Talk:Soka Gakkai

Criticism of Soka Gakkai: suggested edit

I think this page should be re-activated - either as a separate entry or as a section of the SG entry. Perhaps it could be renamed "Controversies", which is more in line with similar parts of the entries of other religions.

The SGI and Soka Gakkai have been a focus of criticism and controversy. Soka Gakkai, the Japanese organization, has a reputation for involvement in Japan's political arena. Though officially the two are separate, it is closely affiliated with the New Clean Government Party (also known as the New Komeito Party), a major political party in Japan. Accusations that Soka Gakkai in effect controls New Komeito persist;[2] Soka Gakkai and New Komeito both publicly deny any relationship, and declare that they are separate organizations[1].

Soka Gakkai and Soka Gakkai International are perceived by some critics to be a cult or a cult-like group. Their concerns are that, in the past, Soka Gakkai had placed an emphasis on recruitment, that it demonizes perceived opponents, and that it uses phobia indoctrination and peer pressure. French and Belgian anti-cult movements and parliamentary commissions have also accused SGI of engaging in cult-like practices, but there are groups critical of these governments citing they are religiously suppressive.[3 ] Another point of contention concerns SGI's application of the mentor–disciple concept. According to Soka Gakkai, the mentor-and-disciple relationship is a very important aspect of living a full life, for every human being; detractors see SGI’s version of the mentor–disciple relationship as a cult of personality for its intense focus on SGI President Ikeda. SGI defenders argue that in most cultures, and for most human beings, the idea of looking to those who have come before us, and finding a person who one can feel a kinship with, that one may look to as an example for how to live s life, for guidance, encouragement and support, is a common part of human development, and that their establishing a lasting relationship with such an individual is an important part of life. (no citation for either argument, but it seems okay to me) .

There is controversy about the degree of religious tolerance practiced by Soka Gakkai members. Official materials state all other religions, including other Buddhist denominations, are viewed as valuable in as much as they are able to support the happiness, empowerment, and development (needs citation) of all people. SGI claims that religious tolerance and a deep respect for culture are strongly emphasized in the organization.[4] However, there has been an acrimonious rift between SGI and Nichiren Shoshu. There are doctrinal differences between the Soka Gakkai and other Nichiren Sects – as might be expected between different religions. Other sects place great emphasis on the special efficacy of certain religious objects, while the Soka Gakkai teaches that lreligion should serve life (ref: Strand, Clark Waking the Buddha p. 61), and so is less doctrinaire in its application of Nichiren’s teachings.

---

As you will see if you compare to the original (here)I removed a few paragraphs - I hope you will agree they are redundant and only re-state what has already been said. There wwere a couple of suggestion, concerning peace activities and theology, which I would have added, but I had asked for clarification on them, and got no reply, and don't want to try to expound on something I don't have a good grasp of. --Daveler16 (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, this is decent. Let's combine this with the "Public perception and criticism" section. Shii (tock) 00:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

To the Administrators: As I stated in my first post, my niece is a Soka Gakkai member and I just happened to look it up on Wikipedia a few months ago. I was shocked by the extremely negative depiction in the entry. My niece has co-workers, neighbors, friends and other family members who know she is a Soka Gakkai member and I am concerned that if they look it up on Wikipedia, they will be alarmed and put off by what they read. It is not fair to any member of the Soka Gakkai to slant the entry to the extreme, i.e. fascist, militant, cult, etc. without an opposing view. It is what I believe to be an injustice that keeps me involved here. I am not sure, but it sounds like the administrators are willing to reach a common ground. I have been researching the activities of the Soka Gakkai and SGI on their web pages and am overwhelmed by their engagement in peace activities, nuclear disarmament, women, gay and human rights and educational exhibits and more. There are hundreds of examples of a respectable, concerned and energetic organization doing great things. I urge you review what I have seen at the following sites. http://www.sgi-sa.org/aboutsgi/about/docs/Activity_Report-2013.pdf http://www.sgi.org/news/all-news.html?start=0 WmSimpson (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You need secondary sources talking about all the great things the group has done. The group's own PR is not suitable for Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 22:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I am getting the shortish article from the 2014 Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism and a shorter article from the 2004 Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism prepared on Word, and may be able to send them out as e-mails to anyone who sends me an e-mail so I can forward the articles to them. Well regarded reference sources tend to be among the better indicators of what we might include in our own articles. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

John Carter: I would like those (I posted my email to your talk). Encyclopedias, I imagine, would be fairly obkective sources, wouldn't they? --Daveler16 (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a great idea, thank you. I've created a new intro using other encyclopedias:

Soka Gakkai is a modern lay Buddhist movement. “Soka Gakkai” translates as “Value-Creation Society.” It follows the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin (1222–82), a Japanese monk who crafted a reinterpretation of Buddhism based on the Lotus Sutra. The Soka Gakkai traces its start to 1930 in Japan, when its founder, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871–1944), published his educational work “Value-Creating Pedagogical System.” By 1941 it grew to some 3,000 members but its refusal to support Shintoism during World War II resulted in its near destruction by governmental authorities; founder Makiguchi was imprisoned and died in custody during the war..

The Soka Gakkai has grown rapidly since the 1950s under the leadership of its second and third presidents, Josei Toda and Daisaku Ikeda [added to the encyclopedia’s entry]. It is considered the most successful of the many religious movements that emerged in Japan after the war. In 2003 its membership approximated 8,210,000 households in Japan and 1,500,000 individuals outside of Japan.It shared an association with the Japanese Buddhist school Nichiren shō-shū but the two organizations separated in 1991. (Encyclopedia Britannica). Nichiren Shoshu preserves the tradition of Buddhist priests and temples whereas Soka Gakkai members are led by lay leaders and gather at numerous community centers throughout the world. Followers claim its well-organized, colorful, and well-organized structure is the future of Buddhism..

The core of the Soka Gakkai’s religious practice emphasizes chanting the mantra Nam-myoho-renge-kyo(daimoku), propagation efforts through personal contacts(shakubuku), and study. Its main goal is “kosen rufu,” or the spreading of Buddhist ideals to promote peace and happiness in society. Members participate in neighborhood discussion meetings; the organization organizes cultural, educational, and humanitarian activities and is also an NGO (nongovernmental organization) affiliated with the United Nations. (The Encyclopedia of Religion and Society).

