Talk:Sherry Chayat

Hear-say emails
The Shimano Archive, consisting of the Robert Aitken archive and additions by Kobutsu Malone can be checked by anyone. What exactly is "hear-say" about e-mails is not clear to me; it sounds like a contradictio-in-terminis. In the same email-excange, Sherry Chayat also states: "If I am to be without title, that is fine. I certainly don't want to be a "successor" to someone who has perpetrated lies and has used people to further his lies. I will leave it up to my students to decide whether they want to study with me or not."

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * I was wondering if you could provide the cited documents in regard to the lineage of the Eido line that you keep posting and I keep removing. Once you provide adequate proof of this...I would be inclined to stop editing it. But until then, it is fraudulent and I will be deleting it every time I see it.

Thanks
 * Chimon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimon21 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Chimon21. Thanks for your response.
 * Actually I think that the reference which was provided should be sufficient:
 * See also this comment by Genjo,
 * and this comment by Nonin, stating that sherry Chayat was not amused by the publication of this email-exchange.
 * Here's a page with a link to the lineage - which apparently was removed... but that fact does not change the fact of the email-exchange between Sherry Chayat and Jeff Shore. It also contains a link to a letter by Robert Aitken, concerning his doubts about the apparently informal dharma transmission Soen gave toe Eido, and a link to a Japanese lineage chart which does not contain Eido.
 * What makes you think that this is "fraudulent"? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think maybe WP:RSN would be a good place to get a third opinion on this. - SudoGhost 22:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hear say emails
When both Shinge Roshi and Jeff Shore authenticate these emails and confirm they are legitimate...I will believe there validity. Until then...anyone with semi decent writing skills, an imagination and an agenda could have produced this email thread. There is no time stamp, or URL associated with them. No way to confirm the authenticity of them. Until that is done...they are fraudulent or at very best...a rumor.

So until there is actual proof and a signed document by both Shinge Roshi and Jeff Shore...these are nothing short of how shall we say... a fabricated lie.

Thank You Chimon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimon21 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. As it is now, the Shimano Archive is a respectable source. But I'll ask for some third opinions. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Shimano Archive is a reputable source, and worthy of inclusion as a source.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Because it has an anonymous registrant, shimanoarchive.com cannot be checked out. The material might fall under the primary sources "policy" paragraph here: PSTS. As long as the whole article isn't based on it, it seems fine, and Wikipedia explictly says it is OK to use. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Not Opinion
No factual citation is irresponsible and misleading. I could create that .pdf myself...hell you could have made it. Without credible and legitimate source citation it is a fake! So we can keep playing the game...you add...I delete or you can ask Jeff Shore or Shinge Roshi to present a statement validating the email. Further more...If these are indeed factual emails...why in the world would Jeff Shore or Shinge release them? And if they did not...It means that somebody hacked and stole these emails. That behavior would lead me to question them and their motives as well as their trustworthiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimon21 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, yeah, I could have made it - but now you're putting to much trust in my abilities. Anyway, a comment by Nonin, stating that sherry Chayat was not amused by the publication of this email-exchange. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Why would she be
No one would be amused at an email exchange such as fabricated one that has gone viral. Unless you can produce the actual email with URL and time stamp...it is a fabrication. It is an opinion. It is a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimon21 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Fully protected
I have fully protected this article for two weeks per a complaint at the Edit Warring Noticeboard. The edit here adds negative information to the article about a living person, Eido Shimano. The information is sourced to emails hosted on an anonymous website called www.shimanoarchive.com. The possibility that this is fake information has to be considered. Under Wikipedia policy, any negative information in our articles about a living person has to come from a WP:Reliable source. It cannot even be determined if shimanoarchive.com holds the copyrights to the alleged emails, which if they are real, may have been leaked without consent of the senders. One way to help close this issue is to post a question at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If the problem is resolved, ask for unprotection at WP:RFUP. EdJohnston (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not an anonymous web site. The archivist is clearly identified as Kobutsu Shindo Malone, who a prominent American Rinzai Zen priest and founder of The Engaged Zen Foundation. He is a figure with a well-established reputation in the Zen world, and certainly qualifies as a reliable source.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources noteboard
I've poste a request at the noteboard: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I was asked to provide a third opinion on this dispute - I haven't carefully gone through it, but I will say that purported emails are not in themselves admissible as citations or sources for information here. Nor is the Shimanoarchive website. Such correspondence has to be referenced, vetted, and interpreted in context by a reliable accepted secondary or tertiary source. period.Tao2911 (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Not questioning the reputation of Kobutsu
Sylvan said:
 * "It is not an anonymous web site. The archivist is clearly identified as Kobutsu Shindo Malone, who a prominent American Rinzai Zen priest and founder of The Engaged Zen Foundation. He is a figure with a well-established reputation in the Zen world, and certainly qualifies as a reliable source.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)"

