Talk:Eido Tai Shimano/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Criticism

As per a posting at the BLP noticeboard, [1] I have removed the whole "criticism" section. The Aitken book does not support the allegations made (it talks about problems with social relationships), and the other references are to primary sources - letters, some of which are unsigned, some of which seem to be drafts, and some of which don't mention the subject by name. The danger of original research and synthesis etc is thus grave. It is possible that something BLP compliant can be developed, but this needs to be done with considerable care and the best possible sources. It might be worth having the discussion here about what sources there are that discuss this matter. --Slp1 (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reworked, retitled "criticism"

Per WP style, and with concerns about inaccuracy of section title, I retitled and reworked. Most "criticism" (a discouraged section header) concerns Shimano's alleged sexual misconduct. These allegations are well documented. I find the critique above misleading and willfully manipulative. They are phrased here as allegations, and numbers of citations are provided re: the sources of said allegations. It is not saying Shimano DID these things. Simply that the allegations are pervasive and have had a significant impact on his reputation and that of his sangha, as reported by numbers of reliable tertiary sources. It is very important to include this in an encyclopedic entry, in keeping with profiles of similar figures (see Richard Baker or even his heir, Reb Anderson, among others for discussion of controversial acts or allegations.)Tao2911 (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well done, Tao2911 Thinman10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC).

I have removed] the bulk of this addition due to WP:BLP and other serious policy violation concerns. Contrary to the description above, this is not a question of being "misleading and willfully manipulative" but of my duties as an administrator to ensure that this article follows WP policy, and help editors understand what these requirements are.

In particular, therefore...

• It does not matter that these are only being phrased as allegations. Wikipedia only includes material that is verifiable from published, third party reliable sources. Self-published websites and blogs such as the www.thezensite.com, robertaitken.blogspot.com and www.shimanoarchive.com are simply not permitted as sources for articles about living people. See WP:BLPSPS for details.
• Soen's book, "Endless Vow: The Zen Path of Soen Nakagawa" is likely a reliable source but it does not contain the material cited. For example, it contains no suggestion that Soen publicly denounced Eido, or made the quote about him.
• There is also unverified material and original research about Shimano's non-resignation, and about Aitken, which I have removed too.
• I have also removed suggestions that the allegations of sexual misconduct have been ongoing. There is no evidence in the "The Buddhist Guide to New York" (which is a reliable source) to support this. The book simply says that "that ZSS has had to deal with allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of Eido Roshi, accusations that caused large numbers of people to leave, but which the community has managed to survive." I do not have to access a copy of "Zen in America", but since it is a 1989 book, it cannot possibly verify that the allegations have continued until the present.

Please note that I have no dog in this race. I had never heard of this man before responding to a post on the BLP noticeboard. I actually thoroughly disapprove of those who use misuse positions of power in the way this man may have done. But WP cannot play a role in the campaigns either for or against this man, and articles, most especially those about living people, need to follow the policies we have set. If the allegations are indeed pervasive, it will be easy to find reliable sources (books, scholarly journals, magazines, newspapers etc) about them. --Slp1 (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

These edits were supported by another editor. It is pervasive, well-documented, and fully cited allegations of misconduct that are discussed here. As I said, to remove all mention of this is clearly "white-washing" (review THAT editing guideline please, in NPOV. We can work some on phrasing (I for one want to remove some of the honorifics.[done]) But the material is cited - do not remove cited material. And I will work on finding more citations - they are out there. This section could be much more damning, as a cursory google search will demonstrate. However, I am not arguing for this. Just that the allegations and controversy are discussed. As a person familiar with the "Zen world" but is not particularly interested or involved with any of the teachers or traditions mentioned, I can say that this is much discussed - again, evidence is easy enough to rustle up.Tao2911 (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Zen Site" website is one of the most extraordinary collections of Zen literature online, or in 'hard' publication. It is not merely a blog or "self-published" site. We need to be reasonable when it comes to assessing web content. There is no blanket ban on something simply because it is a website, and I think we can all attest to standards rapidly changing - we have to assess sites on a case by cases basis. Likewise, Aitken is perhaps the single most respected Zen teacher in the short history of American Zen (I say this, again, as someone familiar but not affiliated. I simply know the rep). Using his site a reference to an open letter that has since been circulated on hundreds of other sites is reasonable. To wait for this letter to be published on paper and thus 'legitimized' is not. The "Shimano Archive" is a web archive many of the letters in the UH archive, with pdf files of the letters. A good source.

While I agree that right now, there is potential perception of undue weight given to allegations of misconduct, this needs to be rectified by fleshing you the regular bio section, which is too short.Tao2911 (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Tao2911: do not restore this material with these sources. That you have support above (from someone whose edit history shows that he has a specific (negative) POV on this man), does not obviate the need for you or this article to comply with our BLP policy. I have carefully explained to you that the websites used here do not meet the standards required for BLP articles as shown by discussion by independent editors at the reliable sources noticeboard (see [2]) and the other issues. If you wish, you can try to convince other editors that the websites are the kind of "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", that we require. If so, please do so at the BLP noticeboard, but do not restore the material before then getting consensus that these are okay to use, or you do risk being blocked, I'm afraid to say. Personally, I doubt that you will get people to change their minds, however. The Shimano archive is an activist website dedicated to exposing the man, and neither it nor the Zen site has any sign of editorial oversight and control. Blog postings are specifically forbidden in BLP articles, as I have pointed out before. I realize that it is annoying and frustrating, but unless you can find better sources, we cannot include the level of detail you wish to include. --Slp1 (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to bother to get deeply into this entry - however, the Aitken blog issue simply points out a hugely contentious issue editing in WP. When is a blog not a blog, as banned by guidelines? I would say here is a good case in point - the blog referenced is not an opinion piece being cited as fact. It is an open letter to Shimano, framed as such in entry, that in another time and place would have been written and mailed and then reported elsewhere in print (as with the many others discussed, that you've likewise excised); the latest in a 30-40 year ongoing dialogue, that is having significant ramifications in the culture of Zen internationally, as evidenced at the very least by web activity. How long will WP guidelines allow for this kind of slippage? it is the primary hammer wielded by partisans who want to keep up to date information from entries.

Also, some of the material you removed was cited by published sources (When the Swans Came to the lake, and others.) I'd say you are whitewashing, despite claiming the WP high ground. Whatevs.Tao2911 (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to argue that blogs should be considered reliable sources in articles about living people then you need to do that on the talkpage of the WP:BLP policy page, and see if you can get consensus. No amount of disagreement with the policy on this page, or for that matter accusations of partisanship and whitewashing, will do the deed. I understand that it seems unfair and unwise to you, but on the other hand please consider that this and other related policies and guidelines such as WP:V and WP:RS, have been developed over the years by editors who have seen first hand the dangers of allowing on WP the posts of random bloggers spouting their opinions on politicians, the shape of the earth, who shot Kennedy, who is having an affair with whom, and whether cold fusion exists etc etc etc.

Actually, I did not delete anything sourced to "When the Swans Came to the lake". The reference is still in the article as I write this. However, I will now be removing the citation. I have checked p. 363 of the 1992 edition of the book on Amazon, and there is nothing about Shimano on the page at all. This is the second time I have found you have provided a citation which does not support the material as claimed, which is obviously a bit concerning. However, I guess it is possible that you are using a different edition. If so, can you provide the text from p. 363 relating to Shimano, and the edition/date of publication of the copy you are using? Thank you. --Slp1 (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this kind of veiled partisanship many times. If you have the source, then look up the right page and correct it (frankly, if you have it, that and your involvement here indicates probable "dogs in the hunt" as you say). You shouldn't remove source citations simply because you find an error (which violates WP spirit and guidelines). You should try to make the correction. I used the citation from another article on Shimano - I have read the text in question, know that these issues are discussed there, but do not currently have text at hand. Your good faith would be better demonstrated by collaborating, rather than wikilawyering and tit for tat editing and accusations.Tao2911 (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read again what I said. I said I looked at the book on Amazon, and that there is nothing on page 363 about Shimano. How can I make a correction if the information is not there? The relevant page actually discusses other similar claims about somebody called Baker-roshi and the fall out of this. Since the citation does not verify the material it claims to about Shimano, the only possible response is to delete the citation, as I am sure you understand.

I understand the temptation to trust and use citations provided by others, but hopefully the experience has made clear the danger of this, and the need for wp to use sources with editorial oversight. BTW, this guideline gives good advice about how to attribute 'cited elsewhere' material in the future, if you need to do it.