The Soka Gakkai formed the Japanese Komeito political party in the 1950’s and it was criticized extensively by political rivals. The Soka Gakkai was also criticized for its aggressive proselytization in the 1950’s and 1960’s, the period of its explosive growth. Starting in the 1970’s the Soka Gakkai began broadening its cooperative activities, expanded its outlook to an international scope, better adapting itself to pluralistic democracy. In the 1980’s Daisaku Ikeda began a series of dialogues with prominent leaders throughout the world and more organizations have constructed friendly relations with the Soka Gakkai. Members of the Soka Gakkai are encouraged to take personal initiative, to actively involve themselves in the community, and achieve personal happiness in their daily lives. [User:Lionpride82|Lionpride82]] (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The more sources the merrier, of course, but this is a complex topic that exceeds the bounds of Buddhism, reaching into the sociology of religion, politics and religion, corruption, etc.

Wikipedia leads are a summary of what is in the article.

The lead of this article reflects the consensus with respect to what is in the article. We've been through this before with people trying to add material to the lead that isn't in the article, etc.

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia with limited space, so the articles can--and probably should--contain any and everything reflected in RS presented here. Other encyclopedia's can be good study guide for some things, but they are generally substantially different from Wikipedia.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

To an extent I agree with the above, but only to an extent. The comment seems to me to suppose that we are not a paper encyclopedia (which is freely granted) so we don't have the limits they have in terms of article content but it seems to me to possibly ignore the equally important fact that as we are not a paper encyclopedia we can have much more extensive coverage over multiple articles than those printed reference sources do. The criteria for a separate article here are also much lower than they are for print sourees. That being the case we can probably do a better job in having a larger number of more focused articles than many print sources have provided they all meet notability requirements of course. I personally agree that I would like to see more content on the cultural and social impact of any number of groups in our articles along the lines of the articles in a recent Worldmark reference book I made a list of artices from at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Encyclopedic articles. At the same time though if (and I don't know this one way or another) another reference source has a good neutral article uch longer and significantly more detailed than our own, it might be difficult to say that we should eliminate data it covers from our articles in favor of other data it doesn't cover, other than perhaps recent changes and such]]. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this article in particular is that it straddles so many topical areas, most of which are interrelated and should be examined in a mutually complimentary manner so as to shed light on the organization in its many aspects and evolution from what it was to what it has become.

I'm not an expert on SGK, but have substantial knowledge about Japanese religion in general. As far as the significance of SGK to Japanese religion goes, it's negligible. The Nichiren sect is a thousand years old, and though SGK has origins in resistance to State Shinto theological authoritarianism, Nichiren Buddhism's primary teaching relates to (末法、Mappo, Later Day of the Law) of the Three Ages of Buddhism. In that sense, it can be seen as a Buddhist form of "end of days" millenarianism in some ways, though I don't see it as being apocalyptic. There is not a single mention of that in the article. On the other hand, the Three Ages of Buddhism and Nichiren Buddhism, as well as The Three Treasures are all articles that you might want to add to the list your compiling.

SGK in its present form has less of a relation to Nichiren Buddhism than when it started, as far as I can tell, and has based its organizational ethos on a blatant attack against an even more fundamental aspect of Buddhism, which is monasticism, as I mentioned earlier. They try to portray their organization as a reaction to elitism in the priest caste, but that is only partly admissible. Nichiren Buddhism is only one sect among many long-established sects, but the SGK attack on Buddhist monasticism is practically an attack on all forms of Buddhism.

At any rate, WP:NOTFORUM, and my main point is to show that the topic is rather complex, multifaceted and sprawling. Any attempt to limit material would seem to contradict core policies. :::The creation of spin-off articles might be an option to consider, but would take a considerable amount of work. I don't think Wikipedia has the scope to undertake such work itself, and it may just have to wait until better sources are published in English that examine the topic in more detail at the scholarly level.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget that most of the academic publications about Soka Gakkai are about its relationship with Komeito and the possible problems this poses for Japanese society. Shii (tock) 10:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't researched the organization or come across any books on them. But that would make sense, because first, they are basically outside of mainstream Buddhism, no matter what the people that have come into contact with the group in the USA, etc., might think, and there doesn't appear to be anything in terms of doctrine that has theological import to Buddhism. So the main focus is on their political impact. They represent a substantial voting block, on the one hand, and they are aligned with the reactionary LDP, which was installed by the CIA after WWII drawing mainly from individuals that were to be tried for war crimes (see Robert Whiting's Tokyo Underworld for an introduction to that history), on the other hand. That presents a bit of a contradiction from the early history of protest against the same people in power during the period of militarism connected to State Shinto and their collaboration with the LDP, the current PM being the grandson of Nobusuke Kishi (see Kishi and Corruption: An Anatomy of the 1955 System), for example.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a really good intro, following up on someone else's idea of using encyclopedias as sources. I don't see what anyone could argue with. As far as it's foreshadowing the rest of the article - it does do that exactly, without getting into minutiae. I think it's fine. --Daveler16 (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

One person's "minutiae" are to another person a major component of the article. I think the current intro is better. Shii (tock) 01:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Shii: what I mean is that the entry doesn't have to be a forum for argument. Currently it's "something nice/denial" and "positive statement/argument with positive statement". This new proposal eliminates that and, in my opinion, makes the intro (at least) more consistent with the tone of entries for other sects. I think also we have been discussing putting all the criticism in one place, either in its own section in this entry or in its own entry. In that case, it wouldn't have to be peppered throughout, and a reader could get an idea of the SG's actual beliefs and practices, before exploring what other people think is wrong with those beliefs and practices. This goes also to Ubikwit's latest comment: you seem to continue to want to describe SG as it compares to other schools; but I think those arguments would be more appropriate on the entries for those schools, since they are more about those schools. The new intro is, I believe, quite appropriate for this entry. --Daveler16 (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

SGK is not a sect of Buddhism. It is classified as a "Japanese New Religion" by some scholars, at most. Show me an academic source that describes them as a "sect" of Buddhism.

