Talk:Niō Zen

Original Research
This article seems mostly to be original research. It cites a lot of texts, but without precision (no page numbers) and mostly with regard to peripheral points of information, not with regard to Nio Zen. One text that is cited, Baroni's Illustrated Encyclopedia of Zen Buddhism, does have an entry on Nio Zen, but none of it cites all that information about Pure Land Buddhism, Bodhi Darma, Shaolin monks, etc. that consume most of the article. All that smells of original research. It should be noted that the same editor has been going through Buddhism pages on Wikipedia and making additions that cite the Zenji Museum as a repository of important artworks. There is no proof of that, so I have removed them, but the Zenji Museum page (the museum, by the way, does not seem to exist in reality, since the page does not reveal its location other than that it is somewhere in downtown Toronto--internet searches do not reveal any other page mentioning its address) is half about Nio Zen and its leader Zen Acharya, and seems to repeat many of the stances of the Nio Zen article (see also related pages here and here). I thus wonder whether all this original research is not also publicity for this person and his religion.Michitaro (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your concerns, and I've gone ahead and stubbed the article. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I have proposed that this article be merged into Suzuki Shōsan. Please see the discussion over at Talk:Suzuki Shōsan. Thanks —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)