Once again, accusations of partisanship and wikilawyering are unhelpful and to be avoided. Pointing out real problems with verifiability and BLP policies is, in fact, neither. However, if you truly feel that I have behaved improperly here, then by all means report me to the administrators noticeboard. --Slp1 (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Zen Site" not Self Published, without oversight

The Zen Site is "is part of the Zen Buddhism Virtual Library" which is "Edited by Dr T. Matthew Ciolek and Vladimir Keremidschieff." The article on the Shimano letters is written by by Vladimir Keremidschieff and Stuart Lachs. It more than meets professional standards for writing and references. The site as a whole has compiled hundreds of articles, by dozens of authors, as well as voluminous numbers of translations, essays, commentaries, and reports. I maintain it's a suitable source, if not relied on solely.Tao2911 (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You would be better placed making this case on the WP:BLPN in the section about Eido. A couple of weeks ago, three non-involved editors (one was me) gave their opinion that it wasn't a reliable source, but by all means present your evidence there and the consensus could change. --Slp1 (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

shimano archive.com valid source

I have brought up use of shimanoarchive.com on the BOLP dispute page here.[3] There is an ongoing attempt here to whitewash the allegations section. While we can dispute sources, we need to agree on that fact that these allegations are there, prevalent, and documented. Now we find which sources are NPOV and reliable. I say this one clearly is. This is not a judgment on its contents.Tao2911 (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This information is pasted from my talk page. I feel it would be better discussed here:

"Thank you for your message. I am actually in the middle of composing a report for the WP:ANI regarding the continual reinsertion of material sourced to a website BLPN has viewed as a poor source, which as you know is a blockeable offense. I am glad to see that you have posted to BLPN to get further opinions. However, per BLP you need to remove the information from the article sourced to it until it is determined to be a reliable source. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" I strongly suggest you revert yourself on the article to remove the material, per BLP. If you do that, I will take it that you are interested in following policy and I won't need to post to ANI. You'll notice that I have actually added lots of reliable sources attesting to the problems. I'm currently sitting in the library with the Tworkov book which I was going to use to expand on them. Try working with me, rather than against me. --Slp1 (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)"

This material is simply not "un- or poorly sourced." The source is excellent. What is the argument against it? Fact: there is an archive of Aitken letters. Fact: these letters report allegations of sexual abuse going back to 1960's. Fact: Aitken and other teachers have publicly aired their concerns in letters and online. Shimanoarchives, without editorial opinion, simply provides verified scanned pdf images of these letters. Desire to remove is whitewashing. Tworkov source was written in what, 1985? You cannot rely solely on that one source, though it is a fine one. That is not the end of the story, as you tried to imply in whitewash version.Tao2911 (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Also Slp1, you have repeatedly stated that shimanoarchives was dismissed by multiple editors on linked discussion page. This is not true. There was some dispute about zensite (mainly you against it) - a site I would still argue in favor of, and may do. However, there was no consensus on shimanoarchive, or even much discussion or discernible dispute.Tao2911 (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

But it was. http://www.hoodiemonks.org/ShimanoArchive.html (which is the same website) was asked about too, and was rejected at the same time as the zensite. Once again, and final opportunity, please revert your inclusion of this unreliable source per BLP. If and when you get consensus at BLPN you can go certainly ahead, but until then it is both contrary to BLP and Consensus, no matter how ridiculous you consider it. --Slp1 (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I am reviewing that thread - there is no firm consensus against any of these sources. You have voices there pro and con, in equal measure. You clearly are demonstrating your own bias, and do not appear to me the neutral nonpartisan you claim. You've taken it upon yourself to police the site, even questioning parties involved in simply making allegations (questioning the validity of Aitken's arguments?) This is not NPOV evalutaion of sources.

I have found another source, http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/, which even cites zensite as valid source of info. This cite provides us not only with another valuable tertiary source citation, but provides validity of zensite and shimano archives.Tao2911 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

All the independent editors (off2riorob, Rdburke, myself) who contribute regularly to the noticeboard commented against the two sites. The only ones who like it are those who have been involved who want to publicize the allegations against Shimano to the max. Please stop accusations of bias. And yes, it is my job as an administrator to make sure editors use the website correctly, or policing if you will.

I see that you have not reverted yourself despite the BLP and other problems I have identified. I really do advise it. I think we can find enough clearly reliable sources to make the point clearly without the two unreliable sources, and we can work together on that if you are willing. I am going to go back to composing my ANI post about your reverts, but I will check back before hitting save to make sure you haven't had second thoughts. --Slp1 (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I simply question your presentation of yourself as neutral. I think your comments reflect otherwise. I am not arguing in favor of any position here, for or against any allegation or defense. What I want to see presented here is information in proportion to its coverage in tertiary sources, tertiary being neither those making allegations or those be accused, or their proxies. What I know is that the Aitken letters are having a significant impact in the Buddhist community, and that allegations against Shimano have been reported in media for decades. This needs to be said - the number is in dispute, not defined similarly in all sources, so it should be said simply that there are multiple allegations, and that they go back to the 1960's - and that these allegations continue to create controversy. And of course that Shimano denies them. We have sources saying so, on all counts. I will keep attempting to find more.Tao2911 (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your additions are imo giving undue weight to the issues and the citations are either primary or not the best, which we are looking for to report controversial details, and then we would need to weigh up the seriousness of any allegations and would not want to report the issue excessively or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of such allegations. Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can check my edits, and I think you'll find that I've never ever edited about Zen or Buddhist article before. You'll just have to assume good faith and my assurances that I have no links with any Zen or Buddhist group, philosophy, person etc.

What I am not neutral about, however, is that articles, especially BLP articles must neutral, BLP compliant and be sourced to the highest quality sources, ie what WP calls reliable secondary sources. This is material that are written about a topic (mostly books, magazines, scholarly journals, newspapers etc), and we generally don't want to use primary sources such as letters, interviews, documents even those collected obviously reliable archive. The reason for this is that people can easily misuse primary sources to try and make a particularly point. You say that "allegations against Shimano have been reported in media for decades" - then find the newspaper articles and there will be no problem. BTW, you are using term "tertiary sources" differently than WP does: in WP's terminology, tertiary sources are encyclopedias and the like. Just to make this clear; yes, Aitken's letters etc may have caused a stir, but we need reliable secondary sources making this point before we can make the point. It is not enough that the blogosphere is alive with chat about it. Therefore, to restate your point, what WP wants the article reflect the "information in proportion to its coverage in reliable secondary sources".

I see that Off2riorob has reverted. I take your non-revert of his edit and the above post as positive, and I will not therefore post to ANI for the moment. By all means look for sources: as I said, books, magazines, journals etc are what you are looking for as reliable sources. I will add what I have learned from Tworkov, which I makes some of your key points, I believe

However, after I wrote the above, I was very disturbed to see this edit "Multiple allegations against Shimano of sexual abuse have occurred from the 1960's until recently." Once again this is utterly unsourced negative allegation against a BLP. There are no reliable source that stating that the allegations have been ongoing. Final, final, final warning.--Slp1 (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"An Elephant in the Closet of American Zen Buddhism"

This article simply reports on the 8 zen master letter sent to Zen Studies society. We now have a solid tertiary source reporting on these issues and ongoing controversy. This is all I want to see appropriately reflected - that controversy exists, and why. I would appreciate the template blasting and obnoxious commenting to cease on my talk page. Bring it here please. I will read it.Tao2911 (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You are not discussing and you are not listening to user users objections and you continue to insert citations others describe as unreliable and add content that imo asserts an attack on a living person you clearly do not like. Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, you don't know what I like or don't. Stay calm, keep breathing, and use reason. I don't have any opinion about this guy. I am however fully aware that in American Zen, his name is not spoken without saying "sex abuse scandals." This needs to be reflected. I found a good source that simply comments on the fact of all this scuttlebutt and why it exists, as well as confirming the letter by 8 senior Zen masters who asked him to resign or be disciplined. I know about this field, and as an admin (really? is this possible?) you should understand and respect knowledgeable editorial voices. I of course agree we have to have sources. I found one. This section was simply written badly, inaccurately; if you look at my edits you will also see I removed info that was overly negative POV. The edits stood yesterday - why the stink today? No new sources, no new info, only better more accurate wikified English, accurate to ALL sources cited in passage.Tao2911 (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that www.buddhistchannel.tv is a reliable source per WP guidelines. I have asked the question on WP:RSN to get the opinion of other editors. It certainly isn't a tertiary source by WP's definitions (see the section above), or by Tao2911's since it is clearly polemic in tone and content, and written by Shimano opponents. However, I have left it in the article until we get the opinions of other editors at RSN. On the other hand, I have removed other material which is not present in the citations given. There nothing in the sources given, for example, stating why Shimano left Hawaii. Do not add unverifiable information to advance your point of view, Tao2911. --Slp1 (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How is it "clearly polemic"? How do you know it is written by "opponents"? This is wild speculation, and belies your bias, whether personal or on issues. Here is the last paragraph: "The Shimano story continues. The allegations remain allegations as there has been no formal examination of the charges...Eido Shimano continues as the roshi and main teacher of the Zen Studies Society." This is perfectly NPOV, and could be in any newspaper in the world." The first line rightfully points to the unprecedented nature of numbers of allegations and resulting letter from 8 zen masters. As someone familiar with field, this is accurate, and well reported, with NPOV. Here is their editorial page - while they publish a disclaimer for content (a legal necessity), they clearly also have clear, high editorial standards for fairness, balance, and egalitarian coverage of Buddhism.

A review of all sources supports my edits for phrasing. Shimano was brought to Hawaii to assist Aitken. He left over rift caused by sex allegations etc for New York. Why are you removing this? You simply don't know the facts, and are not reviewing sources. I think you are causing an edit war here. Bring your edits here to be discussed first please. I am reverting until we have consensus on sources and material.Tao2911 (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Which one of the source given supports the statement that "He left over rift caused by sex allegations etc for New York." Please provide the exact text from the citations given that supports this statement. You won't be able to, because it simply is not there in either reference. And do not revert. Per WP:BLP and WP:V and WP:BRD, the material needs to stay out, until there is consensus to include it, not the other way around. Slp1 (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You are simply arguing in favor of your version in favor of mine. You haven't shown any proof of your version either, and the "your" version is just that - you wrote it, it didn't preexist. So I'll get it for you - you are the one reverting to previous non-consensus version.Tao2911 (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I am requiring this article to be verifiable. You cannot add information unless it is actually in the citation given. The bit about why Shimano left Hawaii isn't in the sources given. Neither was the information about Soen publicly denouncing Eido, nor the information sourced to "How the Swans Came to the Lake" as I pointed out above. If you ask me for "proof" of any of the material I added, I will oblige. On the other hand, I note that you haven't provided the text from Tworkov or Smith and Oldmeadow to support your edit. As I said, I do know why. Because neither of them say it. I've checked. It's simply not verifiable, and it is disruptive and inappropriate to reinsert unverifiable material into an article. --Slp1 (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

From Buddhist Channel: "Using the latest web technologies on content publication, the BC remains the world's only dedicated Buddhist news servcies, providing daily updates and in-depth coverage...To augment the BC's premier position as a Buddhist news site, five prominent Buddhist individuals were appointed as members of the "International Advisory Panel (IAP)". Each of the panelists - coming from different countries and with expertise in various disciplines - is expected to play a critical role in establishing the Buddhist Channel as a truly global, web based media platform...The BC will remain loyal to the 'non-sectarian' emphasis of the news coverage. It shows in its logo, a three petal lotus of different colors, each shade representing the mainstream schools of Buddhism."