Why don't you try to expand the section on "Beliefs and practices". For example, try describing the content of the book that is considered "canonical"

Ikeda, has produced certain writings which have acquired a canonical status within Sōka Gakkai, such as Ikeda's book "Human Revolution", which in some ways sets it apart from its former parent organization

It's very odd to have zero explication of such a text on a page of this sort.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I've tried a new intro, below in the next section. It uses a few encyclopedias as sources (Thank you, John Carter). --Daveler16 (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

New edited Intro

Soka Gakkai (Japanese: 創価学会?) is a Japanese lay Nichiren Buddhist movement affiliated with Soka Gakkai International (SGI) which has, by its own account, 12 million members in 192 countries and territories around the world. Like other Nichiren sects, the Soka Gakkai reveres the Lotus Sutra and considers repeatedly chanting its title, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo as the correct fundamental Buddhist practice. Unlike other Nichires sects, it has no priests or monks.

Soka Gakkai, and the SGI have been described as "the world's largest Buddhist lay group and America's most diverse".[1] While the organization has been crticized (link to new entry here), it has received recognition for its peace activism, as well as its adaptating of Buddhist principles to addressing real life issues in the 21st Century.(1)

The movement was founded by educators Tsunesaburō Makiguchi and Jōsei Toda in 1930 as a lay organization belonging to the Nichiren Shōshū Buddhist denomination.[12] After a temporary disbandment during World War II when much of the leadership was imprisoned on charges of lèse-majesté, the membership base was expanded to a claimed figure of 750,000 households by the time of Toda's death in 1958, compared to 3,000 before the end of the war.[9][13][14]

Further expansion of the movement was led by its third president Daisaku Ikeda, who began for the organization's international expansion in 1960. --70.181.118.149 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this suggested revision is more reasonable and current. 66.214.252.44 (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is something incorporating the research of various encyclopedias:

---

Soka Gakkai is a modern lay Buddhist movement. It is the largest Buddhist sect in Japan with 8 or more million members and an additional 4 million members in other countries. “Soka Gakkai” translates as “Value-Creation Society.” The organization follows the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin (1222–82), a Japanese monk who crafted a reinterpretation of Buddhism based on the Lotus Sutra. The Soka Gakkai traces its start to 1930 in Japan, when its founder, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871– 1944), published his educational work “Value-Creating Pedagogical System.” By 1941 it grew to some 3,000 members but its refusal to support Shintoism during World War II resulted in its near destruction by governmental authorities; founder Makiguchi was imprisoned during the war on charges of lese majeste for refusing to cooperate with government policies promoting State Shinto.--Daveler16 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC) He died .while in custody.

The Soka Gakkai has grown rapidly since the 1950s under the leadership of its second and third presidents, Josei Toda and Daisaku Ikeda. It is considered the most successful of the many religious movements that emerged in Japan after the war. In the early postwar years it was accused of overzealous propagation. It shared an association with the Japanese Buddhist school Nichiren shō-shū but the two organizations separated in 1991 when Nikken, the 67th priest of Nichiren shō-shū, excommunicated the Soka Gakkai after unsuccessfully attempting to bring the Soka Gakkai under his direct control. Nichiren Shoshu preserves the tradition of Buddhist priests and temples whereas Soka Gakkai members are led by lay leaders and gather at numerous community centers throughout the world. Followers claim its well-organized, colorful, and well-organized structure is the future of Buddhism.. Some anticult authors have included the Soka Gakkai on their lists of cults.

The core of the Soka Gakkai’s religious practice emphasizes chanting the mantra Nam-myoho-renge-kyo(daimoku), propagation efforts through personal contacts(shakubuku), and study. Its main goal is “human revolution,” a profound inner transformation within an individual and “kosen rufu,” the spreading of Buddhist ideals to promote peace and happiness in society. Members participate in neighborhood discussion meetings; the organization organizes cultural, educational, and humanitarian activities including the founding of schools, universities, museums, and research facilities. It is also an NGO (nongovernmental organization) affiliated with the United Nations.

The Soka Gakkai formed the Japanese Komeito political party in the 1950’s which was criticized extensively by political rivals. The Soka Gakkai was also criticized for its aggressive proselytization in the 1950’s and 1960’s, the period of its explosive growth. Starting in the 1970’s the Soka Gakkai began broadening its cooperative activities, expanded its outlook to an international scope, better adapting itself to pluralistic democracy. In the 1980’s Daisaku Ikeda began a series of dialogues with prominent leaders throughout the world and more organizations have constructed friendly relations with the Soka Gakkai. Members of the Soka Gakkai are encouraged to take personal initiative, to actively involve themselves in the community, and achieve personal happiness in their daily lives.

---

--Daveler16 (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I like most of this but the first paragraph does not accord to WP:MOSBEGIN. It should be a brief summary of the whole article for those in a hurry. Also, as an intro it is a bit too long. Shii (tock) 19:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Looked at the guidelines, came up with this for the first paragraph:

---

Soka Gakkai is a modern lay Buddhist movement. It is the largest Buddhist sect in Japan with 8 or more million members and an additional 4 million members in other countries. [8] “Soka Gakkai” translates as “Value-Creation Society.” The organization follows the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin (1222–82), a Japanese monk who crafted a reinterpretation of Buddhism based on the Lotus Sutra. Since its founding in1930, The Soka Gakkai has been the object of a lot of criticism and even persecution. Unlike other Nichiren sects, Soka Gakkai does not have a class of priests, and its emphasis is on the practitioner rather than dogma.----------------- --Daveler16 (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the intro directly above would be fine with several notable changes: 1). Soka Gakkai does have priests, for example in Singapore. 2). "and its emphasis is on the practioner" should be changed to "and its emphasis is on Daisaku Ikeda.". 3). "rather than dogma" should be changed to "rather than doctrine". Mark R. Rogow 20 July 2014

I think this is mostly good, and I'll see if we can try to replace the current lead. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources but most of the claims being made are found in the article anyway. Shii (tock) 23:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, and this is not the standard process by which a lead is written. It does not reflect the content of the article in a summary manner.

Furthermore, the Sokka Gakkai is not a sect, it is a lay movement. See [[1]].--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I am quite impressed by the progress that has been made since I last dropped into the Talk page. First of all, I think you editors are actually quite lucky. I've been working on a couple of other controversial articles, Gulen Movement and Gulen Movement Schools. There is hardly any action on the Talk page and I feel lonely and way too powerful.

