few rules. Because, I also did see the note by editor about material being supplied by Shimano, I did ask weather I may use this source... No objections. And I am planning to write few more paragraphs with facts from Shimano life to include here, so it is complete. The short bio did not have any references, but it is clear that Namu Dai Bosa was the book used as a source. It was pointed out, that it is not balanced, with criticism being the biggest part of it. Personally, I do not see anything wrong with a person providing material for their own bio, or even writing it, as long as facts can be confirmed, and I believe the editor does it. Maybe I am wrong...Spt51 (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses are acceptable sources under WP:BLP, because they are not self-published. (That is, it's the publishing house that's publishing the autobiography; the author didn't take it to the printer himself and sell it himself.) Therefore, the restrictions of WP:BLPSPS explicitly do not apply to the book in question, as it was published by a reliable third-party publishing house—look it up, it says so right on that link. That's not to say that using the one book as the primary source for large parts of the article would necessarily pass the other rules about sources; it would probably be best to get additional sources for anything in Namu Dai Bosa that seems likely to be cast in an improperly kind light by the subject. Although the book isn't unacceptable merely because it's an autobiography, it also isn't necessarily fully reliable, either. However, as far as Wikipedia's guidelines go, the fact that the autobiography was reviewed by an editor and presumably vetted by a publishing company grants it a certain degree of credibility. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's interesting you bring up the publishing company.... Namu Dai Boas is part of the Bhaisajaguru Series published by Theatre Arts Books. Now the Director of Theatre Arts Books was George Zournas ( who wrote this letter: http://www.shimanoarchive.com/PDFs/19820911_Zournas_Clareman.pdf ). George Zournas sat on Eido Shimano's Zen Studies Society Board of Trustees until he departed under extremely acrimonious circumstances following a series of sex scandals ( as can be seen in this letter: http://www.shimanoarchive.com/PDFs/19820914_Zournas_Board.pdf ) So actually, Namu Dai Bosa was for all intents and purposes self-published. Your move....

Kobutsu (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Kobutsu, I have a question. Which facts or parts of the version written by me so far are problem for you? And if you have "better" sources or other printed sources with facts to the contrary, can you include them here? There are other books, which do have short bio info about Shimano, written by James Ford and others. Eventually, I will look for more citation for the info which troubles you. There is not much written by others about his life in Japan, but I see more sources about his life in America. The admins and editors are working on consensus about "controversial" section and it will be included, only when consensus is reached, I believe. As far as shimanoarchive after a long discussion and consensus reached on several boards, this is not s source to be included anywhere in Wikipedia. But you have it online, it is your site, so who is interested can find it. Spt51 (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have a "problem" with the original article before people started messing with it to exclude the reality of Shimano's history and create a "sanitized" version. In time, the material in the shimanoarchive will be used to write a book - which will then be an acceptable source. As for the version "written" by you; were it a paper submitted in a college course or as a dissertation it would be labeled plagiarism, pure and simple. Yes, the archive is on line at http://www.shimanoarchive.com and I would urge anyone who is seriously interested in Mr. Shimano's history to read the complete archive and reach their own conclusions.

Kobutsu (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am appreciative, Kobutsu, that given your conflict of interest about this matter you have chosen not to edit the article, and instead simply to make your comments here. It is a good and impressive decision.

In fact, whether or not the book is considered a reliable source, citing Shimano's history of his own childhood etc are perfectly fine per WP:SPS and WP:BLP as long as they don't concern other living people. If there is reliably sourced disagreement about their accuracy etc then attributing the comments may be appropriate. e.g. "According to Shimano, XYZ....", but as an external observer I cannot see much that is controversial or disputed in Spt51's edits. If there is, please specify the problematic content and the reliable sources that contradict it. --Slp1 (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This Article is a Complete Whitewash

This article has been completely hijacked by biased editors. The page until recently had for many months contained at least cursory mention of the many sex scandals that have surrounded Eido Shimano for decades; these mentions were sourced with agreed upon, reliable, secondary and tertiary source texts (in fact ALL mention of him in secondary/tertiary sources includes mention of these scandals). These and recent scandals that are leading directly to his retirement, as admitted and announced by his organization, and as REPORTED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES, have all been removed. My attempts to simply have these mentions made succinct and accurate per recent sources were met with the complete removal of ALL mention of any controversy. I would be more convinced of the sincerity of the editors who removed this material if they likewise went to every other religious leader profile and removed mention of sexual scandals there (Richard Baker, Trungpa, Evangelical leaders, etc) - for none of them are any better documented or sourced than those of Shimano. Again, we had New York Times, and multiple major publisher texts.

Instead, these same editors have gone to the page of the man most active trying to hold Shimano accountable (Zen master Robert Aitken) and tried to include defamatory material there.

The page as it now stands is complete hagiography - as pointed out by Kobutsu, the primary source is Shimano's inflated, hyperbolic self-assessment.

I do not wish to see a page here that defames. Shimano is a significant figure in the history of American Zen - to not have a fair accurate page would be a gross oversight. But to have a page that does not mention that he has been accused publicly of sexual misconduct over decades, and that his own org. has acknowledged these accusations and acted on them likewise over decades, and that he himself has publicly apologized and announced his retirement in the same breath/letter, is obscene. I will no longer attempt to edit this page - but I will flag it as biased.Tao2911 (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been explained several times that encyclopedic articles (particularly BLPs) do not record every sensational mention. If you have a suggestion for some wording, and a reliable source which justifies that wording, please post both here. I have not looked at every example, but past examples that I have checked have simply not been justified because the sources were dubious, or they did not use language of the kind introduced into this article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

your argument is a complete red herring, and total misconstruing of what has occurred here. Mention of allegations of misconduct were here for a long time. Suddenly, with the appearance of considerably more serious and reliable sources, not to mention Shimano's retirement due to his own admission of wrong doing, and his 'church's acknowledgment that many allegations were indeed true and they were acting on them, clearly partisans who favor Shimano went into full defense mode and censored the page. You, as far as I know, are possibly one. In any case, your argument here is complete bunk, and do not reflect the actual history or debates that have occurred here.Tao2911 (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

