Talk:Soka Gakkai

SGI & Wikipedia

When authors repeat an accusation without explaining why it is justified, it raises doubts about credibility. An absurd accusation can take on a life of its own if the author doesn’t know how it applies and just writes “someone said the Soka Gakkai is fascist.” I believe the word fascist is being used unfairly. Over the top accusations usually mean the accuser has an agenda that transcends the truth. Read the Wikipedia entry for “fascism” that states in part: “Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation and asserts that stronger nations have the right to expand their territory by displacing weaker nations.” WmSimpson (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)WmSimpson 3-29-14

First of all it would be nice to if you would post your message always at the end of a discussion secondly does it NOWHERE in the article say that SGI IS fascist but that it has been labeled as such by some critics. The reason for this maybe the early connection of Makiguchi to Kokuchūkai or its somewhat militant behaviour towards critics. The fact though that SGI has been dicribed as being quasi facist is out there – big difference to say that SGI IS fascits. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not try to avoid the responsibility. It is stated in the 2nd paragraph that Soka Gakkai is characterized as being "facist". When a few people pointed out to you all, you all keep defending that said paragraph and try the best to reject what the United Nation had said about SGI.Kelvintjy (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

“When searching for more information I found Soka Gakkai entries in the encyclopedia Britannica and Columbia. There is no mention of fascist, brainwashing, or cult. I really wish Wikipedia would to review its entry.”WmSimpson (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)WmSimpson March 20

Ohhh that is easily explained … its because that in the works you mentioned not every fringe religious group was given much line space. In Wikipedia there is a global community being able to contribute from various sources (including Japanese ones). Please note that the article does not say SGI IS fascist but that it has been described as such by some. That I even read in the 1980's on paper – so not new. Fascism as such is highly interesting though as it makes use of vulnerable and fatuitous minds easily – its the notion of them against us, elitism , having a “noble” place in the history of mankind, disdain for those who do not agree, a mission that is to be fullfilled and lets not forget a leader that is untouchable – paired with self-adulation, Hefty stuff all that when one comes to think of it. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The quality of Wikipedia’s page on SGI is more important for Wikipedia than for SGI. Recent defaming and inflaming edits (describing SGI as facist and militant and brain washing cult) - aims nothing but to incitie religious hatred. Monitoring the situation by impartial Wiki Editors is important.

I think there is a simple way to deal with the deliberate staffing of rubish in the article and it is by leaving it as it is but adding perspectives of RS from universities, peace institutions and world acknowledged figures, within them Noble Prize laurates. As a matter of fairness and non-bias, statements will be published in the article referring for example to Nelson Mandela, Rosa Parks, Gandhi Institute, Moore House Chaple (of Martin L. King Jr) and many others who supported and support SGI world peace movement. Defaming SGI on Wikipedia is inevitably is defaming for all world honoured figures and instituations with whom SGI has acknowledged relationships.

I will give an example of how religious hatred was already introduced to Wiki pages by immature editors on SGI page. If you follow the history of this page you’ll find the incident when someone intended to insult millions of people by deliberately reverting the image of their object of worship upside-down. The Gohonzon is perhaps evaluated as Jesus is evaluated and respected by millions of Christians. On that hate based incident I made the comment that if an Encyclopedia allows for someone to publish Jesus’ image upside down (or in degrading manner or information) then this would erase the hard work and sincere efforts of many honest and mature editors whether on religious pages or others. The obscure editor behind this hate-based incident had to defeat him/herself and revert the image to its correct posture.