Let me make a few comments and then I will disappear for a few weeks. Ubikwit, there is a history here that you may not know. The Soka Gakkai page was the victim of constant edit warring. The result was an article that obviously curdled milk for some people. I was the one who swooped in and made the suggestion to start with the lead paragraphs and draw information from neutral encyclopedias. I think you are right that this is not typical for Wikipedia. But I think it is a good model for other pages that are controversial and locked down.

It seems a lot of the warring editors have locked their guns in the gun cabinet and started to collaborate. I can see a lot of research obviously took place, a lot of Talk page, and the result is not perfect but a passable good start.

I suggest that you guys keep plowing through the rest of the article, paragraph by paragraph, and create an article that encompasses all viewpoints. Please, try to avoid power struggles; if you enjoy constant fighting, get married.

I'd like to invite everyone to visit my pages and provide me feedback.

FetullahFan (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I must admit I'm mystified why it is so vitally important to some that the word "sect" not be used to describe the SG. I don't know how the SG describes itself - it seems to me I've seen "organization", "movement", and "sect". But I do know that the word "sect" is defined in more than one dictionary as an offshoot of a larger religious circle (and the SG is certainly that) and that the Wikipedia definition of "sect" has a link to "Buddhist", and the SG is listed there. Since the practice of the SG entails a religious ritual, it has to be characterized somehow as a "religion" don't you agree? And so, a "sect"? All that being said, I have no objection to the words "movement" or "organization". As I say, I'm still not clear on why it's so urgently vital. --Daveler16 (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

In recent religious stueies the word has come to be used for groups who see the prospect of ultimate or highest salvation or equivalent to be available exclusively to its numbers. Having said that, if that point is equally clear without the word itself, I can't myself object to removing it. John Carter (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

In relation to Buddhism, my understanding of the use of sect in religious studies is used to refer to a group that formed in relation to either the adaptation of a new interpretation of a sacred text or focus on a form of practice by a prominent teacher, a new teaching by a teacher that has risen to prominence. There haven't been any new sects that I'm aware of since the Kamakura era in Japan, when several new sects came into existence, including the Japanese Rinzai and Soto schools of Zen (with Dogen being a prominent Zen master, and Japanese Pure Land and New Pure Land sects, as well as Nichiren. Those sects came into being in part due to great social upheaval in a historically transformative period.

In later periods, even when a great teacher was active, such as the 17th century figure Bankei, his teaching wouldn't bring about the formation of a new sect per se.

Accordingly, calling the Sokka Gakkai a "sect" of Buddhism would be a gross misrepresentation.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ubikwit. In Buddhism the term "sect" is more likely to be used to describe the various schools within Buddhism, hence traditional forms of Buddhism. Since SGI seems to be eager to underline the fact that it is so much different and "lay based" as in contrast to traditional forms of Buddhism why use a term that it does not even use to describe itself? In the end it is not a “Shū”.--Catflap08 (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

History edit

History Makiguchi: 1930-1944 Tsunesaburō Makiguchi, First President of the Sōka Gakkai Foundation

The Soka Gakkai officially traces it foundation to November 1930, when educators Tsunesaburō Makiguchi and his colleague Jōsei Toda published the first volume of Makiguchi's magnum opus on educational reform, Sōka Kyōikugaku Taikei (創価教育学体系, The System of Value-Creating Pedagogy).[22][23]:49

The first general meeting of the organisation, then under the name Sōka Kyōiku Gakkai (創価教育学会, lit. "Value Creating Educational Society"), did not take place until 1937.[25] The group was a lay organization affiliated with the Nichiren Shoshu, by that time a small and obscure Nichiren Buddhist sect. Makiguchi, who had turned to religion in mid-life, found much in Nichiren's teachings that lent support to his educational theories, though it has been argued that the sect's doctrines and rituals went against the grain of Makiguchi's modernist spirit.[4]:21–32[13] From the very first meeting, however, the main activity of the group seems to have been missionary work for Nichiren Shōshū, rather than propagating educational reform.[13] The membership eventually came to change from teachers interested in educational reform to people from all walks of life, drawn by the religious elements of Makiguchi's beliefs in Nichiren Buddhism.[citation needed][26]:14

Excised:--Daveler16 (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC) "In a 1933 publication by this group, Makiguchi explained one of his educational principles: "We must make our children thoroughly understand that loyal service to their sovereign is synonymous with love of country."[24]" because it is completely irrelevant. The academic validity of the source (fn24, Victoria) has been called into question by at least 2 reviewers (Metraux, and Kirchner and Sato).

Excised: "hekkeko" don't neeed Japanese wordds in an English entyry when there are suffucuent English words --70.181.118.149 (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2014

This page is heavily biased in favor of criticisms that have been written about the Soka Gakkai from critics with often vested motives. This page could easily described as "Criticism of Soka Gakkai" rather than an objective description of Soka Gakkai. I do not ask for all criticisms to be deleted. Instead I ask that some balance be restored to the page. The comments from some reputed observers, such as say Mikhail Gorbachev or Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center that used to exist on this page, but have since been deleted. I call for this page to be revamped, or at least put under articles that do not have a neutral pint of view. Thank you. 122.179.142.144 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. The IP would appear to be an advocate, posting a list of "pro-" sources to support their pov, to the exclusion of "con-" sources..--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam ^Sing! 09:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well the case is very simple as some editors have decided in the past to censor all criticism which was based on third party onions some SGI faithful find it hard to get third party opinions on how they would like to see the issue to be described except own descriptions. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverted rewrite

I removed a rewrite that contained:

• testimonies from Simon Wiesenthal Center and Mikhail Gorbachev (political testimony is an obsession peculiar to SGI; this sort of thing never appears on pages like Scientology or Mormonism)
• assertion that 1970 book I Denounce Soka Gakkai was full of lies, dubiously sourced to neutral account (if there was any inaccuracy in the book surely Soka Gakkai would have sued?)