and by the way, the sources include those used here in other respects, long accepted in the past, and more recently the New York Times, who quote the Zen Studies Society saying that Shimano was indeed resigning due to misconduct, and that much of the material alleging abuse is convincing and they are acting on it. HIS OWN ORGANIZATION...IN THE NEW YORK TIMES. Not to mention their own statements, which were also likewise held to be acceptable even by the partisans until they got the upper hand by sheer numbers and vehemence.Tao2911 (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As you will see above, I agree with you that some important information has been deleted. On the other hand, I hope that you will also learn from this episode. Introducing unverifiable, BLP violating material such as allegations of "sexual abuse" can and does (rightly) result in deletions of the offending content. All of it in this case. I recognize that at various points you tried to reinsert what had previously been considered acceptable. Unfortunately, by that point the attention of new editors had been attracted and the consensus has changed. Restoring the material that has, as you said, been "long accepted in the past" has taken some time, and indeed has been somewhat watered down, it seems to me, but this has only been necessary because you chose (once again) to break WP policies--Slp1 (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You have clear, long demonstrated bias, or at the very least a sizable blind spot. You can spin it how you want. I am familiar with a dozen other pages on figures who've undergone lesser and greater scandals with less thorough media coverage, and yet these issues are well covered in their WP entries. Respectfully, I simply find most of your analysis complete bollocks. Your 'version' of the "scandals" section was misleading, incomplete, poorly written, and lacked even basic punctuation. I don't know if I was more offended by its inaccuracies or its complete lack of comprehensibility or style. But carry on. I'm leaving this page to you and the one or two other Shimano trolls, who are pretty clearly close followers invested in a desperate attempt to salvage this one little scrap of image they can actually try to control (Kobutsu makes a convincing case as to at least one of their actual identities). Let em have it, for a little while anyway. Meanwhile, their man Shimano's tenure implodes in disgrace, with the ZSS in full catastrophe mode, according to all apparent media sources and their own statements. That's simply the facts, jacks. The truth will out.Tao2911 (talk) 04:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been explained several times that encyclopedic articles (particularly BLPs) do not record every sensational mention. If you have a suggestion for some wording, and a reliable source which justifies that wording, please post both here. I have not looked at every example, but past examples that I have checked have simply not been justified because the sources were dubious, or they did not use language of the kind introduced into this article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I wrote a succinct version, using the New York Times article primarily which not only covered previous decades controversies (previously listed here serially, awkwardly, and in light of more recent revelations, inaccurately) but brought allegations up to present; not only this, but it mentioned actions being taken by the ZSS in light of these allegations, which they themselves characterized as consistently credible, with numbers proven. These scandals are not a few aspersions cast about on blogs, and the ongoing implication that this is the case is, at best, simply stupid. You can go read the Times article yourself. I'm not going to waste more time saying the same thing yet again to you people.Tao2911 (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the version I crafted, that was deleted by biased editors. Please note numers of citations, all previously accepted, most phrasing milder than previous accepted versions: "Shimano has been dogged by persistent allegations of sexual and financial improprieties.[3][8][9][10] The earliest stretch back to 1964 in Hawaii.[1][2][3] In New York, accusations of sexual abuse occurred during the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's.[11][12][3] The accusations have resulted in the departure of students and monks from the Zen Studies Society.[8][13][14]

In July, 2010, a female student publicly revealed that she had been having a long term affair with Eido Shimano, which resulted in Shimano and his wife resigning from the ZSS board of directors.[3][15][16] In September, 2010, Shimano sent a letter to the ZSS community apologizing for his misdeeds, and announcing that he would retire as abbot of the Zen Studies Society in December, 2010.[17][18]"

The previous mess: "Shimano has been the subject of allegations of sexual and financial improprieties.[8][9][10] In 1964, while living in Hawaii with Robert Aitken, there were misconduct allegations, which led to a rift with Aitken.[1][2][3] In New York, in 1975, 1979 and 1982 Shimano was accused of sexually exploiting emotionally vulnerable female students, as well as financial mismanagement; he denied the allegations.[11][12] The accusations resulted in departure of students and monks from the Zen Studies Society.[8][13][14] In July 2010 Eido Shimano and his wife resigned from the ZSS board of directors when a " recent inappropriate relationship" between Shimano and a female student was disclosed.[3][15][16] It was announced that Shimano would retire in April 2012, and in the interim would no longer take new students.[3][15] In September 2010 Eido Shimano sent the letter of apology to Sangha members and friends, in which he announced that he would retire abbot of Zen Studies Society in December 2010.[17][18]"

Same sources (notably the New York Times quoting ZSS spokesperson saying dozens of accusations (including those found on Shimano Archives) are largely credible. Better writing versus slanted gobbledygook.Tao2911 (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why you have proposed exactly same version that has been rejected by at least 6 editors here and on WP:BLPN for failing essential policy issues of WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV. Please reread the previous comments and edit summaries that pointed out the problems with your edit.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] --Slp1 (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

@Tao2911: Your post is rather long to analyze, and I am not going to look for the precise references to check the text (again) since the issue has been thoroughly discussed. However, some brief comments follow. It is not helpful to start a discussion with reference to biased editors. Articles never say things like "dogged by persistent allegations" – that is blog speak. An article might quote a specific source with that text, but that kind of claim should never appear as the opinion of Wikipedia. The key issue (and why I asked for the reference as well) is whether the suggested wording was really justified by the source, or whether the wording may involve some interpretation by editors. Some previous sources I have checked have not used language that would support your proposed text; it is not sufficient to "know" something, particularly for a BLP it must be verified. Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have trouble reading two paragraphs of material, and extrapolating a simple point. Unsurprising. "dogged by persistent allegations" is not "blog speak." It's colloquial English for being constantly nagged by something - which the New York Times precisely says Shimano has been. We could argue about word choices, which I am happy to do. But instead, you and others have instead simply removed all mention of Shimano's admitted wrong doing, decades of which are admitted by his org., and reported on by numbers of reputable sources. Your agenda is clear enough. Is this succinct enough for you?Tao2911 (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Organization

The reinsertion of the abuse material was welcome - however the order was a mess, and the passage needed some slight improving for readability. I didn't add any material (except one line there in previous Spt/Slp version (I can't remember who is who)- the "emotionally vulnerable" bit; not mine) - I just rearranged it, as well as adding section headers to what otherwise was a sloppy mass of biographical data. This also paves the way for future expansion of page with other bio material, which will need to occur if page is to beyond mere "stub" status. It also still slants heavily hagiographic in early sections.Tao2911 (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

and @ tmorton: I was trying to add more section headers as you were also editing - so I was never planning to leave just the last one or two, per your concerns.Tao2911 (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Per claims of their being consensus on some previous version: where? All mention of allegations had been removed, and that removal was fought for by numbers of biased editors who were clearly ahppy to see it gone. A new version was then added by Slp, with no consensus, or even discussion. I made small corrections to it, and added headers, and removed POV tag. Use some sense - don't fight for you version just because it is yours. Not when it has such obvious problems. Discuss your issues here, and we'll work it out.Tao2911 (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am a veteran editor. I am respecting the edits here of others. Attempts here to revert every single edit I make are clearly against the spirit and letter of Wikipedia guidelines. My edits are reasoned and carefully considered, supported by the sources - and presented here in talk. Simply reverting all of them and making up specious, false claims for why will result in simply more contentiousness, admin intervention, and another POV tag. A word change here or there I can understand. Simply hitting 'undo' over and over is not kosher.Tao2911 (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really, 4 separate editors have disagreed with your edits and improvements of today and you have been edit warring against all of them. I am unclear why you didn't participate in the discussion about the wording in the section labelled consensus above that has taken place over the last several weeks, but you didn't. Please get consensus for your edits first as requested above.--Slp1 (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Those "four separate" editors have been fighting different battles today; two have fought to remove all mention altogether of allegations, and I'm only asking that you make your points here to my more than reasonable edits. Asking for consensus to split a paragraph, add headers, or put material in chronological order is absurd and unreasonable. So bring up issues and stop edit warring. Please. And your claim that there was a consensus version is simply not born out by the record here. Again, where is that again?Tao2911 (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Slp1. I have no horse in this race; frankly, I could care less about Shimano. However, I do care about following the WP:BLP guidelines, and the edits Tao2911 keeps trying to impose are contrary to those guidelines. Tao has been warned about this behavior repeatedly since at least July. It appears that any editor who disagrees with Tao is "biased" in their opinion; it's not clear to me how anyone could disagree with him and not be biased, based on their statements. There is a clear consensus here that Tao's wording is inappropriate, counter to guidelines and policies, and not suitable for the article. What I see here is a pretty textbook case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. We had been working productively toward reintroducing some of the content that was more controversial, finding appropriate sources and wording to support it; this type of edit-warring deeply undermines that progress, sadly. I hope that the folks on WP:AN3 can step in and restore some decorum. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