Wikipedia is not a private property of hate-inciting editors and as i said - in every intelligent presentation you’d hear the expression; On The Other Hand.... So please feel comfortable in stuffing the negative, i will (whenever my time permits) add the mature and true perspective of world honered figures and sources, universities, educational, art and cultural institutions to the same article, according to Wiki guidelines of non-bias and verifiability. Thank you for helping brightenning the contrast. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Safwan, as a member of the SGI, would you say that Makiguchi's ideas on "value-creation" are still alive in the organization? Looking for literature on the topic, on how relevant Makiguchi and his ideas still are to the modern day organization. Any help/insight would be much appreciated. Kiruning (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Kiruning, you can do some research to find the answer to your question. The purpose of this Talk page is not to teach about SGI and Makiguchi's educational perspectives.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not very friendly. Shii (tock) 02:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Safran, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Soka Gakkai article." If you can't answer the question, it's fine to just say so. 126.25.72.25 (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure Safwan and ist perfectly okay to defame anyone who does not agree. Carry on.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Catflap, As you said, some use defamation to attack those with whom they do not agree. Defamation, inflaming statements and lies are signs of the defeated. I feel pity for those who use lies and bring aggressive and defaming inflaming description whether about this current article or any other.

As you know, SG was attacked probably hundreds of times stronger than it is now but it survived and flourished. So the nonsense of its opponents is practically in vain. If someone is deceived by propaganda then what difference this makes to SGI? But as we are here on Wikipedia, an impartial and secular environment: Wiki article describing SGI in defaming terms is just like accepting a Neo-Nazi sources describing Jews or Israel.

False accusation of SGI being “fascist” etc… conflicts greatly with SGI acceptance within peace movements and at the UN. Deleting facts about SGI activities for peace, building cultural institutions, music, art, and being NGO at UN – this was motivated by fear from the truth and aims to defame and lie using Wikipedia, because Fascism would conflict with the reality of the facts, a deletion I consider as vandalism and which will be addressed in time.

I think intelligent readers would understand how important it is to include statements of facts and not inflaming adjectives of personal opinions – but mature and responsible sources which are not hate-based. In time, the whole article will be changed and balance will be maintained, there must be no doubt about this.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Safwan, Soka Gakkai certainly has features of fascism. For examples [from Scruton]: "Heroic collective effort to attain a metaphysical goal; "a scape goated demonized adversary"; "anti-egalitarian"; "hostility to democracy"; "hostility to the values of the Age of Free Thought and Expression"; "the cultof the leader and admiration for his special qualities"; "a respect for a collective organization and a love for the symbols associated with it"; " the doctrines [such as 'victory or defeat'] contains little that is specific, beyond anappeal to energyand action"; "authoritarian autocracy"; "pseudo radical populism"; "economic [and religious in the case of SGI]corporatism"; "spurred by a strong charismatic leader whose reactionary ideas are said to organically express the will of the masses"; "who are urged to engage in an heroic effort to attain a metaphysical goal". Also, there are features of SGI leaders'speech that mirror closely the speech of the nationalist socialist leaders. 2602:306:CC5C:D8F9:FD03:F07B:3DA6:C26 (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Mark R. Rogow

Having not visited this site in some time, I was taken aback by the current negativity contained in the Wikipedia definition of the Soka Gakkai. My niece has been a Soka Gakkai Buddhist for many years, which is why I find it disturbing that you include accusations that the Soka Gakkai is “quasi-fascist” and “fascist.” I went to one of their neighborhood events in Oakland, CA while visiting her and afterwards to the Buddhist center there. I found the people to be upbeat, polite and quite enjoyable. Hardly fascist. WmSimpson (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)WmSimpson 3-6-14

No offence, but your niece or a encounter now and again does not really qualify to pigeonhole SGI. The quotes mentioned by the editor prior to you are in my books spot on and I have been with this cult for 20 years. I a personally could not care less if SGI is regarded fascist or whatever-ist, but it has a clear and obvious cult structure. The decision making process is top down and behind closed doors its an issue of “them” and “us” including a divine like mission. Certainly it does not make the individual adherent to SGI an “evil” person, but being in a cult is comaprable to drug addiction – the addicted is last to admit he his addicted. A long term sociological survey would also unveil a high amount of dysfunctional family situations – having said said SGI is to much on the fringe of religious life for such a survey.

