Talk:Shinji Shumeikai

Explanation for the NPOV tag
As it stands, this article reads very clearly as if it were written by a strong supporter of Shinji Shumeikai, and lacks sources for most of its claims. The "About the Founder" section is particularly unencyclopedic, starting off with an unsourced quote and including the unsourced claim that "Miraculous events followed one after another after joining." Throughout the text Mokichi Okada is also referred to by his religious title Meishusama rather than his actual name. I just happened upon this article though, so I've no knowledge that would be helpful in editing it. 92.221.193.169 (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Tried to fix some of the bias issues elaborated on above- not sure if reference to his religious title should be omitted in favor of given name, so don't think the NPOV tag should removed yet. F1anders (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Removing sources
In this edit, removed several sources under the claim that the links are dead. But they aren't dead, they're very much alive. The articles did still run in the paper, and just because they don't work now doesn't mean that the entire reference should be removed. For example, this article still works. And this one does too. Also, I don't understand why Mihoko Koyama was de-linked. Per WP:REDLINK, "Articles should not have red links to topics that are unlikely ever to have an article" - but I would think that the leader of a religious movement would eventually have an article here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I see what's going on here. References don't have to be on just one page and nowhere else. On this page, this NYTimes article is used to reference that Shinji Shumeikai has 300k people (the quote is "Its 300,000 members"). That is directly relevant to this article and the reference must stay here to back it up. You can use the reference on the Miho article as much as you want; it's technically beyond the scope of the page. But references can be used multiple times across articles. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

point of view about links
 Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!)

We differ in our view of link usage, but I'm delighted to see that you are passionate on your points and, because of this, I can give way to you without a qualm. I had reason to look up the Museum, which led me to the other links, and I was really dismayed at the very small coverage and what I perceived as inaccuracy in links. I don't mind at all repeating links in different places. I'm glad to see you haven't subtracted the links and footnotes I moved to the museum. I got involved with the SS entry only because it was linked to the museum. I wish someone would make a project out of linking photos of the museum to its site; if you put it in Google Image search, wonderful pictures arise. For me, though, I have followed up as far as I see fit.

Thanks again for caring this much about the SS entry; that's the spirit that seemed to be lacking, and I am thrilled at your passion.  Beroos   26 November 2010 (PST)