"In New York, between 1975 and 1982 Shimano was repeatedly accused of having inappropriate sexual relationships with female students, as well as financial mismanagement; he denied all the allegations." Sources (including Tworkov) report allegations that he had relationships with at least three (says one source; more, say others) women students - despite his marriage, which needs mention in bio. He didn't just "try to seduce" them. Though he denied allegations. As passage says.Tao2911 (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Except that is what one of the sources said he did. See below. --Slp1 (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Problems with misrepresenting sources

I have made three edits to make the information verifiable. I will go through each one in turn.

1. [4]: none of the sources given mention persistent allegations. Tworkov mentions four rounds between 1964 and 1982. "apparently alluding to his time in Hawaii in 1964 as a young unmarried monk when his dalliances with women had caused a rift with Aitken."...."In 1975 and 1979, as well as later in 1982, the Zen Studies Society had been rocked by rumors of Eido Roshi's alleged sexual liaisons with female students". The Faces of Buddhism in America 1998 book mentions that "[alleged sexual misconduct] has torn apart... the New York Zen Center" and The Buddhist experience in America (2004) says that "Eido got into trouble amid allegations of sexual misconduct and financial mismanagement." No sign that others think they are persistent.
2. [5]: I have removed unverified information that Shimano was Aitken's assistant, that the rift led to Shimano going to New York, or that and Shimano made sexual advances on students. None of this is mentioned by the two sources cited. The Tworkov material for this 1964 episode can be found above. The other reference says that "Some time earlier his sexual misadventures as a young monk in Hawaii had caused a rift with Aitken". We have "dalliances" and "sexual misadventures", not making sexual advances. He may well have made them, but we cannot go beyond our texts.
3. [6]. All of the sources specify three specific dates for accusations. Using the word "repeatedly" as you did appears to be pushing a point of view that there were more than that. Once again we need to stick to the text and give the exact dates, since the texts do. I have also changed it to "sexually exploiting emotionally vulnerable female students", (since you didn't like seducing), as that is also closer to the information given in the citations. The Holy Longing book (2003) states "In 1975, 1979 and 1982, married abbot Eido-roshi of the Zen Studies Society of New York was accused of seducing emotionally vulnerable women students." and alongside the Tworkov quote cited above, she also says "But in 1979 there was another eruption of allegations that Eido Roshi had abused his responsibility and authority by sexually exploiting female students." --Slp1 (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How can what can safely be called "numbers" of accusations from 1965 to at least 1995 NOT count as "persistent"? A particular word choice doesn't have to be in a source if it is warranted by evidence - obviously. We are meant to reasonably summarize source info in page's editorial voice. But I'll give it to you, since you seem so bent on it. I don't have any major problems with most of this. I don't know why women have to be characterized as "emotionally vulnerable" or counted at just three if only one source among three says that number. Sources here seem to imply more, as do later sources. Though according to accounts from sources not admitted, he actually did seem to prey on vulnerable women. So maybe that's better. I think is only a matter of time before we have more authoritative tertiary sources discussing the Aitken archive, which after review makes all of this much clearer. Such info was withheld or masked from earlier authors, which is also revealed in archive.

I mainly want the 8 master letter from 95 to stick. That has remained my central concern. It's a historically important and revealing element in the story.Tao2911 (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I see three has been excised, which is better I think. All in all, I'm fine with this version for now.Tao2911 (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Good. I agree that things may be clearer in the future if and when secondary sources start talking in more detail about it. I understand your wish to include the letter but we will have to see that is the outcome of the RSN determination. Personally, and based on the way it is going at present, you may have to live with the fact that the info about the letter won't be included until some more reliable sources emerge. But we will see. --Slp1 (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You may just have to live with the fact that it might stick, and rightfully should. It's hardly been decided!Tao2911 (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Single line in dispute

The only line here is dispute reads: "In light of further allegations of misconduct, in 1995 Robert Aitken and 7 other American Zen teachers wrote a letter to the president of the board of the Zen Studies Society, later made public, recommending Shimano be disciplined or asked to resign."

There is not dispute that there are numbers of other allegations of abuse and misconduct. The article, which is well written, without any clear POV, introduces and contextualizes the letter in question, which is by any measure significant: all the more so when you see the list of cosigners (including Phillip Kapleau and Jan Chozen Bays - all are significant teachers).

A pdf of the actual letter, with signatures, is linked. The pdf has proven named independent review and confirmation. The letter's contents are quoted in full in the article. There is a crazy making discussion going on about whether source is "lofty" enough to merit use in wikipedia - but this is not a hypothetical argument. We have a series of concrete issues here, and I simply cannot understand why essentially just Slpl is fighting this.

I think having just this one letter mentioned is in itself a compromise, since of course there are many more - an archives' worth, with other sources at this point disallowed. Fine. Let's use this one completely inoffensive and reasonable source to make this, the most historically significant mention. Do a google search - this material is much discussed in field (understandably largely in places that can't be used as sources here due to POV). Let's try to keep the whole picture here.Tao2911 (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the single line makes several controversial statements about living people. It claims that there were "further allegations of misconduct", and that recommendations were made that Shimano be sanctioned in various ways. It also claims that various Zen teachers (some of whom are living) wrote a letter making various serious, potential libellous allegations. None of these are claims that can be treated lightly.

To review: the sources provided for this is are:

1. a scan of a letter,[7] hosted on a personal website that WP editors at BLPN have determined not to be a reliable source. Contrary to what you say, there is also no "named independent review and confirmation by source" of the pdf that I can see.
2. an article on buddhistchannel.tv which in the view of a very strong majority of editors at the RSN is not a reliable source either.

Consider it this way, Tao2911. We, as WP editors, really can have no idea if the letter is real or a forgery. It probably is real, but probably is not good enough when writing a serious encyclopedia. We also don't know if the letter was actually sent. Maybe the authors thought better of it, but a surviving copy was posted by somebody wishing to cause trouble. Maybe there was a response pointing out multiple errors in the letter. Maybe the authors of the letter retracted it. There are just too many maybes here and no reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking these kinds of issues. In addition, since no reliable source has mentioned the letter (and several of the books cited currently in the article were written post-1995), why is it significant enough to mention here? WP doesn't make "historically significant mentions" if other reliable sources haven't done so yet. And we don't compromise about WP:BLP or WP:V policies either, even if it seems very important to an editor to complete the story.

I agree that there are plenty of reliable sources for the allegations of misconduct: this is already described in the article. At this point, I really don't think that I have anything more to say. Unless the tide turns at the RSN (and I am happy to give it a while longer), then per consensus, BLP, V etc, the sentence about the letter needs to come out. It can always be reinserted when and if reliable sources mention it. --Slp1 (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Final word. I see you have reedited your post to add information about the authentication you describe.[8] Thank you. You'll note that the letter from the University of Hawaii archive says that authenticated materials have been stamped with an U of H seal, and that this is absent from the letter hosted on the zensite.[9]. It's an important point, but even if it was authenticated, using it would still have the same dangers of the misuse of primary sources that I described above. Slp1 (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, you continue to be what I would call "willfully obtuse." Our standard is not to perpetually and always find the single excuse available to disallow a source (unless of course we do so in order to put forward a particular agenda, which IS against Wiki guides.) Guides are meant to protect integrity of article. The letter here is clearly and obviously NOT a forgery - there is absolutely not one single reason to believe that it is. We have the letter presented in a neutral journal devoted to the field in question.

It is not being presented as the sole piece of evidence of some contested controversy. You are declaring the letter "guilty" without providing a shred of evidence that there is any reason to suspect it. The letter is not saying anything new, only showing that allegations were serious enough to warrant such a response from a large body of notable peers. This is important info in profile of figure.

I understand issues with Shimano Archives site, though I would argue that the information is presented with no editorial opinion, or particularly offensive contextualizing. I think that this site is significant, as evidenced by its coverage in journal article and reams of online discussion.

