Talk:Eido Tai Shimano/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

First Question: Lede wording regarding "retirement"

Statement of the problem as percieved

Regarding the edit/auto-reversion at 7/17/2011 x:4 PM: If no longer teaching in any capacity, does that constitute "retirement" from the status of Roshi? It would seem that the title would stick, unless there was a formal "de-frocking", which has not as far as I am aware, occured. What is the specific facts of the case and in terms of Rinzai protocol? I don't have a dog in this fight, I just want the WP article to have integrity to satya.

Comment upon initial investigation

• The link cited does in fact state: "I have retired, but some of you may think, “Are there any exceptions?” No. I will stop doing dokusan

and giving teisho in a formal way."

• But this does not necessarily mean that he is not any longer a bearer of the ordination title "Roshi". Further down, the statement by the incoming successor states: "I too want to thank everyone for coming. As Eido Roshi said, this has been a difficult time... I don’t imagine

any of you would choose me over Eido Roshi..."

• Thus, it would appear that the subject of this BLP is "retired" from that office, but it is not clear that the title of "Roshi" is retired or vacated. He is not according to any cited source retired from being a roshi, he is retired from the post at that institution. If the title of Roshi is in fact sustained under Rinzai canon law, the wording of the article should not suggest that he has retired as Roshi, but that he is currently a Roshi who has retired from teaching and is retired from that position. If this is all suggestive that the title of Roshi is nullified by the retirement, and I am not saying it is or is not, this would be Original Research or Original Synthesis, but I would be inclined to let it into the record at least on Talk. But the record as far as I have read does not state one way or another that the title Roshi is vacated, and the title is used in the citation.00:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary opinion after investigating

I actually have to agree with Tao2911, despite his accusing me of bias, which may not be entirely unfair, with regard to these edits [1] and etcetera: if we are asserting that the person in the BLP is the first to establish a Rinzai lineage, that would have to be cited in a secondary source and since it is not, the WP article can be reverted if it asserts that without a citation at that point in the article. I am not scanning the whole article, nor do I have it memorized, and if I don't see a citation backing up the assertion, I don't have a problem with someone reverting the statement. I eagerly await the outcome of any investigation into the status of ordination titles such as Roshi; as things stand we have a scoreboard in which Tao2911 is up 1 point for correctly removing the hagiographic capitalization, but the field of play is open to rewording of the word resignation because the citation clearly continues to use the title Roshi. Geof 00:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Notice of action

Fellow Wikipedians:

There is now, after spending way too much time on this lede, an edit in the lead of this "controversial" article which adheres to the facts as stated in the uncontroverted citation as elaborated above. Note also there is an additional refinement in the wording which the parties may wish to leave as is, to discuss further, or perhaps they would prefer to edit war/ wheel war ad nauseum. The edit as it stands is, IMHO, a fair compromise, to wit, it states the ESR is retired from his post but it does not give the incorrect impression that he is not a current bearer of the designation Roshi. The refinement I am proffering for your consideration is that I am not including the proffered English translation ("master"). I am a fan of Robert Aiken's translating as per his rendition of Basho's poems, and IMHO this English word is not suitable and it is problematic. I don't like it much, to begin with, and I hope that Tao2911 will concur and it would be no trouble at all if he could set his sharp wit to conjuring up some more of his sardonic wit in support of the redaction. Nevertheless, the article in mainspace is not the appropriate venue for the battle of the wags, sarcastic or otherwise.

What do you think fellows, can we call it even steven and be done with that particular debate? Reference: WP:LETGO In any case, we have all the time in the world, as WP:NODEADLINE. Your humble servant

GeoBard^Rap 00:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)