and the bias of these editors is proven once again by the fact that when I come and simply rearrange the material added by another editor and split a paragraph, with no added information or sources, my edit is reversed. How much clearer could it be? A classic case of WP bullying and page ownership (I won't bother with the links to rules - you should know better already).Tao2911 (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they were fighting different battles. You have been reverting us all to protect your preferred version (including a section entitled "abuse allegations" for you which appear to be the only supporter and for which there is clearly no consensus at all. The only person who has broken WP:3RR is you. As for where the discussion about the wording and organization of the section, I told you where to look in my previous post... in the section called "Consensus", above. --Slp1 (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There are two massive problems. One is the sections you have gone for split it into teeny tiny one paragraph sections - which isn't great (as well as looking odd it can also disrupt screen readers etc.). More importantly I think the section headers push a little bit of POV - there is no need to draw attention to the abuse allegations and it does not strike me as worth a header. Generally speaking in a BLP it is best to stick to broad timeline/non-contentious activity headings and only go into specific incidents if the content is a particularly lengthy part of the bio. I'd recommend scrapping "Abuse Allegations" and possibly "Transmission" to clean up the text --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

this is reasonable.Tao2911 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is simply not true. In any case, as pointed out in next section, you need to say what your issues are. What is wrong with "my" version - that is almost identical to yours but with improved grammar and style?Tao2911 (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

I would like to remind editors here what "consensus" actually consists of. I feel the term is being used to abuse here. In particular there are some helpful lines: "When reverting an edit you disagree with, it helps to state the actual disagreement rather than citing "no consensus". This provides greater transparency for all concerned, and likewise acts as a guide so that consensus can be determined through continued editing...Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable."Tao2911 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, the problem is that BLP concerns completely trump consensus - which is what was put forward at the BLP/N and is a major point of concern for this content. The current version was agreed on on September 9th. If you want a change that means reaching a new consensus, here on the talk. I have read up above and see no counter-consensus to the current content. Feel free to make your case for a new consensus to develop :) The reason people are simply saying "no consensus" is because it has previously been made very clear to yourself where the consensus was reached and for what content. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Errant. One quick comment. There has been a more recent discussion (than Sept 9th) about wording that has taken place in the section labelled "Consensus" that began Sept 18th. Several editors participated and I tried to leave plenty of time of discussion and comments. That is the version that was added yesterday. --Slp1 (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a very selective quotation; you might try reading all of that article. For example, the line after what you quoted: "When there is a more serious dispute over an edit, the consensus process becomes more explicit. Editors open a section on the article's talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion." (Emphasis added.) Tao, you don't seem to be doing that part of it. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(To tao9211) Very true. However, given the resistance you have obtained to material recently added (after a 2 week discussion that closed yesterday), starting a discussion here first to change the consensus is what needs to be done. The version that has some acceptance needs to the starting point, not the version that only you appears to support. Maybe you can change people's minds, but edit warring is not going to help. --Slp1 (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the version that was re-added it differed itself from weeks old "consensus" version (so called) - that was since deleted completely, with no protest from anyone - except me. My "reading" points out the issues that I deem significant here, and they are more than reasonable. And all I am asking for here over and over is for discussion - how many different ways can I ask for it? My edits were mainly to put in timeline, split a paragraph, and add some headers (which I just adjusted per another editors concerns, demonstrating my willingness to work here.) The wording is virtually identical.Tao2911 (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Changes to section, headings etc

I have restored the version that had agreement from those that commented in the "Consensus" section above. Are any changes desirable? It's fine if they are, but given the heated nature of this page, perhaps we can agree to discuss first before making edits, particularly to the contentious section about the retirement/allegations. --Slp1 (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As a person participating in discussion on consensus the present version is what we agreed on and it should stay. It was a part of entire text though as we discussed. If there should be any heading than "Retirement" is what I could agree to, though I do not see similar heading in other pages. Adding it serves a certain purpose for some, of course, so I do have a mixed feeling about it. But it can stay if others feel it should. Spt51 (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The version that's currently in place seems to have a reasonable number of section headings. They're also the right markup (not skipping from second- to fourth-level headings for no reason) and properly capitalized, etc., per WP:MOS, so that makes me happy. I wonder if "Retirement" should be a subhead of "Biography", though, instead of a major section of its own. One other nitpick: the section heading "Transmission" could be confusing to readers not familiar with Buddhism; your average American will assume that it's about the gearbox on an automobile. Perhaps "Dharma transmission" would be a better heading for that section. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Retirement should be a under Biography. The sections called "Move to America" will have more content when is ready, and transmission should not be a separate section. At this moment I would exclude this heading, because it does not make sense to readers. Dharma Transmission is more correct, but having there only one sentence maybe is not worthy of new section. Another heading which is not exactly correct is: "Youth and ordination" also includes the Zen training. So maybe needs to be reworded, just a thought...Spt51 (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Errant concern about splitting this article into several small sections, wouldn't it be better to split this Biography into two only? I am not sure about the wording of headings, someone can decide this. My though is that first part could be about life in Japan, second about life in America. Than problem of "drawing attention headings" would not exist. This biography, even after few more facts added will be rather short. Also, it would look better to have two columns in Notes section, because it is getting longer.Spt51 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I notice that without any kind of discussion, Tao9211 has made changes to the section. Sigh. Tmorton166 has reverted part of it [12]. I will say that I totally agree with this edit, since the "some of" addition is simply not in the sources given (I checked once again) and appears to be another example of the introduction of "false" material. For example, the Holy Longing books clearly states that "He denied the allegations", when talking about the 3 dates listed. p 144. I confess to have reached my limit; I have asked for a topic ban from this and related articles here if anybody wants to comment, either for or against. --Slp1 (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment: POV