The high amount of aggressiveness when SGI is being criticised is striking to say the least if not even irrational – this may be due to the fact that any kind of democratic decision making process that one sees in other true lay religious movements is totally absent within SGI, neither financially nor in terms of responsibilities. SGI forms a unified front any deviators are shunned – even publicly. Cult.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@ WmSimpson  So far the article also states how SGI sees itself. Alternative views have alternative and referenced opinions and views on SGI which editors decided to include. In a historic context and looking at the organisational structure of SGI those critical views are not far fetched at all. Wikipedia is no court room but simply cites. The ongoing attempts here in wikipedia to suppress and censor alternative views do however underline the ongoing discussion that SGI is in no way able to face criticism and even more so actively tries to silence critics. Wikipedia is no extension of SGI's PR-devision and due to its organisational structure it decided to use for instance in the US should be treated like a company. Please note that for instance Soka University of America with less than 500 students does have an endorsement of $ 1.04 billion – dubious to say the least. And again its better to place comments at the end of a discussion. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of what suppression and censorship by the Soka Gakkai has take place on Wikipedia in the past. I just feel that there should be a more balanced entry for Soka Gakkai. I first became alarmed that accusations of my niece’s religion being called fascist were being perpetuated by Wikipedia. I have since learned more about the Soka Gakkai than I ever knew before. WmSimpson (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)WmSimpson 13 May 2014

I found an article in Tricycle magazine, the Buddhist Review from Winter 2003 that I think would add some balance to the “fascist, cult, etc.” Soka Gakkai entry on Wikipedia. Clark Strand is a well known Zen Buddhist and writer. He states: “It was only here [USA], in the ‘60s and ‘70s, that the egalitarian ideals of the SGI and Daisaku Ikeda encountered for the first time a racially diverse culture where those ideals could be put to the test. It was a culture ready to embrace a newer, more modern, and decidedly global religious ideal and Soka Gakkai International fit that profile to perfection. It was expression of a bodhisattvalike social vision deeply rooted in the American experience but seldom realized in actual practice: equality and justice for all.” WmSimpson (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)WmSimpson April 30, 2014

That very article is already quoted in the intro: 'Soka Gakkai has, together with its international offshoot Soka Gakkai International (SGI) been described as "the world's largest Buddhist lay group and America's most diverse".[source]' Kiruning (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Kiruning, I did notice that. As an editor, I would hope that the balance between positive and negative charges against the Soka Gakkai be a little more balanced. I count ten negative and one positive statement in the opening four paragraphs. Actually the one positive of “recognition for peace activism” is part of the same sentence that carries charges of the organization being fascist, militant, etc. I did read the Richard Seager book, Encountering the Dharma and he describes plenty of good in the organization—as well as my niece’s testimony! WmSimpson (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)WmSimpson 13 May 2014

Dear friends,

I am making a few comments on both the Daisaku Ikeda and Soka Gakkai sites. I feel that a lot of work needs to be done on both sites but I believe I can suggest a path out of the current deadlock.

Let me state here my biases which I expressed on the Daisaku Ikeda page. I am a member of Hizmet, the organization founded by Turkish cleric Fethullah Gülen (Gulen) who for decades has been articulating a modern and peaceful vision of Islam. His work has resulted in economic, cultural and educational initiatives in Turkey and beyond. For example, Gulen-inspired schools in Pakistan are a countervailing force to madrasas.[1]

I am interested in studying the SGI/Daisaku Ikeda sites because I see parallels between the SGI and Hizmet, and Ikeda and Gulen. Turkey's prime minister Erdogan has recently been elevating Gulen, who is currently retired in Pennsylvania, to the status of Public Enemy #1. This includes attacks on Gulen schools both in Turkey and abroad.[2] As this trend continues I expect to see an invasion of criticism appear on Gulen's English Wikipedia page.

Let me focus first on WmSimpson's plight. He sees his niece's participation in the SGI in one light based on his personal experience and then reads the Wikipedia page which places heavy emphasis on the criticisms of the SGI. On the basis of the overloading of criticisms is he to believe that his niece is just plain stupid, the naive prisoner of a cult? Are his impressions of the meetings and members he encountered to be totally discounted? What he knows does not accord with what he reads, and Wikipedia editors have a responsibility to be concerned about this.