Again, you are having to practically do gymnastics to disallow the source of letter info, and concoct vast conspiracy stories of international collusion to add evidence to a case that is already clear - that Shimano has been accused of sexual abuse, which isn't in dispute in the first place. This simply makes no sense. Our job is not to find the one possible far-fetched pointless plot that might be behind falsifying reams of information - but to USE REASON, care, and the brain given us to reasonably present prevalent information. In this case, one confirmed letter.Tao2911 (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the person wishing to add content to show legitimacy of the claims and the use of non-standard sources. Active Banana (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Like I said, I've explained all I can. Many others have too. The bottom line is that the sources you wish to use have been disallowed by multiple independent editors making policy-based arguments here and elsewhere, such as RSN and BLPN. I tried to explain the reason for the policies using some specific examples. Clearly these seem unlikely to you, but that's not the point. They are possible. Here's another example: while the letter may seem to you to be "clearly and obviously NOT a forgery", what skills and training do you have to determine this? What happens if another editors pops up and says it clearly is a forgery? Who does WP believe? The policies and guidelines have been developed by consensus by multiple editors over the years and after many debates, in order to assure the quality of the encyclopedia. While there's no requirement for you to like or agree with the policies, you do need to follow them. Or go and try to change them, at the policy pages. --Slp1 (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You can also see if your source passes muster here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Active Banana (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually the sources are/have been discussed at RSN [10] and at BLPN [11] if you would like to add your voice there. Slp1 (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that the burden is, IN PART, to prove validity of source. What I don't understand is why Slp1 insists on pretending that the "burden" in question weighs 10,000 lbs, when I keep showing how it's as light as air. We need more editors here who are willing to actually look into this matter and not simply engage in more obvious wikilawyering.Tao2911 (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with your analysis at all. You have NOT shown that there is any reason for us to substantially reduce our threshold of reliability for content inherrently intwined in VERY serious claims about a living person. Active Banana (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What "substantial reduction of our threshold"? "Inherrently intwined" (sic)? That doesn't even make sense.Tao2911 (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"What happens if another editors pops up and says it clearly is a forgery?" Exactly! No one is doing that - you are again arguing favor of some preposterous hypothetical. Let that be an issue down the road - you can't "preemptively strike" every conceivable issue in wikipedia. This is absurd. We, as editors, can look at the letter as you did, and, as you did, say, "yeah, this seems reasonable, and real." Which it does. And is!Tao2911 (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems you have missed the point. Your opinion and my opinion and the hypothetical editor's opinion about the letter are irrelevant because we have no idea whether your or my or their judgment of its authenticity or importance is valid. We rely on reliable secondary sources in these matters. Slp1 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Removals and questions

I have removed more material. As I explained in the edit summary.

1. The information about the resignation was not in the citation given. This is the third time that Tao has inserted material that was not supported by the ostensible citation.

2. There is nothing in the ethical guidelines posting mentioning Shimano. Per WP:OR we cannot combine sources together in this fashion to imply something that is not there.

3. Please can you provide the sentences from p. 135 of Tworkov that supports the sentence about Maurine Stuart and why she left Shimano. I don't think that this citation is accurate.--Slp1 (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why on Earth do you want to spend your time on contentious issues like this? Let's upgrade Somerset Maugham to FA status instead, much more rewarding. PiCo (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello again!

In Tworkov book chapter about Maurine Stewart is from page 155 to 197. On the bottom of page 192 and top of 193 she explains why she left Zen Studies Society. It was due to "misuse of people" as she says, and due the "being burned by her own delusions..." In fact later she states that leaving Eido Roshi was the best thing which happened to her...

I am not sure how to rephrase the paragraph in Allegations sections, or weather this should be there at all, but definitely not in present form. Footnote 15 - page 153 is wrong, and paragraph is a misrepresentation. I could e-mail you entire chapter in pdf form so you can see but where?

Thank you, Spt51 (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Spt51 (talk)

I have removed paragraph in Allegations section. There is nothing about Maurine Stewart on page 135 in Tworkov book. Spt51 (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors' blog at Tricycle Buddhist Review

There is a discussion here [12] indicating that this blog is not a reliable source for this material[13] Tao2911 is edit-warring against 2 separate editors and against consensus to retain controversial material about a living person. The material must stay out until and unless consensus changes.--Slp1 (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

its not edit warring when you have removed another editor's tertiary-sourced and cited work with no discussion in talk. You should have discussion FIRST before you start accusing and reverting. You claim the high road, but are not acting respectfully or responsibly.Tao2911 (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did not remove anything first. Johnuniq removed the information and his edit summary mentioned BLP concerns given the poor sourcing [14]. You reverted him, and then me. My edit summary stated that I agreed with Johnuniq's concerns and mentioned that current consensus at RSN was against this edit with this sourcing.[15]. It has been pointed out to you several times that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced...should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" and that the burden of evidence rests with the person who adds or restores material to get consensus for restoring the information. WP:BLP. The discussion needs to happen with the material out of the article.

BTW, the blog is not a tertiary source in the way WP uses this terminology. WP:PSTS. It can help communication if we all use terms in a similar way.--Slp1 (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You started another talk thread on this topic without notifying other editors here in talk, and then used this as ammunition to (once again) accuse me of ignoring said discussion. Bit tricky there, eh? I was incorrect in using tertiary - I meant secondary. Which is exactly our standard. I maintain you continue to willfully misread and misrepresent sources and text to exact some kind of personal agenda.Tao2911 (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC

Where did I accuse you of ignoring the RSN discussion? I simply pointed it out as a reason for my reverting the revert of Johnuniq. You couldn't possibly have known about it till then. I was remiss in not mentioning it here, but even when you did know about it, you still reverted.

Please present some concrete evidence (with diffs etc) that I have "willfully misread and misrepresent[ed] sources and text" or cease this kind of personal attack. --Slp1 (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You have over and over attacked me personally, and I think you are determined to not allow me to participate in editing this page, so take it down a notch, and keep it on topic. I would say your entire characterization of the Tricycle story on the RSN thread is manipulative - you make no signs of understanding the topic more wholly, though you obviously must have a clearer view than you let on, if for no other reason than you are monitoring my efforts so very very closely. You present only the information you want, to dismiss my edits, and you slant that presentation - for instance, saying that Tricylce was making allegation of 40 years of abuse, when there and in entry it was simply being reported that Aitken says such allegations exist, and that Shimano should address them. On it goes. Hence, my suspicions of personal vendetta. Anyway. On topic.Tao2911 (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Tao, I am very new to Wiki. Reading this discussion I do not see anyone personally attacking you. I am actually very inspired here and on other pages how hard editors do try to follow rules and make this encyclopedia objective. It is also understandable why for BLP rules are very strict. If you read Robert Aitken blog, the source which was dismissed earlier, you will see that the commentators there were trying to publish this in a few more "reputable" Buddhist Magazines. What is their reason for this you may only guess. Now they managed to put it on Tricycle blog and you immediately used this as a source. Doesn't this surprise you that all comments there are by the same people who had their own pages and personal blogs attached here earlier and all of them were removed as not acceptable sources? Claim by Aitken Roshi is only a claim, not a fact at this moment thus cannot be included. Simple as this. Please, take a look at this matter in this way. There is nothing personal against you here. Use your good talents to produce something positive. Spt51 (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

the point here is not to manipulate the entry to read with a particular POV slant, but to present a view that is accurate to sources and figure's reputation in his field of activity. I happen to be fairly knowledgeable about American Zen - it's players, its history, and its current parameters. I have never been involved directly with Shimano or Aitken or even their students, but I know them both by reputation, history, and deeds. I have been trying to get the fact that Aitken and numbers of other important Zen religious leaders, in Japan and the US, have been attempting to get Shimano sanctioned, even fired, for decades. Finally the most visible Buddhist journal reports on the most recent spate of activity, after having numbers of other sources rejected, and still Slp1 is there "massaging" the information to have it discounted. Do not tell me what is important, or where I should "use my talents." I'm quite sure I could review your activity and find all kinds of ephemera that would seem a giant waste of time. I feel this material is important to include, and will continue to try to get an accurate representative entry here - I keep just trying to get a single line or two added to being us up to the present. Shimano is a religious leader who is perpetually involved in controversy. it didn't stop in "1982." Veterans in Zen know this, as a search of any number of Buddhist sites will quickly reveal. News outlets are finally reporting on it.Tao2911 (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to right the wrongs of the world. If we have a reliable source that someone did something, it may belong in the article. However, repeating unsupported claims is not part of Wikipedia's role. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in the future you will find the source which is acceptable by WP BLP standards. For now personal blogs or similar materials are not. Can you understand this? Spt51 (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Spt, we have a disagreement, a difference in opinion. I think you are dead wrong. Can YOU understand this? Tricycle Magazine is not a personal blog, by any estimation. Latest proof - they just posted this statement sent to them from Zen Studies Society, in response to their inquiry and online report on Aitken's letter and conflicting statements on ZSS website: "On July 4, 2010, Eido Shimano Roshi stepped down from the board of directors of the Zen Studies Society (ZSS). This was prompted by allegations of clergy misconduct. The ZSS is committed to fully investigating, clarifying and bringing resolution to this matter. Eido Roshi’s wife, Aiho-san Shimano, also stepped down from the Board at that time."Tao2911 (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Rewritten Tricycle mention

There is support for use of Tricycle as source at the RSN. Evidence of the significance of the source is supported by Zen Studies Society responding promptly to their request for a statement after reporting on the Aitken letter. I suggest this inclusion:

"In May, 2010, Robert Aitken wrote an open letter to Shimano requesting he comment on allegations of sexual misconduct that span "more than 40 years." Tricycle Magazine reported on the letter, and asked Zen Studies Society for a response.[cit.] The Society issued a statement that due to "allegations of clergy misconduct", on July 4, 2010, both Eido Shimano and his wife had resigned from the Board of Directors after 42 years.[cit.]"Tao2911 (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Tao, this not my opinion. There are many others who expressed their opinion at RSN against this source and there are also WP BLP rules for acceptable sources. Fact the ZSS responded does not change my decision. At the moment I do not see any support for this source at RSN. ZSS does not say that they agree with claim in Aitken letter and the content of this letter as it is worded cannot be used here. Spt51 (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

First, "Tricycle is a reliable source." GRuban, at the RSN.