No one is questioning the reputation of Kobutsu...The question is about can any document that claims to be an email by someone without proof be used as citation? That means anyone can make a .pdf and claim that this is a factual document and use it on anyones page. It is a slippery slope. Very slippery.Chimon21 16:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimon21 (talk • contribs) Chimon21 17:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimon21 (talk • contribs)
 * The pdf is vouched for by Kobutsu. That is the difference.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I trust the emails to be true. What's really important here, is what these developments are telling about American Zen - from the '60's until now and into the future. Did you (Chimon21, Sylvain1972, any body else) read "Nine-Headed Dragon River" by Peter Matthiessen? "One day when I came home from a long journey I found three unusual persons standing at my porch" (I'm back-translating from memory from the Dutch translation). That's a great opening-page, describing Yasutani, Nawagaka, and Shimano. All the thrill of a promising new religion, opening viestas of a new world. It was great. I loved it. I still do. And what a disappointment... What happened to the thrill? Yasutani a man with right-wing nationalist ideas; Nawagaka an alcohol-abuser in his last years; Shimano - well, we all know. Maezumi, not mentioned in these pages, but closely related, died in a bath-tube after drinking to much. His student Dennis Merzel is now an outcast in the Zen-world. What's going here? Where did the promise, the great dream, go wrong? Is there any real value in Zen-practice? In Zen-practice as delivered by the Yasutani-lineage? It's a dream turned into a HUGE disappointment. Very huge. We can continue nick-picking on the authenticity of those emails, but personally I find it very brave of Sherry Chayat to raise those questions, and to be willing to give up her title and position as "dharma heir" of an ilustrous Japanese Zen tradition. Best wishes to all of you, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Vouching for something and Validation are two different things
He can vouch away...it still is not a proper or trustworthy tool for journalistic purpose. The fact remains that it is a document that anyone could have created. Vouching or not, it cannot be validated. I am sure at one point in history Hitler, or Stalin, or Idi Amin had people that were upstanding members of their community "vouch" for them. Vouching is not the same as proving in fact and can be dangerous.Chimon21 19:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimon21 (talk • contribs) Chimon21 19:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I had to look up "vouching". You've certainly got a point here. Maybe your insistence triggers me because it can also be interpreted as a defense of Shimano. I guess (and I hope) I'm wrong here, given your above stated opinion. Anyway, as stated at the previous section, I find it brave of Sherry Chayat to question the authenticity of her "lineage". Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, when you type ~ after leaving a comment, it leaves your username. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * PS2: maybe you can restrict yourself a little bit at starting new headers, and continue thethreads under the appropriate header? It's a little bit confusing, all those headers. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Joshua...I am learning the protocols here. I was instructed by another editor that I would be banned if I did not sign. I am learning the interface and should have it down soon enough. I do appreciate your input. Thank You. Chimon21 20:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimon21 (talk • contribs)
 * Alas, you forgot to sign again :) Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

She's a Zen teacher. Duh.
I assume that the most pertinent fact about this person, that SHE IS A ZEN TEACHER, has been excised due to someone's political axe grinding here. That should be the first thing mentioned in this bio. Whether or not she is "officially recognized as a lineage holder in Japan", or that her teacher is a completely heinous human being, should have nothing to do with this fact. She teaches zen - well, poorly, indifferently, rightly or wrongly, that is why there is a profile about her here at all. Come on, people.Tao2911 (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't even noticed that... but I think you're right. It was deleted by the same editor who added the mail-subject diff. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes she is a Zen teacher. That is not the question...the question is whether you can use a source without proper citation or validation. That is what this about...credible verification of sources. Chimon21 19:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimon21 (talk • contribs)

Roko?
Is this part of her birth name? Or something given to her (or adopted) later in her life? --Morning star (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Rinzai-transmission
Eido Shimano never formally received dharma-transmission, so Sherry Chayat did not recieve dharma-transmission in the Rinzai-school. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   19:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)