Talk:Tassajara Zen Mountain Center

Content
Content

I have changed the content of this article to reflect Tassajara's primary function as a Soto Zen training center. (67.86.221.27 06:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.221.27 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Edits by 67.86.221.27 have copied material (including detailed daily schedules) from San Francisco Zen Center webpages, added unreferenced claims about Tassajara's prestige, and removed references.


 * This is an encyclopedia with neutral point of view and attribution policies as well as guidelines for citing reliable sources. As per the Wikipedia policy, What Wikipedia is not, the encyclopedia is not a vehicle for advertising or recruitment, not a webspace provider, and not a manual, guidebook, or textbook.


 * The reminder displayed by the primary sources template also applies: sources affiliated with the subject are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article. — Athaenara  ✉  14:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion
I have read the edits each of you made and the other reverted. I am everything but an expert on this subject. So I can not tell you, weather a special content is correct or reflects any functions. I only see formal problems. In wikipedia, you can not write, that someone is admired for something. You have to use a neutral point of view. I know this is difficult, if you are interrested in the subject.
 * First Thoughts

If contents are copied from any webpage, there should be a permission to use these contents, because the use without permission is a violation of copyright. On the other side, the content of an article should reflect the main attributes of the subject. As I already told you, I am no expert on the subjects and I can not tell you about the truth of these claims, but I can say something about your reactions. Wikipedia has one wonderfull principle: "assume good faith". Both of you seem to be trying to improve this article. I do not know why, but you use much of your knowledge and your energy to search for mistakes in the other´s edits and to remove them. Assume good faith!. There is another editor who wants to reach the same aim as you do, to create a good article about a subject, which interrests both of you. If you think, that a correct content does not reflect the primary function, it´s the wrong reaction to remove this content. Perhaps you could add further content, which gives this article the correct ballance. If the other editor has problems with neutrality, help. Please do not simply remove such content but change it. Instead of "Tassajara is admired for the rigor of its practice", you can write Tassajara holds a high rigor of practice or something like that.

My most important advice is to talk to each other. Do not only tell each other, which mistakes the other made. Try to communicate, to discover, what the other tinks about this subject. Perhaps you are closer to each other, than you think. The other is not your enemy, who wants to destroy this article. He is your partner to make this a great article. Find out about his ideas and tell him yours. Where you have differences, you should try to find a consensus. --Thw1309 17:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Having lived at Tassjara for several years, I can vouch for the accuracy of the text. The point of this article is to provide information on Tassajara as a practice center, not as a tourist destination, which it's not. 64.252.4.220 15:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As references which were removed by 67.86.221.27 (diff) and 64.252.4.220 (diff diff) attest, it is also a tourist destination. — Athaenara  ✉  00:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I posted the problem on the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. — Athaenara ✉  01:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not a "tourist destination" for all that suggests, which goes precisely my objection to your tedious insistance. It is a practice and training center that supports itself with a guest program, which can be said of most monasteries of all traditions, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, etc. Disneyland is a tourist destination; Tassajara is not. Moreover, the entire approach to serving the guests is based in the spirit of Zen practice. (67.86.221.27 05:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC))


 * An article in the New York Times has used the phrase 'tourist enterprise' in connection with Tassajara. You may prefer that people not think of it that way, but we are writing a general encyclopedia. If you disagree with what the mainstream media have written about Tassajara, please explain what facts you think they got wrong. Find your own reliable sources to disprove the claim. We use information reported in the mainstream press and from reputable scholarly sources. Editors are supposed to keep their own personal opinions out of the encyclopedia. Tassajara-affiliated persons have a conflict of interest, which they can work around if they are careful in their editing and collaborate with other editors who don't have the conflict. EdJohnston 06:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's my criticism of the approach you have adopted: you depend on the New York Times as a "reliable source." Clearly the Times is a reputable newspaper but I disagree that it serves as a reliable source for the purpose of this article. The Times has written about Tassajara in its travel section, which explains its slant on the place. But that is only one aspect of Tassajara and it should not be overstated. A disservice is dealt Tassajara and its real purpose when content is based on such a limited sample of articles from the Times and elsewhere. The criterion of admissable content here ends up being a survey of popular articles written for narrow commercial purposes by writers who are unfamiliar with Tassajara's Zen training profile--which is the most important feature of Tassajara. (67.86.221.27 19:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC))


 * It's a book review and was identified as such. I've corrected the link in the citation to The New York Review of Books.  — Athaenara  ✉  20:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In answer to 67.86.221.27's point just above, the article by Frederick Crews from the New York Review of Books, which reviews Michael Downing's book, is indeed just one slant on the place. You argue that popular articles have not done justice to Tassajara's Zen training profile. Since many authors have written about Zen meditation, one would think that there may be published books that comment on Tassajara specifically, and appear to be careful about matters of fact. If you know of such books, it may be reasonable to add them as references to the article. Note that the Crews article cites some books, not all of which are included currently in the WP article. You might look over those references to see if you would recommend any of them for use here.  EdJohnston 03:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of content without discussion by User_talk:64.252.4.220
This edit by removed extensive content from the article. It is possible that this editor, and another IP, might also have made useful additions, but because of the extensive removals I found it necessary to go back to Athaenara's last version. Please discuss here on the Talk page if you believe that any content of the 21 July version is incorrect or needs to be removed. Removals without any edit summary or any discussion risk being viewed as vandalism. See WP:VANDAL for further details. This article is also being discussed on Wikipedia's conflict of interest noticeboard. EdJohnston 03:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

2008 Fire
I'm surprised to find no reference to the 2008 fire, which seems to have been an important historical event for Tassajara Zen Mountain Center. This event attracted national news coverage and is the subject of a book (Fire Monks). It seems worth adding a line or two. Thoughts? Dpmath (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)