Second, this is not saying ZSS agrees with Aitken claim. It says that in a requested response to the report on the letter, Shimano resigned "due to allegations of clergy misconduct." They go hand in hand. The latter statement doesn't happen without the former report/request for response. We must be accurate, neutral, and concise.Tao2911 (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Tao, to be exact, the response from ZSS came because Tricycle asked: "Last week we indicated we’d contacted the Zen Studies Society (ZSS) regarding Eido Shimano Roshi’s status at the organization." This is quote from Tricycle blog, exact words. Do not try to change their reason. From what I read in this blog Magazine will be publishing a story. Can you wait a bit for reliable source? Perhaps by then facts will be clear. I cannot agree that this blog is reliable source, it includes people's comments which are personal opinions. As it was stated earlier by other editors, this is not allowed here. Spt51 (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, you misrepresent the source. The story does not have opinions. The comment section most certainly does - do you then discount every other story online, from CNN to NY times, all of which have (quite lively) comment threads? This is nuts. There is no implication that the print mag will follow up on this story. I am not trying to change any reason anywhere - again, Tricycle reported on Aitken letter, asked for response, got statement Shimano was retiring due to misconduct. perfectly clear. Tricycle is not a "personal blog." it is a news thread, with rigorous multiple editor involvement and oversight, as demonstrated by activity even on this one issue.Tao2911 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have support on RSN for this inclusion.Tao2911 (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll just remind everyone that section is titled "Allegations of Abuse."Tao2911 (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the first sentence as that particular blog posting that had zero support on RSN for inclusion. The second part is fine by me, as Tao says, does have some acceptance on RSN.--Slp1 (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an absolute lie. There was support at RSN for the version I wrote - click the link. The statement by ZSS was specifically addressed to Tricycle request for response to story about Aitken letter - it was not issued independently, which is how your censored version reads. Do not remove sourced supported info.Tao2911 (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I adjusted the passage slightly for better accuracy and read: "In May, 2010, Robert Aitken wrote an open letter to Shimano requesting he respond to allegations of sexual misconduct spanning "more than 40 years." Tricycle Magazine reported on the letter, and contacted Zen Studies Society for a statement.[15] The president of the Society responded that due to unspecified "allegations of clergy misconduct", on July 4, 2010, both Eido Shimano and his wife had resigned from the ZSS board of directors after 42 years.[16]"

Tao, again I am repeating what I did write above: ""To be exact, the response from ZSS came because Tricycle asked: "Last week we indicated we'd contacted the Zen Studies Society (ZSS) regarding Eido Shimano Roshi's status at the organization." This is quote from Tricycle blog, exact words. Do not try to change their reason." You are trying to insert your own interpretation here, so you can include Aitken Letter. The source which is not acceptable. Spt51 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not evaluating the Aitken site as a source, dude. That ship has sailed - we're not using it, and I don't dispute that we shouldn't use it (not because I have an opinion about the content, like you, but because it is a "primary source"). However, Tricycle (a "secondary source") reported on Aitken's letter to Shimano, posted on his site. In reporting on it, they asked ZSS to respond. That is the only reason we have a statement. No letter, no report. No report, no statement. It's like algebra; get it? You have to show your steps, or you don't get the gold star. To leave out a step in the chain of events is to alter the (quite obvious and simple) facts.Tao2911 (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, be careful how you relate to people here... As a matter of fact the statement in question was already published earlier on ZSS own site and other places. And links to it were earlier on blogs which are not allowed here. Of course you would not be able to use it here so there was an effort by some to publish this letter on Tricycle, considered more "reputable" source. Aitken letter was posted on Tricycle blog later when it was noticed that part about resignation was excluded. Only than Tricycle contacted ZSS to investigate. If you are so smart than do your research and present the facts. Spt51 (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"so there was an effort by some to publish this letter on Tricycle" This is complete and utter speculation, for which you have not one shred of evidence. They reported on it simply because every person involved in Zen in the US and Europe is aware of this letter, so much so that ZSS is being forced to take action. This action (forcing Shimano to resign from the board) occurred BEFORE the Tricycle story, due in part to the Aitken letter, in conjunction with new allegations of sexual misconduct, and the culmination of anger from vocal former students. "If you are so smart" why don't you put all the pieces together, and help this article become accurate and thorough, instead of cherry picking due to some personal agenda.

The mention of the ZSS editing of their site was tacked on as adjunct to the lead, the Aitken letter, which they printed in full. You are not getting this - the letter is to Shimano. It's a letter, respectfully written, not a speculative editorial blog rant. He posted it as an open letter on his website. Aitken is the senior western born Zen religious leader (at 90-ish years old), and Shimano's long time colleague and first host in the US. If you use Tricycle to report on the statement ZSS made, you are validating the source. The source reported on this letter - and the statement was issued in a response requested for a story including this letter. The argument has been from the beginning that we needed acceptable secondary source reporting on Aitken's letter - now we have it, and you are still using the same argument, that you just don't like the letter so it can't be used. This makes absolutley no rational sense - yes, it makes biased sense to you, I know.Tao2911 (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Tao, As I see the history of discussion about this page, the letter was removed long ago. At that time it was posted in someone's website. Why? read discussion. Many editors came to conclusion that it is not a valid as a source. Now the same letter was published on yet another blog... same letter. And again all who discuss say it does not belong here, in Wiki. As many others I do not believe this blog is a reliable source and secondary source. Or editors say that for accusation of "sexual abuse" we need several good absolutely without doubt sources. Of course you can write many explanations, and insult me or others but simply this will not work. You are the only one who is inserting here the same letter.

As for facts, please look through the footnotes which were attached here in the past, read them, see who owns these pages and blogs and who posted comments there and maybe you will have a clear picture. Of course this takes time... Sorry, I have nothing more to say to you... Spt51 (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't be sorry - that is surely the best news I will receive all week.

In addition, I'll just add that while you pretend to take the high road, you have repeatedly questioned my good faith editing this page, spread rumor, been snarky, and self-righteous. So own it, and ease off.

Your entire point about the validity of the Aitken letter is completely moot. Your opinion about Aitken or his letter do not matter, and are not well informed. We are discussing a now accepted secondary source, Tricycle, reporting on the letter, which is a completely different issue from past discussions. I agree that until Tricycle, there was not an acceptable secondary source to report on the letter, and that it could not be mentioned without one. We now have one. I've made my points here and elsewhere.Tao2911 (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Tricycle/Allegations

A discussion on the recent edits is going on here; WP:BLP/N#Eido_Tai_Shimano. From a quick review I would say that the current wording (which I reverted to) is more appropriate. The reason being is that the open letter source on Tricycle is simply recording what was written without dealing with it in a critical way. While it is ok to report on such things the fact it is the blog of the editor and comes with very little reportage/story around it the validity seems tenuous. Just my non-involved opinion. I advise fully discussing the edit at the BLP Noticeboard before replacing it --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Double Standard

This page is clearly contentious. A version was settled on after much debate. Slp1 now edited contentious line to inaccurately characterize the reason Shimano resigned - the statement says it was due to "allegations of clergy misconduct." Spl1 changed this to say "an inappropriate relationship." That is exactly the kind of extrapolation, from a different statement altogether, that we are avoiding here. The statement simply doesn't say this. Also, s/he added a 'primary source.' We not only want to avoid primary sources in contentious areas like this, it is simply not needed to source this fact.Tao2911 (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You know what, I honestly thought you would like the edit, as for the first time, someone, in this case the ZSS, has actually said that there has been an inappropriate relationship, rather than making allegations.[16] It also implies, to me at least, that this relationship has happened quite recently, which I think is one of your other points. But anyway, I agree with Johnuniq that we need to use the best possible source; in this case, the statement hosted on the ZSS website is a much better source than the letter hosted on the magazine's website. --Slp1 (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh my god. This is incredible. I'm not going to take the time to construct the dif's here - but when I included the direct quote here before, from that ZSS website statement about there being "inappropriate relationships between students and teachers" you removed it because it didn't mention Shimano specifically. IT STILL DOESN'T - in fact, there have been a number of teachers there that have slept with students, and left because of it. This history is elsewhere on the web.

So, the only statement that specifically names Shimano is the statement to Tricycle- which has been completely accepted and discussed ad nauseum. Its use was not even debated - Slp1 is using it here. Everyone agreed the statement is from ZSS, and is fine to use. That statement says "allegations of clerical misconduct." We don't know what those are - they could also be financial, as in previous rounds. To extrapolate that it is due to an "inappropriate relationship" is sheer speculation. Probably true, but hardly the standard you've been holding ME up to.