Editor Tao2911 (talk · contribs) and others have persistently asserted that there are POV issues on the Eido Tai Shimano article, claiming that the article is a "hagiography" and "a complete whitewash" because it does not include certain references to Shimano's life, and in some cases not using certain terms to describe events. (See the talk page; this is not readily summarized.) The language in question was removed after the article was reported to WP:BLP/N; editors who reviewed the page from BLP/N have found that the proposed language is contrary to WP:BLP in that it is inaccurate, uses unnecessarily loaded terms, and in some cases cites unreliable sources. Keeping in mind the restrictions imposed on all biographies of living persons by WP:BLP, does this article have POV issues? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, but not anywhere close to the extent claimed by Tao2911. Given that the mainstream press has reported on past accusations against Shimano, I feel that the article needs to make more mention of them, in proper context. However, it should not use inappropriately loaded language like "dogged by accusations", nor should it use terms not found in the references, such as "sexual abuse". The version prior to the edits by Off2riorob (talk · contribs) was more balanced; I disagree with his assertion in the edit summary that "Its not welll sourced at all, its weak and oprimnary and allegations of multople allegations." I believe that removing this statement entirely makes the article unbalanced. However, care must be taken to ensure that the material added is well-sourced and presented with neutral language. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

re: "The language in question was removed after the article was reported to WP:BLP/N" When was this? If you speak of the discussion months back, it doesn't pertain. Many previous sources were tossed. We were left with those agreed upon: a series of authoritative texts on Zen in America, and the freakin New York Times, for gods sake. The claims of hagiography do NOT come solely from removed material; the source for most of the bio is Shimano himself, and its reads as overly credulous and worshipful. Yeah, this is really objective and crucial info: "...he saw two Buddhist pilgrims chanting a sutra. When he recognized this was the Heart Sutra that he knew, he was moved to tears and ran home to tell his mother." Or this "Eido Shimano also gained some experience in construction while Empuku-ji was being renovated." What? This page is a mess. "Your welcome" for creating all the sub headings, btw.Tao2911 (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The article seems factual, off hand and neutral in the latter part. That is the sort of things to aim for in the first part too - I'd encourage you to WP:SOFIXIT on the rest... I entirely agree that it needs work, give it a shot! --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"NYT/other reports on 4 decades of sex abuse scandals removed. AGAIN. generally hagiographic."

This statement is not based on facts presented in reliable sources, as accepted here after many discussions. The page is not hagiography, at the moment it presents the facts only. The section with allegations is not complete, but this is only because of disagreements between one person Tao2911 and the rest of editors who want the wording of it be close to sources. We have a conflict about this and no way to resolve it, as Slp1 pointed out in her request for ban of Tao2911. We are trying to work on the version to be included. This comment by Tao2911 in subject line, again shows his lack of objectivity about subject of page as well as to what involved editors are trying to do here. During this time, when Slp1 asked for ban, I do not think it is appropriate for Tao2911 to include the banner here or edit the page. He should wait for the decision.Spt51 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

@Spt51: you joined wikipedia solely to police the Shimano page. You are clearly a supporter. Likewise off2riorob and others. This is not the sole case of multiple invested editors rallying to bully oppositional viewpoints. I have made series of changes which you all have been happy to accept (though glaringly unacknowledged), since they improved what otherwise continues to be a grossly inferior entry. Unfortunately, most sane balanced admin editors are not spending any of their valuable time actually looking deeply into the issues surrounding this page, and instead see hubbub, a bunch of biased editors squawking, and I get made the scapegoat. Again, seen it on many other pages.

Its all fine. The fact remains that Shimano was the subject of a New York Times article titled "Sex Scandal Has American Buddhists Looking Within" - an article in which members of his church (as in numbers of other sources accepted here in past by plethora of neutral editors in numbers of discussion pages, and even editor Slp1 here) admit to decades of scandals and allegations that have significantly impacted his church and reputation. As an informed and neutral member of the American Buddhist community, never involved with Shimano, his school, or oppositional factions (Aitken, Kobutsu Malone, the 9 other teachers who sent him a letter mentioned in the NYTimes article, numbers of his former students including his heirs etc etc etc), I wish to see an accurate portrayal of his standing in the Buddhist landscape. A standing which is clearly reflected by ALL secondary and tertiary sources, ALL of which mention the sex scandals which have surrounded him since his first year in America in the 1960's.

To not mention them is to not reflect sources proportionally. The main source currently is Shimano himself, and marshmallow-softballed versions of secondary sources. There is a way to include this information accurately and within WP guidelines. Instead, all mention of them is continually excised by clearly pro-Shimano trolls.Tao2911 (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is all very well and good, but we have to be very very very careful with such allegations in a BLP article. Any indication we give that they might be true without strong evidence published in third party RS's (and drawing the same conclusion) should be avoided. Plus it is important to have RS's that indicate how significant such things are to the community and this person in general. Telling us it is "obvious" we are supporters is never going to help your point. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

do some bloody homework. these issue have been gone over ad nauseum. Read no further than the NYT piece for the ZSS itself saying allegations have gone on for decades, negatively impacting the group, and culminated with yet another that finally forced him into retirement. Plus there were number of profiles in books here, reviewed by the overly sensitive Slp1, that also mention the scandals over decades that have led to member after member leaving furious and damaged. I wasn't there. How do I know about it? I read this stuff in these books! "Zen in America" by Helen Tworkov founder of Tricycle, "How the Swans Came to the Lake" by respected writer Rick Fields, the New York Times, others. But you have pro-Shimano editors that remove this info over and over and over and over, year after year.Tao2911 (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I also very strongly suggest that you cease ascribing motives (supporters, pro-Shimano) to other editors. It does not help your case at all, and is often just plain wrong, to boot. --Slp1 (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! Tao, I set up this RfC in part so that your views would have an opportunity to be heard by the greater community. Being uncivil about it kind of squanders the opportunity, don't you think? I have no personal stake in Shimano; heck, I thought Shimano made bicycle parts. I came here by a tangent, but I'm keeping an eye on it because of my interest in WP:BLP. Two of those you seem to be vilifying as critics have explicitly agreed with your POV tag here in civil discussion. I encourage you to argue the point, not the personalities; it's more productive. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, the article does have POV issues in two ways. First, as others have pointed out, there are some problems with encyclopedic tone in the first part of the article. As Errant suggests, this can probably fairly easily be fixed. Second, the article does not mention that there have been ongoing allegations of misconduct against Shimano. Numerous (10+) reliable sources (including the New York Times [13]and books published by highly reputable publishers [14], [15]) and the peer-reviewed journal Buddhist Studies Review [16] discuss these, and yet they have been deleted [17] with an edit summary suggesting that the sources are weak and primary. Some editors of this article appear to think that the information should not be included at all; others would like to tar and feather the man with POV, non-verifiable material. I believe there is a middle way: a brief, scrupulously sourced, neutrally written summary as suggested by Macwhiz. So, I am fine with the NPOV banner for the moment. Many thanks, btw, to Macwhiz for setting up this Request for Comment; it is a great idea, and hopefully some new voices will enter the debate and help us reach consensus. --Slp1 (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd concur with that, though I would say that I don;t think an awful lot more is needed than already exists, but that there is scope to highlight some of the material. I would say maybe a sentence more content is possible from the proposed sources. As mentioned above we have to be exceedingly careful with allegations - nothing specific or that implies they could be true. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tao 2911, again you are not being honest in discussion here responding to me. The allegation section was worked out in the past and the version was here for long time. It was excluded only after you made some edits. I was not even present here at that time, being away for two weeks. Make statements based on facts, please. Even recently there was work on consensus and you did not participated at all, Slp1 asked you why? As soon as he/she included the version decided by others you objected and started without discussion on talk page making your preferred edits and edit warring. Facts are in history of page for this. This is your pattern and this is to what editors object. On the bases of what you do in this page, as I read in talk page from the beginning of your involvement and the sources you were trying to include in the past, I could also say the the only reason for you to be here is to insert your version of allegations. But I am not saying this... Why you do not include more facts from the man's life trying to make this biography complete? Why you do not present another sources, which could be used if you do not agree with the ones used already? The only section you fight for is your version of allegations and trying to add news as you find them on the Internet, doesn't this show your point of view? As other pages on Wiki this one also is a common effort and we work on consensus when matter is so contentious, which you do not seem to be able to accept. Why is it? There are administrators who do believe that no allegations should be included at all, others want to include them but in form close to reliable and accepted sources. Majority wants the second. Cooperate with them in civil manner, without name calling, accusations etc.Spt51 (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have asked Tao2911 several times above "if you have a suggestion for some wording, and a reliable source which justifies that wording, please post both here". Until that is done, the POV tag should be removed because this is a pointless discussion. No article on Wikipedia should ever say things like "dogged by persistent allegations", and a desire for that type of wording is not any justification for a POV tag. There is no problem with brief and due material using encyclopedic language and reliable sources that fully justify any text added to the article without a need to read between the lines. With the flurry of edits I may have missed it, but I have not seen such material, which is why I suggest that it be posted here. Talk about the motives of other editors is offtopic for this page. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I have made these suggestions, and made such edits at times, as have others, with versions that remained for weeks without issue. You are I believe one of the editors who wishes to remove all mention of any of the numerous sex scandals reported by acceptable sources. It's very simple, and I've now said it about 300 times: we have numbers of sources confirming that allegations of "sexual and financial improprieties" occurred from Shimano's arrival in the US in 1964, in the 1970's, in the 1980's, I would include the 90's too since NYT mentions Aitken letter in 1995 signed by 8 other American Zen masters calling for him to be held accountable, and then his retirement forced due to recent admitted wrongdoing.

The New York Times reports that this Shimano scandal has "rocked the American Buddhist Community." As a member of that community, I can attest to the veracity of this statement - but I don't matter; these aren't my words. They're the Times'. It also mentions, as do other older sources, that these repeated scandals have led to departures of monks and members from the ZSS, and significantly impacted the organization he's run for over 40 years. These are all significant facts. To omit them is to selectively cherry pick how you wish to portray Shimano. We are not the judge and jury. We report the facts, and how they exist in secondary and tertiary sources. I don't know how so many people can so willfully misunderstand WP policy - though I know how that policy is often used to defend hardened biases. We see that here.

While we know that the archive on Shimano that Robert Aitken gathered, and more recently published online, itself is not an acceptable source on its own - the New York Times mentions it and discusses its impact; including how the board of the ZSS itself considers much of that material sound, and how it spurred them to action. Even using ZSS's own statements, which some here are happy to selectively do, they have rewritten their ethical guidelines, and have an active grievance procedure to address the numbers of cases that have arisen. By their OWN admission. Arguably, this could all be mentioned. NOOOO, this all just hearsay. These are not the droids you're looking for.

@Spt51: I have made edits throughout this page that have improved it and remained uncontested, though these have never been acknowledged. We pick our battles: I am not interested or capable of doing extensive research on Shimano right now to flesh out his bio. I'll leave that to others - I've said it should be done. This page is greatly inferior in all kinds of respects. And you can say what you want, but when you create an account solely to delete all mention of sex scandals surrounding one figure, and you do so over and over and over and over, I think your hand is tipped.Tao2911 (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It is best to focus on fixing a problem without general comments. The next step is for you to propose some text here, with sources. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to REPLACE mention/history of controversies

Current page version: [18]

This was the last version of the page (October 3) that I found acceptable: [19]

It reads:

"Abuse Allegations [I would change this possibly to "Controversies" since not everything is merely allegation - he admitted to affairs in past, and church acknowledges them (multiple, not just one) as late as NYT article]

There have been numbers of instances of allegations of sexual and financial improprieties against Shimano.[17][18][19] Accusations of inappropriate sexual relations with two emotionally vulnerable female Zen students in Hawaii led to a rift with Robert Aitken.[10][11] Further allegations of extra-marital relationships [I would add "with female students"] were made in New York in 1975, 1979 and 1982.[20][21][10] These led to departures of students and members from the ZSS.[17][22][23]

Retirement

In July 2010, Eido Shimano and his wife resigned from the ZSS Board of Directors after a "recent inappropriate relationship" between Shimano and one of his female students was revealed [I would just condense this to "after an affair with a student was publicly revealed." The quote is gratuitous.][12][24][25] The following September, Shimano sent a letter of apology to the ZSS community, expressing "a profound feeling of remorse for my actions" and stating that he would retire as abbot of the Zen Studies Society in December 2010.[26][27]"

NONE OF THIS LANGUAGE IS MY OWN. All of you who have accused me of bias have failed to note that this version consists solely of re-arranging (into a better chronology) previously extant and accepted material primarily researched and crafted by Slp1, who stuck close to source phrasing just to avoid controversy - all of which was accepted in the past and stayed uncontested until certain editors removed ALL mention (yet again) of abuse allegations. I suggest we re-institute this material, and move from there. I have some stylistic concerns that can be addressed later, but the material is supported by good sources in triplicate. It's a start.

PS The primary argument against including this material is that the allegations are not supported by decent sources. This argument was solved in the past by accepting the sources that are used here (all meet WP standards.) Please note the ref's in the diff version. Also, please note this statement from Genjo Marinello, current chair of ZSS board: "Finally, as I stated in my own newsletter, as “women come forward who are having trouble coping with the ramifications from these inappropriate relationships, the ZSS Board and I personally will do our best to be helpful…We all have blind spots; unfortunately, Eido Roshi’s have proven to be repeatedly dangerous to the very Followers o f the Way he has otherwise given his life to. Very tragic for him, the Sangha and most of all those he has wounded.”" Here and elsewhere (including our sources in the entry), Shimano's church itself (and in Marinello, one of Eido's staunchest defenders) admits he's had numbers of relationships, negatively impacting the organization and numbers of its members.Tao2911 (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact, much of this language is your own, and more worryingly still what you added to version I researched is non-verifiable. I would encourage editors to compare the wording to that version, which Macwhiz, Spt51 and I worked on for about 3 weeks in September.[20] For example, there is nothing in either Tworkov or Oldmeadow to suggest that the students in Hawaii were "emotionally vulnerable". In addition, there is no mention of "members" leaving the ZSS in any of the references given. As has been pointed out multiple times "abuse" is not used the reliable sources about this matter and should not be used as a section heading. There are others, too. Do you have the sources? Do you check them before you make edits? In addition, I would strongly argue that your edits (including those above) put POV spin to the article. --Slp1 (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What? "emotionally vulnerable" is exactly YOUR language. You wrote that in months ago. When I argued against that exact phrase, you pointed to a text that used it. This is what I am talking about - again, I didn't write any of this. It proves what I am saying - if I simply use your own language you accuse me of bias. Crazy making. I'll find the diff's if you are going to refute it. Elsewise, the text once said monks and students of ZSS left - those would be members. It also covers board members that have resigned, per various statements. We can discuss word choices - I'm tired of you people simply ignoring the forest for the trees.