I don't think this worthy of discussion. Shii (tock) 03:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this page is that the entire page sounds like a criticism of the Soka Gakkai. Every single action of the Soka Gakkai is viewed from a highly politicized and scandalous viewpoint as presented by sections of Japanese society (such as ultra-nationalists) and media (tabloids like the Shukan Shincho). No attention of any kind is paid to more objective books like "Encountering the Dharma" by Richard Seager from Hamilton College, USA, and "A Public Betrayed" by Adam Gamble and Takeshi Watanabe. Information included within these sources can serve as a means to make this article more readable. A lot of the information in this article are quite simply rumor mongering and gossip. Despite all the criticisms of other religious movements of comparable religious movements like Mormonism or the Baha'i Faith, no other religious grouping is presented in such a negative light. This amounts to tremendous bias and prejudice on the part of the authors of this article or those who refuse to even consider adding some information to this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatrunjaymall (talk • contribs)

No one is prohibiting you from adding new material. Just do so in a manner that adheres to basic editing policies.

Incidentally, the Soka Gakkai is a highly politicized organization, and nothing you say will change that fact, or the fact that the political dimensions of the group are addressed in multiple RS.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Shatrunjaymall It is easy to say the article sounds negative, but it is hard to say what could make it more balanced. The I Denounce Soka Gakkai incident, for example, is described in both of the books you mentioned. I do not see much difference between the way it is put in those books and how it is described on Wikipedia. If you disagree please help me improve the article. Shii (tock) 14:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Seeking clarification

Shi: Need some clarification. We have been discussing a new intro for quite some time, and last week you seemed to be accepting the one I proposed, to wit: "I think this is mostly good, and I'll see if we can try to replace the current lead." I wasn't sure if you would change it or if I should, so I waited almost a week, looked up what I could find about "semi-protected" status, and got the impression that I could do the edit. So the other night - nearly a week after your last comment - decided to go ahead and post it. Immediately the previous has been restored, so, thinking I had made a mistake, I tried again. My cjhange was removed again, so I checked View History. The first cancellation,apparently, was by someone named NeilN; he is a "master editor", but I can't figure out how to communicate directly with him. The second change was restored by you, with the comment "please continue to discuss these edits on the talk page". So my questions are: For how long must we discuss it? And with whom? Besides you and me, in over a week only one other person has commented and, judging from his or her previous posts, that person is a member of a rival sect (please correct me if I'm wrong, Ubikwit). When can the change be made?

Related: I made a mnor edit in a the History section, and I see that is gone too. I changed "... Nichiren Shoshu, by that time a small and obscure Nichiren Buddhist sect" to "AT that time...", since "by" gives the impression it had been larger and dwindled, so I think "at" is more accurate (and, coincidentally, more complimentary to Nichiren Shoshu).

I want to make changes that are positive, consistent with Wikipedia policy, and that will stick, so if you could clarify what the situation is in this particular case, I would appreciate it. --Daveler16 (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit (talk · contribs) has made a good point about sect/group distinction, and evidently NeilN (talk · contribs) has some objections too. We should contact them to figure out the details; you can use their user talk pages. I approve of trying to rewrite the introduction in general but it needs to be consensus, not just your rewriting. (Keep in mind that there's WP:NORUSH. Let's hear everyone out.) Shii (tock) 21:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarifying details: when if ever has the Nichiren Shoshu been an other-than-smallish group, how much difference in size was there, over how much time, and how consequent is that on SG? I acknowledge the word "by" could coneivably be seen as indicating some sort of inevitable decline which could support "at" as preferable. Objections to "at" exist conceivably as well but don't seem to me anyway as serious being basically just the implication suggesting Nichiren Shoshu was at some time other-than-small. And:Request for clarifying details: when if ever has the Nichiren Shoshu been an other-than-smallish group, how much difference in size was there, over how much time, and how consequent is that on SG? I acknowledge the word "by" could coneivably be seen as indicating some sort of inevitable decline which could support "at" as preferable. Objections to "at" exist conceivably as well but don't seem to me anyway as serious being basically just the implication suggesting Nichiren Shoshu was at some time other-than-small. And I'm pinging both @Ubikwit: and @NeilN:. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Daveler16: First of all, as I mentioned, Sokka Gakkai is not a sect, it is a laymen's group referred to as a "New Buddhist movement", as per Schools of Buddhism.

Bringing my religious affiliation into the discussion is off-topic, and doesn't merit further response.

I would recommend that you try to expand the article itself instead of focusing on the lead.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree that the lead should reflect the article? The second paragraph in particular is more of a characterization of SG. Shii (tock) 14:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The problem is that there are eleven sources cited in that paragraph, and only a single, dilapidated paragraph at the very bottom of the article called "Public perception and criticism". That section deserves more prominence, but where to integrate it and who is going to go through the sources and write the text are questions.

In the meantime, I moved one puffery sentence to the "Membership" subsection and copy edited that.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Issues I had with the edit besides the obvious non-reference reference, grammar mistakes/typos and signature in article space:

• First paragraph is disjointed (common issue throughout text), especially this: "Since its founding in1930, The Soka Gakkai has been the object of a lot of criticism and even persecution. Unlike other Nichiren sects, Soka Gakkai does not have a class of priests, and its emphasis is on the practitioner rather than dogma."
• Second paragraph - too much detail.
• Third paragraph describes some practices but fourth paragraph is back to history.

The current lede is much more concise and cohesive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is outrageous. I can't make changes we discussed, but Ubikwit gets to go in and eliminate "puffery" - his very use of that word ought to be a tip off to his antagonism towards the SG - and make the intro even MORE critical - with no discussion? Why is that?--Daveler16 (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, more than one person has now suggested that, before the intro be changed, we go through the entire entry and make changes. I can see how that makes sense - then the intro can be fitted to the changes, is that the idea--Daveler16 (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)?

If you disagree with the change, follow WP:BRD. Revert the edit and start to discuss. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Daveler16: It would appear that the figures on the basis of which that claim was made may inflated--or at least seriously contested, as discussed in the section I moved the sentence to and rewrote in a preliminary manner according to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. There is also no comparison to other lay groups, and the claim sounds somewhat promotional-too much so to be in the lead without strong support in the main body of the article.