Instead, you guys are just making this shit up as you go along, simply reversing anything I do, bending rules to suit yourselves. This is standard WP editor bullying, I've seen it on a hundred pages. No reason to it. I'm out. Do what the hell you want to this page.Tao2911 (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on what you say above, I suspect you haven't checked the Zen SS website link given. Their web statement says "On July 4, 2010, Eido Shimano Roshi and his wife, Aiho-san Shimano, stepped down from the board of directors of the Zen Studies Society (ZSS). This was prompted when an inappropriate relationship was revealed." Slp1 (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a page of Eido Tai Shimano and only facts about him should be included. As Slp1 quotes from ZSS site, the fact is: inappropriate relationship was revealed and this prompted the resignation of Eido Shimano Roshi. This is a fact concerning him. Facts or allegations about other teachers coming from this tradition do not belong here. Spt51 (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What? So now the New York Times is not a good enough reference? What's going on here? The revision I made was a valid reference but it seems that's not enough. What will make some of the editors here face the facts? Shimano acknowledged that he had an inappropriate affair recently. The New York Times reported this. What more is needed? Thinman10 (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Please suggest some encyclopedic content that we can discuss. We certainly do not record every "revelation". I understand that it is frustrating, but it seems unlikely that any reliable source is going to assert anything detailed; instead, very coy language has been used, which means there is not much that can be recorded here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I added information and citations from the NYTimes article, but this has since been amplified with what I, and others,[17][18] consider to be an inappropriate detail and tone per BLP. Please also see this discussion on WP:BLPN [19] I have restored what seemed to be a more consensus version. I notice that ActiveBanana tagged some of the references as not supporting the information given. I would be happy to provide the full text if this is still a concern to him/her. It is not always easy to verify the material using google searches. For example, "The Buddhist Experience in America" does say, on p 187, "Stuart was later formally ordained by Eido Roshi [another name for Shimano] in 1977.... Later the relationship between them soured and Eido got into trouble amid allegations of sexual misconduct and financial mismanagement." Likely you couldn't find the quote because of the word Shimano is not used on the page. The same is true of the "The faces of Buddhism in America" book--Slp1 (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

OK - I was looking for Shimano. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not clear what the banner in References section means. All citations are added in text and linked to sources in Notes section. However, not all printed books from Notes are included in References section. Is this what you want to be done? I really do not see the problem here, apart from uniformity. Thanks. Spt51 (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I added new source, the message from Eido Shimano. The letter was published in Tricycle blog, which was used before as a source. I think it is important to include this new decision and date of stepping down from abbot position and include the fact of his apology. If my wording is not the best or source not acceptable, please correct. Thank you. Spt51 (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Small changes to allegations; reverted Off2riorob's vandalism

I adjusted the two short paragraphs now on the allegations of misconduct. There's been some issue with other editors reverting adjustments to the passages, in light of the NYTimes article; this article states clearly that accusations of abuse occurred from 1964 to 2010, in each decade. That is all we are referring to. So the previous specific mentions about single years (1972,77,82 et al) from other sources fall under the umbrella of the Times mentions, but are not confined to those. However, the other citations are still there, in concert with the Times report.

Off2riorob decided to remove all mention of allegations and announcement of his retirement etc, twice now, without discussion in talk. Straight up vandalism. If it happens again, admins should be alerted.Tao2911 (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Help

{{Help}} The language of last edits by Tao 2911 is not appropriate for Biography of Living person and it is not based on reality and sources provided. The attacking tone of this as well as many previous edits made by this person on that page shows clearly that there is an agenda and lack of objectivity. If you read article NYT you see that some information came from blogs and sources, which have been here decided as not reliable. All facts and wording were agreed by consensus before by many administrators on several boards, and last version edited by Slp1 on December 9th is closest to the facts, if it should be included at all. Please, revert to this version and please, take some actions so the same person, who does is again and again over last few months, is not inserting untrue and harmful information here anymore.Spt51 (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that the wording "sexual abuse" is absolutely not acceptable in this case. It has not been used in any printed sources and there are no facts to it. Accusing a person of this may be considered illegal. Please, remove this immediately. Sorry, I do not know how to revert the article to a version from September 9th. Spt51 (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I think that this question is best dealt with on the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard, so I am copying your request there, where I expect you will get responses.

Therefore, please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Eido Tai Shimano. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot... this seem to be never ending problem.Spt51 (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Sexual Abuse" definition from Wikipedia page - with many sources supporting it: "There are many types of sexual abuse, including:

• Non-consensual, forced physical sexual behavior (rape)
• Unwanted touching, either of a child or an adult
• Sexual kissing, fondling, exposure of genitalia, and voyeurism, exhibitionism.
• Exposing a child to pornography.
• Saying sexually suggestive statements towards a child (child molestation).
• The use of a position of trust to compel otherwise unwanted sexual activity without physical force
• Incest"

Shimano has been repeatedly accused (passage says no more than this) of a number of these. Therefor the term is suitable - and yes, it is used in some sources. In any case, just because a certain word choice isn't used in every source, if it is an accurate summary of said sources, it should be used. The term is more than accurate. "Sexual Abuse" is NOT just rape, or forced sex, as you seem to think.Tao2911 (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As for sources, any evaluation of sources as appropriate for inclusion in Wiki entry is superseded by their use by a reliable tertiary source, like the New York Time. In that article, you even have a ZSS spokesperson commenting on the material from Shimano Archive saying that the ZSS found much of the material actionable and convincing, and that it led to their subsequent actions: rewriting ethical guidelines, and encouraging Shimano's resigantion, etc. You conveniently leave that part out.Tao2911 (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

WP is not a reliable source and editors here don't get to made decision about what is and what is not sexual abuse. If there are no reliable sources calling it that, then it is totally inappropriate for this article to do so.--Slp1 (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Sexual abuse" cannot be used here. The sources you are writing about were not confirmed by any investigation nor court and without that accusing a person of abuse and using the expression in media is considered illegal. You may feel what you want about this, but it cannot be used in Wikipedia. This was decided before on BLPN by many. I do have some professional friends lawyers as well as psychologist, who read some of the sources you were trying to include, and your formulations and I do know that I am right about this, apart from rules on WIKI. Sorry Tao...Spt51 (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Namu Dai Bosa

I would like to expand a bit more Biography section. The book Namu Dai Bosa /I included it in references section/ has a chapter about Eido Shimano life but editor says that it was "Eido Roshi himself who supplied all the necessary biographical information." Some facts from this book are already included here. Can I use this book as a source? It seem to be the only one which has his biography. Spt51 (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

As in similar biographies of Zen Masters I feel it is important to include few facts about Shimano's life, such as: how he met with Buddhism, his ordination, where he trained and who were his teachers, and how he came to America. Included part is until the time of his travel to America. More about his life in this country will be included when ready.Spt51 (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

After today's edits by Tao2911 and my research of all the sources included in this page, due to my fascination with this case, I am coming to conclusion that perhaps at the moment it is the best not to include any information about any allegations in Shimano page. I wonder, if any other editors would agree. In printed materials and books there are only two early sources: one by Robert Aitken, who is the main person starting accusation, and the one who was in conflict with Shimano; second by Helen Tworkov who was a friend of Aitken, his great supporter and organizing Women in Buddhism conferences with him. Her book states the same accusation as Aitken's but she did some research interviewing few other people. All the allegations form that time were denied by Shimano. There were several books published later, but all of them only quote the statements from books by Aitken and Tworkov, and add the two books as their sources in their footnotes. So truly, we only have two original sources by people, who in my view, may not be completely objective. It is a fact that for many years nobody published any new accusations, so stating the the problem went continuously for decades has no bases in reality and in sources. In the end these are only accusations... I think the page should be about life of Shimano and his contributions to Buddhism in the West, not about accusations. Recently, according to statement from ZSS website there was an inappropriate relationship and this is a fact, looks like. But this is not sexual abuse. Shimano will retire in December. Maybe in the future there will be more reliable information published as a fact, or maybe there will be no facts. If I understand correctly reading their site, after recent event ZSS is working on the issues with the help from outside. It seems to me, that his page does not reflect truly who Eido Tai Shimano is. The bigger part of the page are rumors put here by people with agenda. I am working on including something more about his life using two printed sources, shifting trough rather lengthy chapter to extract what is essential.Spt51 (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolute bollocks. We are here to reflect sources proportionally, accurately, and fairly, not our personal opinion about the figure. You have a demonstrated bias against inclusion of this material, with a record as long as my arm showing as much. Your guage keeps sliding - you once said that if it was reported in the New York Times you would accept it. Lol! Now it has, and you still keep sliding the bar toward the horizon.

However, we have numbers of accepted sources, including the bloody New York Times and four or five books, reporting on these issues. The case is iron clad. Never has controversial material had better source citations. You don't like it. Fine. Go study with him, be his biggest fan. But these issues have just led directly to his resignation, by his own admission - as passage reads, according to sources. He's admitted to wrong doing himself! It stays.Tao2911 (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tao2911 that there are enough reliable sources about this to warrant a brief mention. As you will see I thoroughly disagree with his highly POV e.g. "dogged" "misdeeds", and unverifiable material e.g. "sexual abuse", and have reverted, per consensus here, and on the BLPN.--Slp1 (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

To Tao, I do agree with the edition by Slp1 from September 9t and it was here for long time until you Tao again rewrote it using your own interpretation of sources. When will this end? Your language is not based on facts and included sources and shows that you do have a need to attack the man again and again. Just stop doing this and stop edit wars with editors. We did agree on BLNP on this version long ago, so why do you again insert your personal version? I placed the suggestion, because this edit warring cannot continue forever. And as you can see, over time many different editors erased entire section completely including Slp1 time ago, after you edited page. I never did this. If you want the section to stay accept the consensus version and consensus sources. In your response again one can feel how much you hate the man. Are you objective? It is clear you are not. Another matter: You may write your disagreement with my suggestion without attacking language. I feel that you are attacking me personally from the way you communicate, and this is not the first time.Spt51 (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Your bias exceeds all reasonable discussion. I am a journalist. I know how to write from sources. As I've described pointlessly to the whitewashers, including you, "sexual abuse" includes unwanted innuendo, touching, exposing oneself, or even consensual sex when the power balance is skewed. He has been ACCUSED of all of these, and more - as sources report. His 'church' has been forced to act, admitting that many of the accusations have merit. He has admitted to wrongdoing, apologized, and said he will quit - with the date changing repeatedly as the pressure mounts. I rewrote the passage, actually shortening it considerably, and summarizing various sources with more accurate, succinct language and blanket description. I made the passage not only more accurate, but more neutral. You can't acknowledge or see this because the material offends you and you wish to whitewash it, as you say again and again.Tao2911 (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

The version which was agreed to by consensus on BPLN is the one edited on September 9, now put back in place by Slp1. Please do not revert to Tao2911 version. Spt51 (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no, and never has been a consensus for this [20] gossipy junk. It is not to be inserted again until a clear consensus is visible on this board. Further edit warring it back in will result in a report to ANI mark nutley (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I personally do agree with you, after watching this page for a while and investigating all sources used here in the past to understand, why bunch of people is so against the man. I do have a big questions about sources having some clarity about the campaign against Eido Shimano in blogosphere, and how it continues even now after the man decided to step down. Wikipedia was also used as a forum to damage the man, and I am surprise why it went for so long. I cannot honestly call it "consensus", but the version which was included by Slp1 came as an outcome of fighting, and some had no choice but to agree. There is one individual who is very aggressive in his discussions, as you can see.