What spin am I putting? When I am using your language? And when the current head of the ZSS board says Shimano has been repeatedly "dangerous" to his followers? This is the mildest inclusion possible while still remaining honest to sources and situation. We simply need to go to arbitration. I feel like I'm dealing with crazy people here.Tao2911 (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"While remaining honest to the sources" is precisely the problem: your proposals and edits have consistently had problems with verifiability as detailed in the archives and on AN. The "emotionally vulnerable" part was indeed included in the past; but not in reference to the Hawaii students. The word "monks" is used in Tworkov, not members. And none (except unreliable blogs) use the word abuse. When making a proposal please use only sources that you have read, and stick very closely to the language and information they use.

Just so you know WP:ARBITRATION is to look at behavioural issues, including failure to follow core policies. They do not deal with content issues. I doubt they would accept the case, but understand that it will involve if you go that route. --Slp1 (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but the above is too difficult to comment on. Please post the complete text you would like (without inline commentary), and include the references (just the clickable links, not formatted as refs). If Slp1 made a mistake, you only need to point it out; there is no need to add other commentary in your reply. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said "mediation." I have been involved in such when CONTENT disputes have become irresolvable in past. All of this is what I'm talking about. Continually blanking and unwillingness to meet half way; to just split minor differences. As in the "members" NON-issue. Passage used to read "monks and students". Fine. use that. But to say members is like-wise accurate, as discussed in myriad sources. You can use one word instead of another - we needn't simply quote source texts. WP guidelines in fact state to voice source material in one's own voice, keeping meaning and in tone with page and (as in this case) multiple sources - condensing and summarizing. You seem to have the sources in front of you - the point is to get mention of decades of recorded "improprieties" in the article, not to defame, but to reflect sources and impact - which has obviously been significant (say ZSS board members in NYT article, other texts, yeah?)Tao2911 (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

PS The primary argument against including this material is that the allegations are not supported by decent sources. - incorrect, the primary concern is that these are allegations, so we have to be extremely careful reporting them. They cannot appear to be implied as even the slightest bit true (so saying "he was accused of X and then resigned the next day", for example would be unacceptable because it implies truth to X). We have no third party commentary that accurately establishes whether a) these were accurate (but unproven) allegations, b) that they were malicious or c) some unknown third option. For these reasons I do not think we can give much mention to any of these allegations. As an example after an affair with a student was publicly revealed is rewording of the sources to make a particular point, the reason for the quote is to avoid gratuitous damaging text like what you just proposed.... The only reliable source, in this case, is the NYT article, but that alone is not specific enough IMO to build reasonable content --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, NYTimes reports that the board believes many to be more than allegations and have been acting on that presumption. NYTimes reports on Aitken archives, and ZSS acting based on that archive, that thye find largely credible. This should be mentioned in his being disciplined, the org. changing rules, etc. Also - the allegations "resulted in the depature ofstudents and monks." So that is why it is mentioned. EFFECTS EFFECTS EFFECTS. Not conjecture. Even more recent statement by board pres. Marinello says "relationships" plural. the goal here should be to reflect sources, numbers of which state the importance of these issues for him and the ZSS over years.Tao2911 (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

---

as an irregular participant of Wikipedia, i am just writing to say here that i am shocked at the scant --(actually non-existent)-- references to Eido Roshi's "alleged" [sic] sexual relationships with students over the years -- well-known to students of DBZ. whether or not this is relevant to his merit as a teacher is a totally separate question. it appear that there has been an extraordinary amount of attempting to protect Eido Shimano's historical reputation, by clear omission. one would assume from a quick reading of this Wikipedia entry that these scandals are mere trivialities not worthy of being mentioned in the context of Eido's life and time -- though they certainly are indeed worthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.231.163 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have refactored your comment per WP:BLP. If you prefer, I am happy for your comment and my reply to be deleted. People confuse Wikipedia with some "free speech" blog where anyone can post whatever they think. However that is not true, and the reason the article does not go into detail about various claims is that reliable sources likewise do not do so. Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

--

i am the person who wrote the "irregular participant" note above. to whomever wrote: "People confuse Wikipedia with some 'free speech' blog where anyone can post whatever they think": i don't know anyone that thinks Wikipedia simply a forum for people to post whatever they think. the issue is to properly contextualize the significance of the "allegations" about Eido's conduct over the years (which most people closely involved with the monastery believe or know to be true) within the scope of his life and how it is perceived. this conduct has been referred to in numerous books by highly respected writers, teachers and zen leaders over the decades (including Peter Matthiessen's Nine-headed Dragon River, partly about the origins of DBZ). to minimalize Eido's perceived inappropriate (or not, depending on your POV) conduct simply by omitting it reeks of denial.

one senses perhaps an attachment to the teacher rather than to a search for the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.75.125 (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Please restrict your comments to a discussion of how to improve this article using Wikipedia procedures. In my previous reply I gave two links which need to be understood by anyone contributing here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

my comments were clearly aimed at improving the article, by stating that the controversies around Eido Roshi should be included in the article. i think this was quite clear. writing a bio about Eido Roshi without referencing the controversies surrounding him is simply not an accurate bio -- as his entire career in the US has been riddled with controversy.

to some, any reference here to any source alleging sexual misconduct will not be "reliable". however: stating in the Wiki article that 'there have been numerous references in books and journals within the Buddhist community -- by both teachers and students -- to Eido Roshi having sexual relationships with his students' is a TRUE statement. the statement, "several respected Zen teachers and notables such as Robert Aitken Roshi, [etc etc] have referred to Eido Roshi having sexual relationships with his students in their writings" is NOT an unverifiable statement -- it is easily verifiable. and the fact that notables have written about this is in itself a worthy comment in the bio of a Zen teacher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.75.125 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 December 2010

Please read WP:TP to learn about indenting and signing your comments (sign = add four tildes after a space on the last line of your comment).

The preferred procedure is to not talk about general motives, or whether a particular person is surrounded with controversy. Just make a recomendation for what change should happen to the article. Don't say "...is NOT an unverifiable statement", just give a statement and give a reliable source. I'm sorry if this is too much trouble, but that's the way progress happens here. There should be no more unfocused talk about anyone's controversies. Johnuniq (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

New Version based solely on New York Times

Here is a bone-dry synopsis of events as related by New York Times, not one element of which is not nearly word for word supported in the story, that I propose for inclusion:

"For much of his teaching career, Eido Shimano has faced allegations of having had sexual relations with female students and other women, leading in some cases to the departure of students and monks from the Zen Studies Society.[ref: NYT, other texts listing allegations. Esp. last line.] These allegations reached greater public attention when the University of Hawaii at Manoa unsealed papers collected by Zen teacher Robert Aitken from 1964 to 2003, documenting conversations with women who had confided having had sexual encounters with Shimano. These were soon circulating online.