A Wikipedia page should be more than a shouting match in which the person who shouts the loudest wins. So how do you editors come to develop fair and balanced pages? May I suggest a path forward from a (somewhat) neutral observer?

From my impressions everyone on the Talk page seems to be quite dedicated in your work-yet you are locked into POVs. Therefore I believe you should reach for an interim solution, say for 6-12 months. I would like to suggest you go through each paragraph, one at a time, with a 33%-33%-33% formula, After the paragraph's introductory statement you all should agree to one pro-SGI source, one critical source, and one neutral source.

I already can see some precedents for this approach in the article. In the second paragraph, for example, there is an introductory sentence followed by a pro-SGI sentence (although IMHO quite a weak one without citation), and a critical statement. Why not stick to this formula for the entire article? It is not a perfect solution but it may prove to be effective in the short run.

Is this something you people can agree to? I know it might be more fun to keep yelling at each other. But it appears to me it would be more productive if you all try to work together for a short time until you can figure out something better. I am sure a few people could agree to be referees when needed. After this interim "truce" you can go back to yelling but I am certain you will learn to work collaboratively and never descend back into the swamp.

Let me summarize: --work from top-down, one paragraph at a time; --everyone agrees to the first sentence which introduces the paragraph's topic; --SGI supporters: give it your best, come up with the best source(s) to support yourselves in the given paragraph with a single sentence and supporting citation(s). --SGI detractors: give it your best, come up with the best source(s) to support yourselves in the given paragraph with a single sentence and supporting citation(s). --Do the work on the Talk page and once a consensus is reached on the given paragraph, ask the editors to post.

This would be a win-win for Wikipedia users. Aren't we really all volunteering here to support our readers? You could arrive at a page that convinces readers that the SGI is not a perfect organization, yet it is not The-Sky-Is-Falling-Public-Enemy. This would serve a useful purpose. Interested readers would feel scared to knock on the organization's door and see for themselves whether it is a good match for them--yet knock, indeed, with eyes wide open.

If you agree to this it might very well set a protocol for resolving the many other controversial pages on Wikipedia.

FetullahFan (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FetullahFan (talk • contribs)

Posting basically two identical texts in two articles does not really help credibility either. Nor are both articles a good means to battle over Islamic/Turkish quarrels.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I am accepting your suggestion and will make my comments only on this page. I am still learning about Wikipedia etiquette, my apologies.

Please take a fresh look at my post. Yes, I took a bit of time to introduce myself and give full disclosure about my perspective (hence Gulen, Erdogan, Hizmet, etc.). Yet the thrust of my post was how to move forward on THIS page. As a newcomer I can see the quagmire here: back-and-forth, he said/she said, power struggles, lack of accommodation, etc. The resulting article is still quite weak and unbalanced. I repeat what I stated in my post above: our purpose is to serve the readership and not score points.

Again, let me restate, we volunteer on Wikipedia to serve our readers. To contextualize, suppose a person is interested in joining the SGI and decides to investigate on Wikipedia. The purpose of this article should be to help the person make a decision with eyes wide open. The article should neither scare the person away nor wildly endorse the Soka Gakkai. Before saving my prior post I was thinking of suggesting that, for the benefit of this hypothetical person, the proponents should write the critical comments and the detractors write the positive comments. I didn't go that far.

Am I the only one who feels this way?

Please be a bit more welcoming to this newcomer. I am a third-generation Gulen follower so I can't strip away that identity. In fact, it is what makes my potential contributions unique. I have no intentions of steering the direction of this discussion to Gulen; it simply provides an interesting frame of reference. In return I will familiarize myself with the current issue at hand and contribute what I can from time to time.