The only uncontested reliable secondary source would appear to be the government figures; that is to say, the figures publish by the group itself are primary source figures.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:49, 18:44 19 July 2014 (UTC)

NeilN: It is not my intention to get into a "I edit-someone reverts-they edit-I revert" fight. The whole thing needs a re-write,, as it is in fact a "Criticism of the SG" page and in no way describes what the Soka Gakkai is. I would like this to be more like the Nichiren Shoshu entry, which has not a word about the sect's past history of losing the property of its head temple, or changing its prayers to placate the militarist government, or any other dirt; the first 11 (of 17) footnotes on it's entry go to Nichiren Shoshu primary sources (except one to a dictionary), and that's fine with me - it allows to entry to be about what Nichiren Shoshu is and teaches - not what it's critics hate about it or think it should teach. I thought I would start at the top and work down, but there seems to be a consensus that the body of the entry be changed before to intro can be changed - am I correct? --Daveler16 (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Having had some time, Shi, I must revisit something: when I posted a new intro here as a proposal, you said it seemed pretty good and could possibly be used. After I actually posted it, the excuse for taking it down seems to be: it doesn't reflect the rest of the entry. I'm wondering why that wasn't mentioned earlier, when we were discussing it as a proposal? --Daveler16 (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the specific criticisms being given, however, I disagree with people saying that the current intro is fine. It is overly harsh and does not accurately state the contents of the article itself. Ubkwit was right to move some critical statements below into a lower section. You might complete that process and then revise your proposed intro. Shii (tock) 22:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I am removing the words “fascist” and “quasi fascist” from the lead’s second paragraph as well as the source from which these labels are being drawn. The source is a fake reference as per [[WP:FAKE] (“A fictitious reference is a source that is listed within an article that an editor has added to support specific text within an article, or to support a claim of notability for the article's topic, while in reality that source does not exist, has nothing to do with the article and/or the information that the source is supposed to support, or otherwise does not support the content.”) Here is the complete quote in the Aruga article this label of "fascism" is probably pulled from: “On the one hand, this ‘reformist stance’ [of the Soka Gakkai] had a refreshing appeal to those citizens who were dissatisfied with the existing order [of post-war Japanese society]. On the other hand, when this image was combined with an exclusivist religious nature, a large number of people sensed a kind of fascism in the Soka Gakkai. However, when one takes into account the uniquely Japanese traits of the Soka Gakkai, one can see that there was never really a threat that it would move toward fascism” (p. 104). So the cited "asource" actually says the SG is NOT fascist. Nor is there any citation of “fascism” in the index of Machaceck/Wilson. Therefore, I am purging the second paragraph of this source as well as the references to “fascism” and “quasi-fascism” which were allegedly drawn from this source. --Daveler16 (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I support you, this is a good start. Shii (tock) 02:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if sources have been misrepresented, the text needs to be revised or removed.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Shii and Ubikwit, thank you for your support. Just a cursory exam leads me to believe that dibious sources are peppered throughout the entire entry. But for now, I'll concentrate on the intro.

I point to the violation of WP:FAKE in source #2, Seager’s Encountering the Dharma . It appears that this source was used to justify the words “militant” and “overzealous” in the second paragraph. The two page numbers (69 and 207) listed for this reference are bogus. The contents of both pages actually contest the allegations of “militant” and “overzealous.” On page 69 Seager critiques an 1963 article in Look Magazine about the Soka Gakkai and then a 1965 NY Times Magazine article. First of all--in a lead for an article designed for 2014 readers--why do third-hand sources written when JFK and LBJ were presidents deserve mention? I wouldn’t be so concerned if they were buried in the Josei Toda section--but in the intro?

Secondly, Seager vehemently denies the virulent claims of the Look and Times sources. Look at how clearly he makes his point: “Much of the [Look] article consists of testimonies by Gakkai rivals and old-line scholars, who together characterized the movement as superficial, pathologically intolerant, and highly materialistic. Makiguchi is not principled but ‘pugnacious ‘; strong convictions are ‘fanatical egotism.’ Daimoku is described as a ‘hypnotic drone’ said to mean ‘I am the Supreme Power.’ The main point to be taken--that neither the Japanese nor Ikeda are entirely to be trusted--is made clear in the quote framing the article: ‘Japanese people either want to be a leader or want to be led. Soka Gakkai guarantees fulfillment for both the shepherd and the sheep…or a Hitler and the hordes.'” (p69). The 1965 Times article, according to Seager, examines “the political implications that this [movement] may have on American policy,” ones “potentially more important than the anti-Western neutralism propagated by the saffron-robed monks of South Vietnam.” (With the advantage of fifty years of hindsight I think we can all agree that the Times worried needlessly on this matter.) Seager continues: “The Times intelligently handled Makiguchi, the Gakkai’s ability to address the malaise of the postwar years, and its ongoing electoral successes. It noted political bywords then current in the movement such as ‘neo-socialism,’ ‘a third culture’ neither capitalist nor socialist, ‘global nationalism,’ and ‘Buddhist democracy.’” The Times article did describe the Gakkai as a “militant society” of lay Buddhists whose most overzealous members have occasionally become violent,” but, according to Seager it “also dismissed charges that the Gakkai was fascist or even right wing.” Its main concern, Seager notes, was that further advance of the Komei Party might “favor a more independent and neutralist course for the United States’ principal ally in the Far East.”

Page 207 uses the words "militant" and “overzealous”, but here is the context: "By and large, the Gakkai's reputation as an overzealous, militant movement, deserved or not, is a thing of the past, although now and again the old skewed view of both it and Ikeda surfaces." This is no justification for using the words “overzealous” and “militant.”

So I've removed that source and the words it was used to validate, and replaced them with the phrase “at the center of controversies.” To this the Seager article can be cited, “Since its founding in the 1930s, the Soka Gakkai has repeatedly found itself at the center of controversies” (p. xii). And I've inserted that citation. I think there might be a place for 50 year old sources (r older), but certianly not in the intro. Don't you think? --Daveler16 (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I happen to have recently read another academic book that discussed those Look and Time articles, and it did not treat them as anything like reliable; in fact it critiqued the articles as scaremongering. If anyone can think of a reason to consider them a reliable voice of public opinion, they should really explain in detail. Shii (tock) 07:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is the book BTW: ISBN 0807854964. This is apparently part of a sizable literature on print media characterizations of new religions: [2] has another example. Shii (tock) 14:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I am glad to see that someone removed the term “manipulationist” from this article. I am quite sure that 99.9% of WP readers would look at this term in the article and say, “Oh my, the Soka Gakkai must be well-known for manipulating its members or the public.”