Most Zen Studies Society board members concurred that the charges had some validity. On July 15, 2010 they responded by rewriting their ethical guidelines, and issued a statement acknowledging past indiscretions by Shimano. The board believed relationships had only occurred many years before. However, soon a more recent affair was revealed. The ZSS then issued a statement that Shimano would retire from the board due to “clergy misconduct” and while he would remain as Abbott, he would no longer take new students.[ref: all NYT]

In September, Shimano sent a letter to the ZSS community stating his "profound feeling of remorse for my actions" and announcing that he would retire as abbot of the Zen Studies Society in December 2010.[ref: tricycle reprint of letter]"

The Times pertinent sections quoted:

"Since 1965, Eido Shimano, now 77, has been the abbot, or head spiritual teacher, of the Zen Studies Society, a Japanese Buddhist community with headquarters on East 67th Street in Manhattan and a 1,400-acre monastery in the Catskills. For much of that time, there have been rumors about the married abbot’s sexual liaisons, with his students and with other women. Such rumors could no longer be ignored when, in 2008, the University of Hawaii at Manoa unsealed some papers donated by Robert Aitken, a leading American Buddhist and founder of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship.

The papers included files about Mr. Shimano that Mr. Aitken kept from 1964 to 2003. Mr. Aitken, who died Aug. 5, met Mr. Shimano when both men worked in Hawaii in the 1960s, and for more than 40 years he kept notes on his colleague’s liaisons, based on conversations with women who had confided in him...

The Aitken papers were soon circulating on the Internet. On June 15, Mr. Shimano’s board of directors, which exercises ultimate authority in the society, met to discuss the allegations. Mr. Shimano, who was then on the board, was not present, but most board members concurred that the charges most likely had some validity...

At that meeting, the board members began writing a new set of ethical guidelines for the society. In the text, they included an acknowledgment of past indiscretions by Mr. Shimano. Chris Phelan, another board member, said that Mr. Shimano saw the text of the statement and approved of it...

several board members told The New York Times that they believed that Mr. Shimano’s relations with students had ended long ago, and they saw no reason that Mr. Shimano could not continue teaching...

on July 19, the board announced that Mr. Shimano had resigned from the board after being confronted with allegations of “clergy misconduct.” ...Since that time, the board has said that Mr. Shimano will continue as abbot until 2012, but a vice abbot has been appointed and Mr. Shimano will not be taking new students...

In interviews over the past two weeks, four board members, including Mr. Marinello, said that on June 21 a woman — whose name he would not reveal — stood up during dinner at the Catskills monastery and announced that for the past two years she had had a consensual affair with Mr. Shimano, who was at the dinner. Several board members have said that Mr. Shimano later admitted the affair in conversations with them." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 14 October 2010

There's still a bit of POV-pushing going on there, but I suspect it's not intentional.

• The Times says "rumors" about sexual liasons. A rumor is a much different thing than an allegation. The word "allegation" implies accusation and confrontation, two things typically not associated with rumors. Something is alleged to your face, whereas rumors are whispered behind your back. Allegations have citable sources; rumors usually come from "them", as in "they say…."

I knew this would be an issue. It's an unoftunate word choice on their part, because clearly in the next paragraph they show how they are not rumors. And the source, which is clearly spelled out, clearly contains 'allegations' that resulted in actions. Allegations is the word used by other sources! Don't get caught up in semantics.Tao2911 (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Further, if you're going to use the word allegations, take note of WP:ALLEGED: you have to make sure the source of the allegation is clear. That may be difficult to cite in this case.

We don't have to make sure of the source. Our secondary source, in this case the undeniable NYT, has done that for us, and it is mentioned in this version of entry. The Aitken archive. We are NOT getting into specifics of allegations - merely saying that because allegations exist, which are accepted by ZSS board as more than allegations, actions are taken.Tao2911 (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• "leading in some cases to the departure"—You know that's just asking to have {{weasel}} slapped on it, right? I understand that it may be true, but as phrased, it's just asking for some noob with AWB to tag it, is what I'm saying. I'm sure no one wants that :)

Those exact words are from a source, and were in the entry uncontested for weeks. How is it problematic? Source says this is what happened. We need to show that allegations resulted in actions - in part to head of arguments by those who would say it's all unsubstantiated "rumor." Source is right - these allegations resulted in an admission of wrongdoing and apology by Shimano in the 1980's too, according to the archive.Tao2911 (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Nothing in the Times article establishes "public attention". That phrase is usually associated with broad media coverage (e.g., Lindsay Lohan). While the Aitken archive may have elicited attention from the Zen community at large, it was hardly front-page news, so the phrase "public attention" unduly magnifies the notability of Aitken's archive.

Who are you to judge? Millions read this story. Millions more have read that archive, and the stories about printed in every Buddhist blog and news source on the internet. This has been huge. The western Buddhist community alone consists of 10's of millions, a large portion of whom have been aware of this story, if 5000 blog discussions with voluminous threads are any reflection (which they are). You have no source saying that no one knows about this. We have the NYT belying your argument.Tao2911 (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• "who had confided having had"—This is passive voice, and as such is sort of confusing. There needs to be an indirect object: confided to whom?

To Aitken! Come on. It's perfectly clear. This is the exact language from the Times!Tao2911 (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• POV push: The Times "concurred that the charges most likely had some validity" becomes the more definite "concurred the charges had some validity". These are not equivalent statements. In the Times version, the board members that concurred thought it was more likely than not that the charges had some validity; in your version, they are definite that the charges have some validity.

Yes, because in the next lines they follow up definitively with action on that belief. They conclude that many of the allegations are actionable(valid), and ACT. Read the whole context. Put the pieces together. Tao2911 (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• "they responded by rewriting"—Does the Times actually establish the cause-and-effect declared by the word "responded"? If not, it's synthesis, which—as you know—is a form of original research.

Are you kidding me? They put one right after the other in a timeline of two days. It is perfectly clear what they mean. And statements by the ZSS state as much - acceptance of truth of previous allegations led to rewrite. Then woman came forward, more actions followed. Come on.Tao2911 (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• "However, soon a more recent affair was revealed." Again, begs for the weasel tag. We can be more specific about the affair; the Times contains more context. For one thing, "soon" runs counter to WP:RELTIME.

What? READ THE TIMES. We are condensing in spirit of source. We could put the date, as Times does. But then it reads like a bullet point "July 15, July 17, July 21, Sept 17," etc. They explain in three paragraphs. I made it one line. There is no distortion.Tao2911 (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• "issued a statement that Shimano would retire from the board due to 'clergy misconduct'"—implies that the Board forced Shimano to retire; the Times version implies that Shimano retired voluntarily. I acknowledge that it's quite likely that this is a polite fiction to save face, but if so, it's the polite fiction our reliable source supports, so we have to support it as well.

I just can't believe this stuff. Adjust the phrasing to suit you, but this is "half-dozen" v. "six." "Implied" nothing. The board issued a statement that he was retiring. Period!Tao2911 (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• In that same sentence, the "and" separating the two clauses implies that the statement of clergy misconduct and the statement that Shimano would remain as Abbot occurred contemporaneously, which is not true. These should be two different sentences, to avoid temporal confusion.

