Talk:Kyozan Joshu Sasaki

Controversies section cleanup
I have cleaned up a lot of material in there that seemed like PR spin, and unencylopedic writing too, but there's a lot more to be done, particularly in finding citations. BrightVamp (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Controversies section reinsertion
I reinserted some language previously deleted. "Under Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, articles must present differing viewpoints on the subject matter fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Range of viewpoints in this article was narrow, partly because of article's brevity. I included other POV, i.e. cases of similar behavior, explanations for such behavior, guidelines positing other behaviors.

This seemed preferable than [|the Wikipedia policy] that "sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism." My language may be more topical/thematic. Change the subheading?

Website formerly cited no longer functioning. Original authors may need to say "[|Say where you read it]."

Editorial pointers in "encyclopedic writing"? Nuala Claire (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC) Nuala Claire, January 25, 2020
 * Hi Nuala, thanks for your work on this, now and in the past. I found that material personally interesting, but it still feels irrelevant to me in that section, and not consistent with the way these sections are handled in wikipedia typically. E.g.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Pattabhi_Jois#Sexual_abuse
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikram_Choudhury#Sexual_assault_and_harassment_allegations
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogyal_Rinpoche#Abuse_allegations


 * I see them sticking to the facts of the allegations and the immediate fallout from them. However, if we can find some documented reforms that were a consequence of Sasaki's accusations specifically, that would be a great item to include at the end!


 * As far as speculating on the causes of the abuse, that seems out of place to me, but I found a model for that kind of material: there is a separate article about similar occurences in the yoga community https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_by_yoga_gurus where they placed those kind of thoughts. Perhaps "the complex roots of such behavior in Buddhist communities" could find a home in a similar article?


 * I think a change of subheading is a great idea! Maybe to "Sexual abuse" or "Allegations of sexual abuse"? BrightVamp (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi BrightVamp, Thx for the respectful response. I think I see where you are going with this. I should say, I find the way sexual abuse allegations are handled on Wikipedia isn't that helpful to a general reading public looking for info, so I want to make a plea for keeping the material here in some manner. If the stories of teachers end with the abuse, then we don't learn how to move on. People might not see that as Wikipedia's job, but since it's the first place people go for info, there's an opportunity here I don't want to miss. I am sensitive to the need for evidence. I am also sensitive to the fact that because abuse happens in private organizations, a reading public might never have access to evidence. Mostly, I want to do something the internet generally fails to do: once we've steeped readers in the yuckiness of life, are there some reasonably valid places they can turn to for next steps? Again, thanks for hearing me out. Nuala Claire (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Nuala, I hear you. I also feel yucky reading about this stuff. I just feel that unless we can point to some reform as being a direct consequence of Sasaki's abuse, it is not the place to link to advice or to try to provide broad context to make sense of it. I think an encyclopedia needs to stick to a brief (probably briefer than it is now) statement of the facts of the allegations. An article about the broader phenomenon of buddhist leaders committing sexual abuse could be the place.

BrightVamp (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi BrightVamp, Okay, but how do readers find an article about the broader phenomenon if we don't link to it somewhere in the articles that are focused on individuals? And given that you and both agree about the yuckiness, and we seem the only two editors currently interested in this page, what can we do differently? Thanks. 71.217.176.13 (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)