![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
{{
rfc}}
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.
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
{{
rfc}}
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.