Fine by me.Tao2911 (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Because this is a de facto controversial subject, it behooves us to be nitpicky about the words and phrasing: "If you don't say what you mean, you can never mean what you say." Please understand that I'm not saying "no"; I'm offering constructive criticism. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I just think many of these points are bending backwards in order to misunderstand. The situation is not that complicated. Nor is the passage. Shimano has a recorded history of being accused of having sex with students. Aitken archive recently stirs things up. ZSS board finds allegations credible(ie more than allegations), responds, another affair uncovered, then retirement.Tao2911 (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have spent too long on this to want to hunt around looking for sources used for the above. Yes, I know it is somewhere on this page, and I've probably read the article already, but please list exactly the refs intended for the proposed text (not formatted as refs; just plain links at this stage). Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to get to work. But these points are almost all amiss. I will finish up later. And I will go find the point that source, that Slp1 added with line about monks leaving etc.Tao2911 (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Rumours, allegations, lots of non-specifics etc. No, what we have is currently better/safer. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

On another note: Yes, because in the next lines they follow up definitively with action on that belief. They conclude that many of the allegations are actionable(valid), and ACT. Read the whole context. Put the pieces together this is the very definition of synth. Which is why I am so dismissively opposing this proposal. The text this refers to is so synthy-weaselly it beggars belief. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Synthy-weasely" how? This is virtually verbatim from NYT - we have to condense it, or it will be too long and create disproportion in entry. We are here to reflect SOURCES, not our personal distaste about a situation. The simple fact is the New York Times wrote an article about a sex scandal that is resulting in Shimano retiring. This has to be mentioned clearly. There were series of events in quick succession that led to this outcome, based in a larger historical context. We need to reflect our sources - numbers of which report on the prevalence of allegations. NYT emphasizes at length (multiple paragraphs, nearly half the article) past allegations as shown in the Aitken archive. THAT THE ZSS BOARD FINDS LARGELY CREDIBLE AND ACTS UPON. there is simply no argument against reflecting that source and the history discussed therein. Beggering belief, indeed.Tao2911 (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That the board finds these "largely credible" is somewhat irrelevant; the allegations/rumors are unclear and not well defined, so it is not clear what they find credible. Calling something credible is not an affirmation they were true. We have to be very careful with these allegations; what if they are false or inaccurate? This is a real possibility and we must be careful. The phrase I highlighted is weasely because you have taken one sentence and removed some words to make it more affirmative based on the following sentence. This is synth. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

once again I find myself down the rabbit hole, dealing with the troglodytes. "well we don't KNOW the earth is round. it could quite possibly be flat. it seems flat to me. i know everyone is showing how it is quite explicitly round, but i prefer to see it as flat, its more comfortable this way. plus i like to seem contrary. its fun." enjoy blissful morony. ciao. see you with the warnings on my talk page.Tao2911 (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an "argument from incredulity" fallacy. We do know the world is round, quite conclusively. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A passage is being added by Tao2911 as a reference without source provided. There is a quote from "Update from Board of Directors", but no source where it was published. This update is not published on ZSS website. According to my understanding it cannot be included here without source. I have reversed it, but please look into the problem. Thank you.Spt51 (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the problem NOW with this info??? Here from the ZSS website: "If there are students who wish to continue to study with Eido, they may do so on their own but not under the auspices of ZSS." Happy? No of course you aren't. Groupie.Tao2911 (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

[21][22][23]. Hope that helps. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, those are BLOGS, you can't use those to verify the simple fact of a clarifying announcement being made, oh no. How dare you introduce such slanderous material about a living person here? Gut the article, forthwith! See Dennis Genpo Merzel page for a concise example.Tao2911 (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Show me the source for these to references:# ^ ZSS Board of Directors, "An update from the Board of Directors", February 5, 2011: "On December 8th 2010, Eido Shimano Roshi retired from his position as Abbot of The Zen Studies Society, and on December 11, 2010, Aiho-san Yasuko Shimano retired from her position as Director of New York Zendo Shobo-ji. They retired openly and without reservation from all administrative authority. Eido Roshi is not teaching under the auspices of The Zen Studies Society."

^ "Ethical Guidelines" daibosatsu.org "If there are students who wish to continue to study with Eido, they may do so on their own but not under the auspices of ZSS." Last accessed 14 Feb 2011.

If you can provide the source for extact wording of what you wrote, than what you added can be used. IF you included not working link, than fix it yourself not ask someone else... as of now I have a right to remove text without proper source. sorry Spt51 (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Tao2911 you are being invited to discuss the matter on BLPN under Eido Tai Shimano heading.Spt51 (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is the issue with this information? Besides your own ownership issues and bias regarding the page and its subject?Tao2911 (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Above I asked: Show me the source for this reference:# ^ ZSS Board of Directors, "An update from the Board of Directors", February 5, 2011: "On December 8th 2010, Eido Shimano Roshi retired from his position as Abbot of The Zen Studies Society, and on December 11, 2010, Aiho-san Yasuko Shimano retired from her position as Director of New York Zendo Shobo-ji. They retired openly and without reservation from all administrative authority. Eido Roshi is not teaching under the auspices of The Zen Studies Society."

Where was this published, printed material or reliable website? I cannot find it on ZSS site. It needs to be sourced according to WP:RS Spt51 (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

read more carefully.Tao2911 (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I can read better than you as history shows. Of course I know it came from the Update letter, but letter is not published in raliabale source. Excerpt form e-mail may not be allowed here. After contacting ZSS I know this letter was not meant to be published, it was mailed to members only. So, please, first ask is such source is acceptable per WK:RC and do not attach it before that. A bit more honesty and civility here, please!Spt51 (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion

My mother used to tell me the tale of Buddhist monks who were only permitted to speak once every ten years, and then, only one at a time.

The first monk said simply "the soup is too hot".

Ten years later, the second monk said "the soup is too salty".

Ten years after that, the third monk said, "the soup is too cold, and it needs salt."

Yet ten more years later, the abbot said, "what is all this quibbling about the soup."

I am going to work at developing some additional substantive content such as the viewpoints, theory and the methods of Zen practice promoted and advanced by Eido in his writings and in his work. An additional area of research might be how his particular form of Zen fits into the overall history. If others wish to pursue the Aitken controversy they may do as they wish, but I think there is a lot more to this BLP than this obsession with activity between consulting adults.

By way of comparison, I don't think that the William J. Clinton page fails to consider the office of President; nor does King David entry omit the role of the person in favor of a kind of gossip column approach. Others who don't agree with me may wish to read the Starr report, which they would probably find more relevant to their interests than, say, anything written by Dogen. User:Geofferybard|Bard गीता 01:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

well, your bias is clear enough. And I think you mean "consenting adults" - a term belied by the documented aaccounts and statements of many of the women Shimano (allegedly) accosted over decades (oh, right - they are all lying - the pro-Shimano line). Just a reminder to you that this isn't the place for original research. If you find sources that lay out this material (his revolutionary impact etc), fine, it can be considered. But it's not your, or my, place to write a hagiographic dissertation and insert it here, in order to burnish the image of dearest gurus. And having looked carefully, I have not seen acceptable tertiary sources discussing the sorts material you suggest. In fact, the problem with this page as it stands is that it doesn't reflect the on-balance ratio of secondary and tertiary material on Shimano, in which proportionately the scandals surrounding him for 40 years loom much larger.Tao2911 (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

" the problem with this page as it stands is that it doesn't reflect the on-balance ratio of secondary and tertiary material on Shimano, in which proportionately the scandals surrounding him for 40 years loom much larger."

well-said. and again, well-said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.75.125 (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"... what is all this quibbling about..."? Adding Controversial template ... - Geof 00:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)