Talk:Joko Beck

message: As there seems to be a dispute about what should or should not be included in this article, you should explain on this page the reasons behind your edits. This will help avoid misunderstandings and edit wars.  Thank you. --MichaelMaggs 11:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please use summary field, and discuss changes here 

message: I have removed a good deal of unsourced material from the article pursuant to our policy at WP:LIVING.  Editors are reminded to provide reliable sources for each assertion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 08:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubbed 

message: Browsing through random-articles, I came across this one. I've read the debates (here, there, and everywhere), and I was quite suprised by the power that a complaint made directly to "those above" has. Anyway, can't we at least put a tag on the article saying that it has been edited due to legal reasons? If we can't have a perfectly free wikipedia (which I understand, what with the servers being in the US), at least we should know when we are and when we aren't. yandman 21:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have "a completely free Wikipedia", we have an encyclopedia. The Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons page explains the requirements in this case. They aren't, in fact, any different from any other articles: controversial statements need references, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Wikipedia needs to create a more transparent process for deciding editorial disputes. Complaints should not be made in secret; instead they should be posted on a page similar to the discussion page used by editors. If privacy needs to be protected they could be posted with a pseudonym such as "JB Objection 6."  Otherwise you are encouraging the worst sort of disinformation and maniputlation.--Backtrack7 00:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, in reference to the comment Angus McLellan made about the use of a "private" letter (protection discussion page). I agree that having a published source for Joko Beck's letter is a valid point from the standpoint of editorial fairness on the part of Wikipedia. However let me assure you that the letter was not a private letter. Also, let me assure you that whoever is hidding behind secret complaints would not accept its validity even if it were published in the New York Times. The letter was mailed to people around the globe precisely because there are those who would like to pretend that the events that led up to Joko writing the letter never happened. There is a controversy, but the controversy is not about the existence of the letter, the controversy is about the events that led up to it. As editors we were trying our best to reach a balanced/neutral account of the letter and the events that generated it. It is only a matter of time before the letter and the events surrounding it will be completely sourced.--Backtrack7 00:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When there are reliable sources that verify the claims, is when wikipedia can cover those claims.  Verifiability, not one person's (or even many people's) truth, is the standard we aim for. If a reliable source is not prepared to publish, neither should we.  There are some things that are not at an appropriate level of verifiability for an encyclopedia to cover. --Siobhan Hansa 01:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that saying "Joko has these clients: bla bla" needs a 3rd party reliable source. But if the sentence was "Joko claims to have these clients : bla bla bla", Joko's press releases is a reliable source for that statement. Even the policy page says that 1st party sources can be used in this way. yandman 07:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just passing through 

message: Could someone more experienced (an admin maybe) please tell me if this is an exceptable form of citation?  I thought that footnotes to the articles were the best... not just a mention of the book.  Thank you Killerbeez 17:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Refernces 

message: If one changed the spelling of "Centre" to the American useage "Center", then it would be possible to link to a Wikipedia article on Zen Center of Los Angeles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.214.9 (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zen Centre of Los Angeles. 

message: The article currently states that "Beck was responsible for a number of important innovations in Zen teaching. In particular, she taught students to work with the emotions of everyday life rather than attempting to avoid or escape them".  The second sentence describes not an 'important innovation' but rather an absolutely basic tenet of all schools of traditional Zen Buddhism.  The sentence is plain wrong, and I have deleted it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing text

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Joko Beck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404034522/http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/ZenPages/HaradaYasutani.html to http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/ZenPages/HaradaYasutani.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060517021841/http://www.willkefilm.de/index.html?willkefilm%2Fenglisch%2Fbeck.html to http://www.willkefilm.de/index.html?willkefilm%2Fenglisch%2Fbeck.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Joko Beck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060517021841/http://www.willkefilm.de/index.html?willkefilm%2Fenglisch%2Fbeck.html to http://www.willkefilm.de/index.html?willkefilm%2Fenglisch%2Fbeck.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified