Talk:Wat Paknam Japan

the deletion of " promotional"
I am the lead author of this article.

Between this edition I have written and some of the editions ahead, many texts were removed by @Theroadislong as " promotional ".

While I understand some aspects of this deletion, there are many aspects that I do not understand. I would appreciate opinions and explanations on this from a few people, if possible.

Before I go any further, let me clarify my position: I am a non-religious person who just interest in Ethnic Church and have no vested interest in this institution. Also, the University of Tsukuba paper that forms the core of this article is an architectural thesis and probably has no vested interest in this facility.


 * about The flow of worship is as follows

I think some people may feel that the flow of worship is unnecessary, but I think it is exceptional for a Thai temple because it incorporates a way of worship that is rooted in Japanese ideas, even though it is a facility for Thai people. The source of this method of worship is not an information magazine or flyer, a paper, and I guess it was described in the paper because the researcher thought it was worthy of special mention.


 * about Differences from Thai Temples

I think this section is one of the most distinctive passages in the original paper, showing how Thai religious culture has changed to adapt to Japan. I have no idea what in the world is promotional about this section. I really don't understand it, so if possible, I would appreciate it if someone could elaborate on this.


 * festivals and rituals

While I have a certain understanding of what was considered promotional about the food offerings, I do not understand why the information on the ratio of nationalities of the participants was removed. The ratio of nationalities of participants in ethnic church ceremonies is obviously important information I think.


 * about Relationships with Local Communities

It is also not clear why the reference to community relations was deleted. In my opinion, information on community relations would be beneficial, as new religious institutions from different cultures often cause friction with the local community.

Information about the municipality's introduction to the local community of poems composed by citizens is another indication of the relationship between the institution and the local community.


 * about receive the precepts

Information about fulfilling the requirements for receiving the precepts by the five monks was removed also does not make sense to me. I personally consider the point that whether or not an organization can clone itself to be of mortal importance. I have no idea what is advertised about this statement either and would appreciate an explanation if possible.

I would very appriciate to get third-party opinions on my questions above from a few editors who have experience in religion-related articles. If many of them agree that the text is propagandistic and deserves to be removed, I will accept that as a fact. Many thanks, 狄の用務員 (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag, for the following reasons: (i) there has been no previous discussion on this page; (ii) there is no indication that WP:RFCBEFORE has been tried, let alone exhausted; (iii) your RfC statement is neither brief nor neutral.
 * RfC is a process of last resort, used when all other reasonable avenues have failed. You may continue to discuss the article here as a normal talk page discussion - not as a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry but content like “Wat Paknam Japan always welcomes worshippers and visitors, saying, "We welcome people from Japan and any country in the world". is clearly NOT suitable for an encyclopaedia and we don’t require instructions like “revealing clothes such as mini-skirts, sleeveless dresses, and shorts are undesirable, and women are forbidden to touch Bhikkhus. When joining hands, one should not stand, but sit on the floor and join hands.” Theroadislong (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Redrose64  Thank you for the remove work. I am terribly sorry for the trouble I have caused you because I was unfamiliar and ignorant of the English Wikipedia. Next time I will use the talk page of project first. Many thanks.
 * @Theroadislong Thank you for your comment. As I wrote at 03:41, 16 June 2024, I don't object to all the deletions. I am not understanding about half of them.
 * I don't object to the deletion of the access section, and I don't object to any of the points made at 09:01, 16 June 2024. However, I would very appreciate an explanation or opinion from you or anyone else on my unclear point at 03:41 on June 16, 2024. 狄の用務員 (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)