People familiar with field of sociology and religion would know otherwise. “Manipulationist” is a word coined by Bryan R. Wilson, a pioneer scholar in the study of newly emerging religions and how religious sects transform to denominations. After resarching many such groups he created a typology of sects and manipulationist was one of his seven categories. "Manipulationist" has become the common abbreviated reference to Wilson’s original term “gnostic-manipulationist.”

Actually manipulationist is a highly evolved form o So..f sects. It recognizes society as is rather than asking followers to deny, withdraw, or focus primarily on a utopian vision. It looks as salvation not as something private or other-worldly; rather salvation is seen as something possible in the current times if people find a means to overcome existing evil. Members of manipulationist sects tend to seek means and techniques to deal with their problems and in so doing they can become agents of social change.

Thus, Wilson’s term has no association with “being manipulated” or “manipulation.” It is wrong to associate the work of Bryan Wilson with criticism of the Soka Gakkai. I believe that both Wallis and Glock and Bellah were all operating from the Wilson framework. FetullahFan (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Here it says "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." So now I'm removing the sources for Wallis, Glock and Kitigawa. Wallis's book is about Scientology, not the Soka Gakkai. Glock is writing about Satanism, and mentions the words "Soka Gakkai" only in passing. Kitigawa's book was not written in 1968, and only published in paperback in 1990 - with no changes, according to the author himself in the preface to the 1990 edition; so old a book is a questionable source in any case, but I think especially in the intro.--Daveler16 (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not constructive to haphazardly remove reliably sourced material with no apparent reason other than that the book is said to be "old". Here is the relevant passage from that book, and the content needs to be integrated into the main body of the article, while I see the militancy describes as worth mentioning in the lead.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I must disagree with Ubikwit's description of the Kitagawa source as worthy for the lead.

The reliability of this source--for the lad--must be questioned because it is almost 50 years old. The citation which lists 1990 as the publishing date is misleading. As is, readers would see it as relatively contemporary source but in reality this book was originally printed in 1966—back when LBJ was president. It was reprinted in 1990 as a paperback, without revisions as per the author in the Preface to the Paperback Edition:

“I must admit that I have mixed feelings at the prospect of having a paperback edition of Religion in Japanese History. On the one hand, I am naturally delighted to learn that the volume has met, at least to a certain extent, the needs of readers since its publication. On the other hand, I know only too well that a variety of illuminating new studies on various phases of Japanese religion have appeared over the past two decades, even though a thorough revision of the contents of this volume in light of these new studies is not a feasible option at this time. Thus, the paperback edition is substantially the same as the hardcover volume, except of course for the addition of a very brief account to update it on recent developments.”

Perhaps the Kitagawa source could be used in the Josei Toda section to chronicle the reactions of Western scholars to the emerging Soka Gakkai movement. I don’t think so, however. Kitagawa’s lens was tainted by his times: rocked with Cold War mentality, labor unrest, and crude viewpoints about Civil Rights. A sample of his bias can be seen in his reporting of the Yubari Coal Miners incident of 1957 in which the coal miners union attempted to coerce Soka Gakkai members to renounce their faith because it could seemingly interfere with a perceived need to present a solid front. Today such a stance would be seen as an egregious violation of conscience. Kitagawa holds, however: “It is understandable, however, that the Japanese Federation of Coal Miners in its annual conference in 1957 made the following declaration: “Unless some action is taken against the new religions, they will increasingly disrupt the unity of the workers and play into the hands of management” (300).

No, I think the Kitagawa source should be ruled out for this article's lead. Again, I would not object to it somewhere else in the article.

After a long absence, BrandenburgG (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Daveler16 was also right to remove the Glock citation [8] Please note that this citation is actually from a chapter in the book authored by Randall H. Alfred on Satanism. He is right, why is the lead relying on a chapter about Satanism as an expert source for the lead on the Soka Gakkai?

I checked the actual citation. The only reference here to the Soka Gakkai in this chapter is “Satanism is like the other manipulationist sects described by Wilson: Christian Science from the nineteenth century, Scientology from the twentieth, and the contemporary Japanese Buddhist Soka Gakkai” (p. 200). Any WP reader would expect a detailed study of the Soka Gakkai for a lead, not a cursory mention.

FetullahFan's posting above casts some light about the origin of this line of research. Very interesting.

BrandenburgG (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, Daveler16 was also right to remove the Wallis source. This book was a classic study, a comprehensive study of Scientology. Following Wilson's methodology, he conducted extensive insider research and triangulated his findings with interviews and giving Scientology executives a chance to respond to his early drafts. Excellent work, but all was within the Scientology community, not the Soka Gakkai. In conclusion, this source does not merit inclusion in the lead of your article.

BrandenburgG (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, it's not merely that it's old; but that it's old and in the intro. Yes, maybe it could be used in another section. But just the part you linked to says that SG is part of Nichiren Shoshu (no longer true); that the SG does not recognize Shakyamuni as Buddha (I think it's view is more nuanced than that simple statement now), and mistranslates (in the text, though not in the footnote) the word "shakubuku". And his use of the word "unscrupulous" betrays a bias, doesn't it? Why should it be one of the first things one encounters in an 2014 article about the Soka Gakkai? And by what stretch of the imagination are books about Scientology and Satanism relevant enough to be included in the lead? --Daveler16 (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources are allowed to be biased, so trying to dismiss sources for bias is a nonstarter. Kitagawa's book is historically accurate, and relates to the period under examination in that book--not to the present. The account about Toda is unchallengeable, and the reference to militant recruitment practices resonates with the other statements that have been on the quasi-cult status with which the organization and other "new religions") have been (and continue to be) perceived. Kitagawa is a professor and an expert in the field, and the book is published by an academic publisher.

As for the Glock text, if a reliable source describes SGK as "manipulationist" and places that in the context of the 20th century, I don't see why it should be dismissed because SGK is being discussed in conjunction with other quasi-cult status new religious movements.