FetullahFan (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you might, maybe, be operating under a bit of a misapprehension in the above. In a sense, wikipedia, as per the spirit of its policies and guidelines, is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are, pretty much by definition, and particularly in the case of wikipedia, supposed to be neutral overviews of topics based on independent sources. That being the case, there is at least on this site a bit of a question as to whether we really want "unique" contributions here. In fact, honestly, most "unique" contributions around here are considered in general violations of WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH, which I suggest you read. There are rather a lot of potential topics, generally minor ones, where we would benefit from having individuals which unique levels of access to sources. So, for instance, a member of the Assyrian Church of the East, which access to relevant Church of the East publications, would be potentially an invaluable contributor for an article on the Assyrian Church of the East and Scientology. But there are serious questions whether such a topic as that one is either really encyclopedic, and whether there is sufficient material to justify a separate article. Similarly, someone from Palau might have unique levels of access to Palau based publications about the Roman Empire, but there would be serious questions whether material which appears only in such, well, comparatively minor academic publications, would necessarily be so significant that material from them would deserve inclusion in the main article on the Roman Empire. John Carter (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I note our article on the Gülen movement is in rather poor shape at present, and that you as a member of that movement might be in a position to have readier access to some sources relating to it than many others, particularly in matters like its history and beliefs. I don't know how many people actually have worked on that page, but providing well-sourced material on that article, which has apparently never been in particularly good shape, might be more beneficial to the project. I am less active around here than I once was, but I have added the page to my watchlist and would be willing to offer any assistance to help bring that article, and any potential child articles, up to a more reasonable level of quality. John Carter (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, John Carter, for your note. I agree with you on the Gülen article and have already started to gather material. I am also interested in contributing to the article on Dahn Yoga which I have been researching for a paper I hope to submit to a journal in 2015. All that said, however, the Soka Gakkai article intrigues me. I hope that you are not suggesting that I take leave. By "unique" I did not mean original research or synthesis; I meant a somewhat neutral viewpoint. The pro's and con's are all over the place and I don't see a way forward unless a new approach (structured collaboration) is adopted.

I do want to ask for some assistance. If I were to read 100-200 pages of direct source material written by Daisaku Ikeda himself, what would you recommend for helping me understand the Soka Gakkai from an "insider's" perspective? I am humbly asking for the advice of both supporters and critics. I want to form my own opinion.

FetullahFan (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I mentioned the two examples I did because we have, in the past, had people who were, more or less, thinking in ways similar to those I've indicated above, and sometimes it's hard to tell in advance if someone might be thinking that way. If you are an individual who can get published in an academic journal, believe me, we want to keep you. And we do definitely want as many people who aren't at least in part driven by pre-conceived notions in most articles relating to religion. And in terms of humility, I screw up often enough that I don't want anyone else thinking that they have to "humble" themselves before me. :) Regarding structured collaboration, that might work, if there were people who would remain active and involved throughout the run of the collaboration, and if there weren't possible "recruiting" of new editors by one side or another. Unfortunately, both of those things happen rather frequently around here. That's why I think maybe the first best step would be to see what the existing academic overviews on the topic, like encyclopedia articles, say about the subject, and then determine which are maybe in some way topically oriented or biased in some way and try to take that into account when determining the content of a main topical article like this one.

I myself have always had some qualms about reading primary sources as indicators of the thought of group's or movements they found. Martin Luther for instance had some really, um, unfortunate opinions of Jews and others which have so far as I know never been held as officil or recognized Lutheran church beliefs. This is just a personal opinion, but, for major topical overview articles of this type, with lots of extant and potential subarticles or related articles, the best and I think probably most neutral way to approach them is to see what otehr reference sources cover in their main articles, try to "balance" them out (no easy task in lots of cases) and put the rest of the reasonable material in sub-articles, making allowances for material since the publication of those sources. I know quite a few broadly "religious" groups, like Scientology, get primarily negative or less-than-flattering coverage in most independent sources, possibly because of the sensationalism factor and there being more of an audience for negative material than positive material on them, and ideally in such cases where there is evidence of maybe a bit of bias in the independent media, to try to compensate for that. Easier said than done, of course. Ikeda's works would seem to be among the best possible for articles on the theology and maybe practices of SG, topics which probably need better coverage than they now have. John Carter (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Good points. I have to take a leave of absence for a few days. Have to grade term papers and final exams for one more course. Then I can tuck the academic year in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FetullahFan (talk • contribs) 10:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I personally will agree to FetullahFan’s proposal that we all work together to produce a neutral article that reflects pro and con viewpoints. I think his idea of working paragraph by paragraph, starting from the top. I also agree with JohnCarter’s suggestion that we look at the entries of other encyclopedias?

