Talk:Tricycle: The Buddhist Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Discussion[edit]

General Discussion[edit]

This page should be written not as a marketting tool of the magazine, but objectively, providing information about its beginnings and why it is often reviled for being elitist and unethical in its administration and with respect to fundraising.

This being so, those things need to be cited from respectable sources. Criticism is welcome, but please cite it accordingly. --ShadowPuppet 16:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Filings with the US Government [Form 990s] show vividly distinctly and absolutely that Tricycle Foundation [aka Buddhist Ray, Inc] spent more than 100% of funds raised raising funds for three years in a row! This is obscene! Mighty fancy lunches in New York, I gather. There are standards established by various non-profit watching organizations that no more than 35% of funds raised should be used raising funds. This records shows a record of wanton waste and disregard for the sacrifice of contributors to the magazine.

That's all nice and sweet. But without a reference, you don't have a case to put that material in the article. --DanielCD 05:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fifteen years after it first appeared on the newsstand, Tricycle remains the largest independent Buddhist magazine in print today. Where is proof of this? This is text straight from Tricycle advertising. And what does it mean? It suggests that it's the largest Buddhist magazine, but it says largest "independent" Buddhist magazine. What magazines are second and third on a list of "independent Buddhist magazines." Where is Tricyle on a list of all Buddhist magazines, I wonder? AND if it does have the biggest circulation, why is that "praise?" -- Enkido 06:55 5 February 2006 (UTC)

See this article, documenting problems at Tricycle: http://www.zenunbound.com/tricycleugly.html . -- Enkido 07:29 5 February 2006 UTC

You can't document things "off-site", and Zen Unbound looks rather junky to me. I wouldn't accept any information from there as reliable. See this: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite your sources. If there's something that's uncited, add a citation tag to it or remove it and state your reason here. --DanielCD 14:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Zen Unbound is a fully credible source that documents its assertions. What is junky, presently, is this Tricycle article which uses bloviated text, verbatim, from Trike's website and advertising. It is irresponsible and is a circumstance you are enforcing. Shame on you. --Enkido 16:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The Tricycle appologists continually put up "how to subscibe" and audio links at the Trike website. While I am sure Trike-lodytes love to snatch free advertising in Wiki, this is to be abhored. Too bad the Wiki cops and God Button pushers don't make a better effort to troll for this, instead of making so very many articles in wiki puff pieces by redacting information that might disclose people's/magazine's/whatever warts. --Enkido 18:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Praise for Tricycle, Generally[edit]

Circulation, Readings, Ranking Stuff[edit]

The request for a citation of Tricycle's *claim* of 200,000 upscale readers comes from their reader survey to attract advertisers. I would assert this is not the type of thing that belongs in an encyclopia. Citing Tricycle's claim is not difficult.-- Enkido 16:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fifteen years after it first appeared on the newsstand, Tricycle remains the largest independent Buddhist magazine in print today. [citation needed] This is empirically untrue. Tricycle was not the largest anything upon first publication nearly fifteen years ago. THAT simply cannot be documented; that's not how circulation statistics work. Also, to prove this assertion you will need to show fifteen-years' worth of data. Surely it would be sufficient, even to Tricyle apologists, to show just recent circulation superiority. I also think a time benchmark is needed; 'in print today' is inappropriate, tomorrow coming every 24 hours or less.-- Enkido 18:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Problems at/with Tricycle, Generally[edit]

There are very serious problems with the Tricyle operation. These problems are a major part of the story of the magazine. There are Forms 990 -- public documents -- which show fundraising history. This Wikipedia article is likely to be used, unwittingly, by folks researching the magazine as a beneficiary of their generosity. Wikipedia will be doing harm by telling a slanted and biased story of the magazine. This article went up first as wholly self-congratulatory text borrowed from the Tricycle website. It was a travesty. Large patches of that original text remain. The article as it stands today is outrageous. --Enkido 16:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fundraising Problems[edit]

Can a Form 990 be used as a citation? It is a public document that shows a non-profits accounting for a fiscal year. Tricycle, itself, is required to provide its current Form 990 on request. Its past 990s are vital to document fundraising history; these can be more difficult for an editor to verify.--Enkido 16:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If they are public records, then it would be fine to use them. But remember this isn't the place for original research. See: Wikipedia:No original research. You're going to have to find another reputable source that makes the same accusation (and I don't think Zenunbound.com counts, but feel free to get other opinions). --DanielCD 19:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic with you as far as having the truth be told, but there has to be a public, formally-published accusation firmly cited. I'll try to find someone who might be able to help you better. --DanielCD 19:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Tricycle's operation simply does not rise in importance to being scrutinized by a professional-quality magazine or newspaper. Some ad hoc operations, like Wiki, are as valid as The Bigs, like Encyclopedia Brittanica (according to a Slate article). Just because Zen Unbound is more than a little ramshankle doesn't mean facts it presents are suspect. At least this is so in my extremely knowledgable opinion. --Enkido 19:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Research that would be necessary is just to pull two figures from the past Form 990s: The funds raised and the expenses of the fundraising department. I can also show from an online article that spending no more than 35% on fundraising compared to funds raised is appropriate. Surely, this is fact. And I can show that the Board of Directors of the umbrella corp and management team is from the save group of folks, pretty much from inception. While this starts to drift into 'research', it is vital information, in my estimation, to balance the record. --Enkido 19:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

three part yin/yang[edit]

Does Tricycle refer to the often-seen three part yin/yang, and if so, what does it signify? Chris 17:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Uncited criticism[edit]

This article is something of a mess. Tom Armstrong (Enkido) is a fervent critic of Tricycle who seems to dedicate an enormous amount of time to badgering the magazine and its staff. He has been banned from their forums for trolling and is anything but a reliable source when it comes to alleged criticism of the magazine. As it is against Wikipedia policy to insert possibly defamatory material without any citation, I am removing the "Critics of the Magazine" section until someone who does not have a past history with the magazine can attempt to handle the issue from an NPOV perspective. The section contains some pretty serious allegations that are not documented, not to mention "weasel words" such as "criticised by some": who are they criticized by? I don't know what Wiki policy is regarding this, but I'm pretty sure that section violated WP:AWW, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV. If someone wants to rewrite the section, making it clear who Tricycle's critics are and what their motivations are, that's fine (although it might also violate WP:SPS, because it seems from reading the above talk page that the only source available is ZenUnbound), but right now, Wikipedia is acting as a sock puppet for one person's uncited opinions.

From WP:VERIFY: "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source. The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research." "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." " 162.83.222.136 18:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am adding this article to my watchlist and I intend to keep uncited nonsense out of the article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Tricycle's public disclosures of it's financial conduct document grotesque inappropriate use of contributions to the Tricycle Foundation -- which is a name change from Buddhist Ray, clearly done to hide abuses. --Enkido 18:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Tom Armstrong, whom pseudonomous poster 162.83.222.136 cites as a badgerer of Tricycle, is called "our friend" in a "recent Tricycle Editors' blog post". Perhaps 162.83.222.136 should come out of hiding. Who the hell are you, 162.88.222.136!? What is his association with Tricycle and its financial indiscretions!? --Enkido 18:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This page shows negative bias[edit]

Why is the bulk of an entry on a magazine bashing it? Not very NPOV...Tao2911 (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)