I haven't seen the passage from the last book, but again, if Wallis compares SGK to Scientology, then there would be no reason to exclude those reliably published statements because the book is not directly about SGK. SGK is an organization in Japan with parallels to the quasi-cult status new religious movement scientology in the West, so it is natural that they be compared and contrasted by scholars.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Kitagawa may be a regarded scholar on the development of religion in Japan but he is not a good sociologist. Social movements that are built through “an unscrupulous and aggressive method of forced conversion” tend to rise and fall quickly; sociologists have agreed that healthy and sustainable movements do not grow through such methods.

Kitagawa’s analysis is a reworking of the “conversion by sword” theme which has been used so effectively by Christians to denigrate the advance of Islam throughout the world over the course of 1400 years. This point-of-view is regrettably—tragically--held within the Muslim Community as well. Muhammad Rizvi, for one, has written prodigiously about Islamic conversion and points out that dialogue, personal examples of just living, and sense of community have been the most powerful tools of conversion in Islam.

“To effect conversion, troops of young men and women were expected to coerce non-believers into accepting the Sõka-gakkai faith” is an argument that parallels the contention that hordes of Muslim armies effectuated conversion. Richard M. Eaton has examined the rise of Islam in India in the 13th to 18th centuries. It’s a fascinating story of person-to-person rather than state-sanctioned forced conversion. Muslims simply proved to be wonderful neighbors who attracted converts through personal acts: taming the wilderness, establishing housing, providing education, etc.

In more recent times the growth of the Hizmet [[Gulen movement] in Turkey has followed a similar growth pattern inspired by discourse, rational action, and robust community.

Kitagawa’s analysis is faulty, I suspect. People are not stupid; they are capable of resistance. If Kitagawa’s analysis were right, the Soka Gakkai would have crash landed by now. Conversion by sword could not have resulted in the solid, sustainable, expanding, people-centered, wealthy movement that I gather the Soka Gakkai is.

FetullahFan (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry even within SGI long term members will not negate that past propagation methods have been rather rude and at times even violent. And this is not that long ago. Again I resist tendencies of white washing SGI’s past and present. Also anyone who denies that Shakyamuni Buddhas’s role is inferior compared to other Nichiren Buddhist schools or even other Buddhist schools in general should go back to the drawing board. --Catflap08 (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This should be part of the intro... because it's described in the article at length. Not because old or faulty sources say so. Shii (tock) 13:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

My comment was more directed towards the evaluation made on Kitagawa. He is a reliable and acknowledged source. Some do not see that secondary and even tertiary sources will always tend to have a critical view on issues – but some mistake being critical with criticising – especially when in an organisation where a critical self-reflection is not fostered. --Catflap08 (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@FetullahFan: The attempt to dismiss the reliably published statements of professor Kitagawa with rhetorical flourishes (“conversion by sword”) and reference to other religious movements is inapplicable. It would be appreciated if the WP:OR commentary could be kept to a minimum, as it is basically a distraction that doesn't contribute to creating content.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

To some this might be of use: WP:SECONDARY,WP:SOURCE--Catflap08 (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the Kitagawa source being used for? The statement that Soka Gakkai in Japan used “an unscrupulous and aggressive method of forced conversion”? We already have other sources attesting to this. Furthermore, we have an explanation in the History section of how recruitment practices changed since 1966 when the book was written. Kitagawa is RS but his statement belongs in the 1960s area of the History section, where it belongs, and where it backs up other sources. Don't put it in the lead. Shii (tock) 17:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This is Exactly the period where the conversion methods where most ferocious right through the 1970’s and 1980’s. I see NO consensus here whatsoever. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I think keeping that the SG is "a subject of controversy" in the intro is sufficient - it conveys thatthere are issues (hence foreshadowing the rest of the entry) while remaining neutral about them. Neutrality is, after all, one of the core tenets of Wikipedia, and as it says here: "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts...prefer non judgmental language..indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". I believe including the Kitigawa source in the lead violates all three of these principles: That the SG is part of Nichiren Shoshu (a Kitigawa assertion) and that it uses "forced conversion" is certainly"seriously contested" and can hardly be deemed "non judgmental"; and any statement about what something was like 50 years ago should certainly not be given the same prominence (i.e., inclusion in the lead) as more current statements on the same subject. On page 67 of Encountering the Dharma, Seagar says: "Soon I'm devoting days to the academic literature on the movement and am intrigued to see a meaningful pattern emerge. Newer scholarship, such as Global Citizens...praises the movement for its prgressive values and its members' sense of civic duty. Older articles and books, by contrast, are consistently preoccupied with an array of virulent charges". And Catflap, no one is saying the SG doesn't self-reflect -- in fact I have said some of this stuff may be appropriate in the history sections of the article.As many of these articles and books point out, the SG changed methods and attitudes under Ikeda, and especially since leaving Nichiren Shoshu - what is that if not the result of self reflection? What I'm concerned about is that there are statments about things that perhaps were once true, but are no longer true, being in the intro to the article, stated as if they were still key to understanding the present substance of the subject of the article. That's why I have reverted the changes. --Daveler16 (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well at the time SGI WAS part of Nichiren Shoshu – that’s why publication dates are cited and with some brains the average reader can differentiate before and after the “split”. Also SGI has not changed that much and the most ferocious so called “Shakabuku Campaigns” took place under Ikeda. Please also note that SGI was kicked out of Nichiren Shoshu so any victimisation or ideas that changes were only possible after the split can be only held true to the sense that SGI went its own way. Any authoritarian claims against Nichiren Shoshu always should bear in mind that SGI is just as authoritarian than its former parent group in the sense of the decision process on core beliefs – no high ranking leaders are elected nor any religious training accounted for.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM.

The attempt to remove scholarly sources here is highly problematic.

The lead can be streamlined, but whitewashing the history of Soka Gakkai is unacceptable. The lead should briefly mention the main points made in the article in a summary style, and that SG has been the subject of harsh criticism at various points in its history is easy to establish. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please also note that it is perfectly fine to cite Middleway Press here but also be honest to identify it as a primary source since it is SGI owned. Making such quotes look like a secondary source is rather malicious and counterproductive in the long run.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)