Talk:Shinnyo-en

bakkudaijo > bakkudaiju, Mahaparanirvana > Mahaparinirvana

Tiny corrections; from bakkudaij"o" to bakkudaij"u", and Mahapar"a"nirvana sutra to Mahapar"i"nirvana sutra. These are more accurate than the previous description. I forgot to leave these explanation when I posted on the discussion page on the other day.

Suggestions for improvement; intention to modify article

The article about Shinnyo-en can be modified and improved because:

• It is not verifiable
• It is not neutral
• It reveals too much detail about Shinnyo-en to the general public.
  • Shinnyo-en is supposed to be esoteric.
  • Go to your nearby Shinnyo-en temple and ask the jimi-koku (office-people): some Shinnyo-en publications are designed for the general public (example: the pamphlet "What is Shinnyo-en") and some publications should be given only to people who are connected (example: the Kangi-Seki).
  • It is my understanding that, according to Shinnyo-en policy, the pamphlet "What is Shinnyo-en" is the limit of detail appropriate for the general public.

I intend to modify this article according to Wiki policy and Shinnyo-en policy.

--Danwri 20:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Article modified

Article modified per intention explained above. Will be doing ongoing work on this article to bring in additional material from "What is Shinnyo-En", and from other verifiable, neutral, and approved publications.

--Danwri 00:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Original research and bias added back with no discussion

Hirokayamasaki has been improving the page and refining the wording, and now it is well-written and almost free of grammar mistakes. Unfortunately, many paragraphs of un-verifiable and non-neutral material were added back, without a discussion on this "talk" page, and the article is again outside Wikipedia policy.

At the beginning of the non-neutral section, Hirokayamasaki added a disclaimer saying "the following was written by one follower ... questions should be asked" at Shinnyo-en, but Wikipedia articles are supposed to be encyclopedic in their entirety. Articles should not have a bias section, especially not one that comprises 95% of the article (30100 of the 31500 characters), even with a disclaimer.

Hirokayamasaki has put so much good effort into writing this, it would be a shame to waste -- best would be if he were to host the material on a separate web site and include a link to it in the article's "External Links". I have made this suggestion on Hirokayamasaki's Talk page.

--Danwri 04:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree it is bias and non-neutral in anyway, the section he added "The Three Treasures", is clearly quite factual on what the religion preaches. (i.e. The Shinnyo En Teaching teaches...) Similar to this is the "Beliefs" section of Christianity. One question we can ask however, is whether or not it is factually correct.

Which leads perfectly to another problem, verification. The material from which this section is based are Shinnyo-En publications, which I am sure are definitely the most reliable source.

The problem is that they are supposed to be confidential and only allowed to be read by the followers of this religion. The easy way to verify the section to be factually correct is to ask one of the followers, because theoretically they are the only ones who can get access to these publications. Another option, of course, is to get everyone in the world to connect themselves to this religion, and if that happens, no one will be excluded from the publications and there will obviously not be a problem. --DryBitterMelon 14:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)