My personal preference would be not to use any information about "allegations" here. I do strongly oppose any wording with "sexual abuse" or even "sexual exploitation" expressions. There is NO proof of this at all, at least at the moment. Personally, I cannot accept two books written long ago by people with agenda as a proof, books which were used later as sources in three subsequent published books, included here. I find it very troubling that another Zen teacher, widely respecter in USA it seems, spent entire life collecting so called "evidence" against his fellow teacher in some sealed archive, releasing it only toward the end of his life. What does it really says about him? I have a hard time to see, that his only reason of doing this was out of concern for women...

For me there is only one fact, that Shimano resigned due to recent "inappropriate relationship", "inappropriate" in this particular student-teacher situation. This he confirmed. As history of Buddhism tells there have been many relationships of the same nature in Tibet, China and Japan, in cultures which do not make them such big a problem. Unfortunately here in USA, this seems to be a big deal for many, perhaps due to cultural puritanical conditioning. Is this fact is even worthy to mention, considering that this is a living person? I do not have any strong need to include this in Wikipedia as this is an encyclopedia, not news magazine. Those who want to dwell in the junk and gossip can look into blogosphere. Spt51 (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

He's admitted to sexual wrongdoing and more, and is quitting as a result. This is significant. Duh. The story was reported in the New York Times, and repeatedly by Tricycle. The ZSS itself has acknowledged his wrongdoings, and even said that the "Shimano Archive" of Robert Aitken as published online contains material that they find totally convincing, and along with first hand accounts, have acted as a result. Again AS REPORTED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES. Accusations have been reported in virtually every published mention of the Shimano for decades, as cited here. What you wish to do is whitewash. You do not get to decide what to leave out. If it is reported, we reflect the coverage.Tao2911 (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for what you are adding, stop edit warring it back in and get a consensus first mark nutley (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

To Tao - You say: "If it is reported, we reflect the coverage." This may be your wish but in this encyclopedia this is not true. It depends what is reported, where is reported and in what form is reported. The gossips from "Inquirer" are reported but are not included in Wiki, as well as shimanoarchive which was decided earlier as not reliable source and many other personal blogs and websites created with the only purpose of spreading material against Shimano. As for truth, Shimano did not admit "sexual wrongdoing". I do not see this in his statement, and again this is your biased interpretation of his words by adding what you want to see there. Why cannot you be honest even in quoting someone? As for your favorite article in NYT did you see the criticism of it on Aitken Blog itself? The same people who were happy that NYT covered the matter, so they have "good source" to use here, now are criticizing the author!!! Why? My view of original printed sources did change. Recently I did see certain "characterization" of Shimano quoted twice in Aitken blog /which seems to be going on even after his death/ and attributed to Aitken saying it three days before his death, and one other "characterization" there by someone else. Both hit me as totally untrue, prejudiced and far out from reality, politely saying. At this moment I cannot consider Aitken as credible and reliable person and his book and words as reliable source. Therefore I will not agree for any inserted material with expressions I singled out in my comment above. Period.Spt51 (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see adding some version of the paragraph that starts "In July 2010" after reaching consensus on its content and wording here. The Times is a reliable source. If we thought that the Aitken blog was not a reliable source about things before the Times article, why would we now suddenly find it to be a reliable indication of flaws in the Times article? That makes no sense.

There is definitely no cause for the term "sexual abuse;" one need merely look it up in the dictionary and compare it to the verified facts from reliable sources, and one will find that there is no support for using the term. However, "sexual misconduct" is a slippery thing in this context, because it depends entirely on the frame of reference. While Shimano's conduct may not have been improper according to his peers, many of his disciples, or even entire other societies, by the standards of the country in which he lives and teaches, the way he has conducted his sex life is ethically questionable. Whether or not that is right is debatable; I don't believe that it is inaccurate given the current mores of the society. Further, it seems clear that he has admitted as such insofar as this most recent affair goes.

However, the rest of the proposed edit is plainly gossipy, despite the sources cited; they don't seem to contribute to an encyclopedic understanding of the man. As Spt51 points out, at least some of the controversy over Shimano's alleged actions can be attributed to cultural differences; even if one finds that his actions were ethically unacceptable by American standards, that doesn't necessarily mean that they were performed with criminal intent, and I think the total effect of the deleted passage is to create, in the mind of the reader, the implication that such intent existed. That's an example of subtle non-NPOV. Stacking these old, possibly biased allegations on top of the current one can only be seen as an attempt to set the point of view. It goes from "he did something wrong (possibly a mistake)" to "he's a horny bastard with a purposeful history of this stuff," and that latter statement just isn't supported by reliable sources, whether or not you personally believe it to be true.

Speaking as a journalist myself, I would not include those allegations from these sources in a news article about a living person, and certainly I would not do so in the manner currently proposed.

Tao, you do great harm to your cause by the way you've chosen to go about this crusade—and, at this point, it's undeniably a crusade. While your convictions and tenacity are admirable, at this point they're also becoming seriously disruptive. I do not feel that you are trying to build consensus; it feels like you're trying to bludgeon others into accepting your viewpoint, and that's just not going to work. My personal recommendation is that you step away from this article for a good long spell, and in that time, may I recommend you watch Sidney Lumet's fine 12 Angry Men (1957 film)? It's a shining example of consensus-building in an apparently hostile environment. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

In addition, no consensus on this talk page can overrule the WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:V requirements. It is not acceptable to highlight negative issues in an article (or on this talk page) unless there is strong sourcing, and even then wording has to be neutral, reporting the claims with an attribution (no one has been convicted by a court, so no finding of misconduct can be asserted here). Johnuniq (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I find myself in a curious position here. I regard myself as a strong BLP advocate, and have worked hard here and elsewhere to enforce BLP policy, including the use of high quality sources. Yet here a section of the article where I did the bulk of the research and writing [21] is being critiqued by editors I respect. As should be clear, I am not in favour of Tao's very problematic version. I do think that something about this matter needs to be included in the article, but obviously maybe there need to be changes. There are multiple, very reliable sources that mention the material discussed here, over a very long period of time, sometimes in considerable detail. Unfortunately, they may require a trip to the library to check, as I had to do, but there are also sources online, including, now, the NYT article. And while I can appreciate Spt51 and Macwhiz's logic that these indiscretions may result from cultural differences, for inclusion and consideration this need to be reflected in the sources, per original research. I completely agree, however, that criminal actions or intent should not be implied.

I'm not sure where to go from here. Perhaps interested editors could suggest improved, less gossipy versions of the following, the bulk of which has been in the article since July. I swear that it is well sourced, but I am happy to help by providing the specific sentences etc from non-internet accessible sources if required. Perhaps the first part of it needs condensing... it was written before the resignation.

"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] In September 2010 Eido Shimano sent a letter of apology to the ZSS community, in which he announced that he would retire as abbot of the Zen Studies Society in December 2010.[17][18]" (for the refs, see [22]) Slp1 (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, my qualms about the material have nothing to do with the theory that these indiscretions have a cultural element. I think, though, it's a reasonable assertion, and if it can be integrated into the article properly I think mentioning the theory would add balance to this contentious issue. That's just being fair to the guy, in my view.

You are awesome for going to these lengths to research the article, and I think what you've got makes progress. Before you did this, I thought there were enough sources to make a mention of the negative allegations; now, it looks to me like the article would be unbalanced if they were not mentioned in some fashion. I wonder: by putting the allegations in chronological order, it looks like an ongoing pattern. Would it be more balanced if the most concrete thing were mentioned first? The journalist in me says putting the 2010 stuff at the end is burying the lede. Here's a suggestion: (I'll omit citations to save my fingers...)

"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. Shimano sent a letter of apology to the ZSS community in September 2010, stating that he would retire as abbot of the Zen Studies Society in December 2010. Previously, others had made allegations of sexual and financial improprieties againse Shimano; until the 2010 complaint, Shimano had denied the allegations. The prior allegations caused a rift with Aiken, and lead to the departure of some students and monks from the Society. A 2010 New York Times article advanced the theory that the acts Shimano was accused of committing would not be considered unethical in Eastern Buddhist societies."

That needs work too, I definitely wouldn't put it in as-is... maybe we can cross-pollinate 'em somehow? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Slp1! I do understand your frustration seeing how long you have been involved in dealing with this article and permanent conflict situation and trying to consider everyone's position.

I am not a journalist or great writer, but I try to see entire situation and make effort to study the issue to be clear about everything and my position in this. And yes, I did study all printed sources, that is why I do know that only Aitken and Tworkov are original ones, and the rest are only quoting from these two. And as I said, I do have doubts now about credibility of Aitken.

As for suggestions, I think the first we have to ask if we are inserting that what we know for the fact, and for me it is this part only: 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] In September 2010 Eido Shimano sent a letter of apology to the ZSS community, in which he announced that he would retire as abbot of the Zen Studies Society in December 2010.[17][18]"

or if we also want to include first part, if it could be rewritten? Is first part necessary? I sense, that you believe so. Maybe others can answer to this too.

As I did mention I want to rewrite entire bio. What I have written till now is Shimano's life in Japan part and one paragraph grew to several. I am polishing the language before I include it here.

Later I will try to write his American part of life. And here it may be an opportunity to include some of info from the first part of present "allegations" in text, but without gossipy feeling and accusation aspect. For example, as I am reading Shimano's bio, stating that "he left Hawaii after rift with Aitken" is a bit simplistic, has a accusation feel to it and does not completely agree with all facts. There were many other reasons because of which Shimano left Hawaii, as I see now. However, it is a fact that Aitken started allegations against him as soon as he arrived there. I was planning to include this at that point in his American life part of bio, in the same wording as I included it in Robert Aitken biography.

I do have a problem with the sentence about allegations from seventies and early eighties. If I am correct this came from Tworkov book, right? When I read what Maurine Stuart says in her own words and how later Tworkov is summarizing it I cannot honestly say that Tworkov rendering of Stuart's words are true. So, if Stuart was the source of information, the wording of it as it is now - with this I have a bigger issue... But maybe with the help of others we could incorporate this part too, I do not know. What I am trying to say, maybe there is some way to include certain info in larger biography body, so it does not stand out as of now.

In this way we could only include the last part now, with the decision of resignation. And maybe later try to incorporate the first part into text but without gossipy feeling and excluding any "sexual abuse" and "sexual exploitation" wording.

As for cultural conditioning aspect, the only written mention about this I found is in the blog. I do not agree with everything the author says but it may be interesting for you: [23]. This of course is not an appropriate source, just info for you.

Am I clear expressing myself? Maybe others will have better ideas...Spt51 (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As I tried to save my comment there was an edit conflict, so I see now macwhiz idea. Very interesting one, so we have at least two options now to consider... Spt51 (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a correction to macwhiz proposed section. Shimano confirmed only recent relationship not previous allegations... How about this version?

"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. Shimano sent a letter of apology to the ZSS community in September 2010, stating that he would retire as abbot of the Zen Studies Society in December 2010./sources/ He denied all allegations made in the past by Aitken and others./sources/ The allegations lead to the departure of some students and monks from the Society./sources/ A 2010 New York Times article advanced the theory that the acts Shimano was accused of committing would not be considered unethical in Eastern Buddhist societies."/sources/

However, I do have a big dilemma... Reading Johnuniq comment it is true that "no one has been convicted by a court, so no finding of misconduct can be asserted here". If this is Wiki's standard for including material like this, than it cannot be included... I wonder if the statement about resignation only would be acceptable.Spt51 (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is still ok to very carefully attribute negative statements to really reliable sources, making sure that WP:DUE is followed. My comment was more about any attempt to portray the subject of this BLP as having a known problem. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. I understand completely. The Biography in present form has only few information about his life, but much bigger section with criticism. To portray Shimano as having problem and demonize him is important to one person here and to blogosphere... Others in Wiki are trying to accommodate this. So, how important really is to include this section here and in what detail is my question? Perhaps, more senior editors take a stand on this.

For me this version would the least detailed but still stating few facts:

"In July 2010, Eido Shimano and his wife resigned from the ZSS Board of Directors after a "recent inappropriate relationship" was revealed. Shimano sent a letter of apology to the ZSS community in September 2010, announcing that he would retire as abbot of the Zen Studies Society in December 2010./sources/ He denied all allegations made in the past by Aitken and others. /sources/".

What about this version to insert now? And maybe? later couple of info in expanded body of Bio could be added if everyone agrees. I am only suggesting this for others to consider.Spt51 (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Concerning comment by Johnuniq "no one has been convicted by a court, so no finding of misconduct can be asserted here" I want to add that today September 15, 2010, a commentator in Robert Aitken blog, who clearly belongs to "against Shimano" camp writes: " Since legal venue is now not an option (as far as I know),..." . Some folks on this blog were calling to start legal actions. To me this comment implies that even now, after recently revealed relationship, there is nothing there qualified for legal actions against the man. If this is a case, perhaps? we should hold off a bit in inserting anything here. I am adding this up to date information for involved admins and editors. If you want the link to this post, let me know, but it is easy to find it. Spt51 (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Returning to this after a few days. The murmurings of posters at the Aitken blog or elsewhere are of course irrelevant to us; in any case there is no need for legal charges to be laid for a mention in Shimano's bio; see our Clarence Thomas article for example. Obviously, the section needs to be carefully written, and very well-sourced. But if the issues and facts have been mentioned by reliable sources (and as we know, they have, multiple times, and in some cases in considerable detail), then per NPOV, we need to include the information.

So what should the article say. I have started with Macwhiz's version; I like the idea of starting with the resignation. I have made some changes based on the sources, and have some detail, based on what the reliable sources have mentioned. I find it important to mention some dates, for example, in part because the sources do, and in part because the anti-Shimano crowd would like to emphasize that these have been ongoing, and persistent, when in fact there have actually been a relatively small number of alleged affairs over the years. Other changes I have made are based on the fact, that there is no source saying that he denied the Aitken allegations specifically, and we need to be careful about what we attribute to the NYT;.

"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.[3][15][16] Shimano sent a letter of apology to the ZSS community in September 2010, stating that he would retire as abbot of the Zen Studies Society in December 2010.[17][18] There had been previous allegations of sexual and financial improprieties[8][9][10] Misconduct allegations in Hawaii led to a rift with Aitken.[1][2][3] Further allegations of inappropriate sexual relationships with female students, which he denied, were made in New York in 1975, 1979 and 1982,[11][12] and led to departures from the Society.[8][13][14] In 2010 the New York Times reported that until recently affairs between teachers and students "were not always condemned, or even disapproved of" in American Buddhist circles.

Comments and improvements welcomed. --Slp1 (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I like it! The only bit that needs tweaking is that last sentence, mostly because "until recently" isn't the best phrasing per WP:MOS, as eventually it'll no longer be "recently." Perhaps instead In 2010, the New York Times reported that relationships between teachers and students "were not always condemned, or even disapproved of" in American Buddhist circles historically, and that this was a recent phenomenon. That also changes the potentially loaded term affairs to the more neutral relationships—most people tend to assume affair has a connotation of being illicit. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good. I think we would need to say "sexual relationships" rather than just "relationships", though, since I'm sure all would agree teachers should have some kinds of (appropriate) relationships with their students! I also think we could leave out the "and that this was a recent phenomenon". Slp1 (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Just got the courage to get back to his page... trying to include more biographical material. Because you both are much more senior editors than myself, I am sure you can figure out the best wording. As long as the version does not contain expressions such as "sexual abuse" or "sexual exploitation" I will accept, if other admins do not object.Spt51 (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

How about "intimate relationships" instead of "sexual relationships"? "In 2010, the New York Times reported that intimate relationships between teachers and students "were not always condemned, or even disapproved of" in American Buddhist circles historically."

I know of teacher who some years ago fell in love with his young female student, divorced old wife and got married to young one. It did created pain and split in community, but nobody accused him of misconduct.Spt51 (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

To respond to this Slp1's comment, "Other changes I have made are based on the fact, that there is no source saying that he denied the Aitken allegations specifically," Shimano doesn't seem to respond to anything coming from Aitken, as of now. In Tworkov book Stuart implies, that during a celebration he did apologize to Aitken in sort of indirect way. What was the true nature of the conflict between them and why Aitken kept grudge toward Shimano till the end of his life, we do not know yet. However, Shimano was not a teacher at that time, he was not even in any power position. He came from Japan after spending entire life till then in Zen monasteries, and as a monk he was helping Aitkens with their Zen group. It looks, he did have relationships with women, Sangha friends, but is this forbidden? In every Zen Center I heard of, ordained people priests and monks, even the ones in high positions like Head of Zendo, do have relationships with Sangha women. Some change them very often. At this time in history only if one finally becomes the teacher, this type of conduct becomes a problem. And Shimano, according to sources became Zen teacher in 1972.Spt51 (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to this; I have been busy in my other (real) life. Regarding the affairs/relationships/sexual relationships/intimate relationships, since we are attributing the opinion to the NYT, "affairs" is the right word to use, since that is the word they use. In fact, we could, and perhaps should, use the full quote "affairs were not always condemned, or even disapproved of".

While I am interested in Spt51's musings about the history of this matter, as WPians we cannot inject our own opinion and logic into the encyclopedia entry. We need to go with what is written in other reliable sources.

I haven't seen any substantive objections to the suggestion of reinstating some well-sourced sentences about the resignations and the allegations that preceded it. In fact, there have been protests that the article is not of NPOV. Leaving a bit of time for a response, I plan to restore the suggested paragraph tomorrow. --Slp1 (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've given this a bit more time for comments due to Tao9211's posts below, and Kobutsu's indefinite blocking for harassment. Since no additional concerns or objections have been raised or comments made, I assume consensus has been reached and I will shortly reinsert the agreed upon text.

I very, very strongly suggest that any modifications/changes to this consensus version are discussed here first. --Slp1 (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)