I think we can all agree that the first paragraph should give the reader the most basic facts of an entire article since many just want a cursory explanation and have no interest to read any further--basic “name, rank, serial number” information without any extraneous details.

Here are some first paragraph entries from other encyclopedia sources:

Encyclopedia Britannica

“Sōka-gakkai, (Japanese: “Value-Creation Society”) lay Nichiren Buddhist movement that arose within the Japanese Buddhist group Nichiren-shō-shū; the two organizations split from each other in 1991. Sōka-gakkai has had rapid growth since the 1950s and is the most successful of the new religious movements that sprang up in the 20th century in Japan, but, in following the teachings of the Buddhist saint Nichiren, it belongs to a tradition dating from the 13th century. In the first decade of the 21st century the group claimed a membership of more than six million.” [Citation: Soka-gakkai. (2014). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved fromhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/552747/Soka-gakkai].

Encyclopedia Columbia

Soka Gakkai (sō´kä gäk´kī) [Jap.,=Value Creation Society], Japan-based independent lay Buddhist movement. A theological offshoot of Nichiren Buddhism, it was founded (1930) as the Soka Kyoiku Gakkai [Value Creation Educational Society] by Tsunesaburo Makiguchi, educator and follower of the Nichiren Sho sect, to promote his ideas for educational reform, but by 1940 the group concentrated on the propagation of Nichiren Buddhism. The government disbanded the group and arrested its leaders during World War II for its criticism of the Japanese involvement in the war. [Citation: "Soka Gakkai." The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.. 2013. Retrieved June 05, 2014 from Encyclopedia.com:http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-SokaGakk.html}

Contemporary American Religion

Soka Gakkai is a Buddhist movement imported to the United States by Japanese immigrants. Originally practiced mainly by the Japanese wives of American military men, the movement began to grow rapidly following changes in U.S. immigration laws in 1965. The new immigration laws, combined with the expansion of the Japanese economy into U.S. markets, brought growing numbers of educated Japanese professionals and entrepreneurs to the United States. These new immigrants gave Soka Gakkai access to a much broader recruitment pool and positioned the movement advantageously with regard to those young Americans most likely to take an interest in Buddhism—that is, young, educated, middle-class, white-collar workers in urban environments. [Citation: "Soka Gakkai." Contemporary American Religion. Gale. 1999. Retrieved June 05, 2014 from HighBeam Research:http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3401300438.html].

New Catholic Encyclopedia

A modern lay Buddhist movement, Soka Gakkai means "value-creating society." It arose and has its principal strength in Japan, but has followers in the U.S. and other countries as well. Originally associated with Nichiren Shoshu, one of several groups based on the reinterpretation of Buddhism by the Japanese teacher Nichiren Daishonin (1222–82). Soka Gakkai's origins go back to 1930, when its founder, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871–1944), published the first of four volumes of his Value-Creating Pedagogical System. It was formally organized in 1937 in Tokyo and by 1941 had some 3,000 members. Refusal to support Shintoism during World War II brought virtual destruction of the movement, however, and Makiguchi died in prison. [Citation: "Soka Gakkai." New Catholic Encyclopedia. 2nd ed. Vol. 13. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 298. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 5 June 2014; URL http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3407710519&v=2.1&u=nypl&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w]

I am sure there are other examples. I think this should guide our work. Each of these are better than what currently stands on our page:

Soka Gakkai (Japanese: 創価学会?) is a Japanese lay Nichiren Buddhist movement with, 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 in Japanese the road to happiness, material wealth, and enlightenment, though it occasionally breaks with Nichiren tradition, especially on issues of priesthood.

Problems:

1. Why no references in the opening paragraph? Where are our source materials? Various claims are made with no source materials to back it up.

2. “the Soka Gakkai… considers repeatedly chanting its title in Japanese”—this is an inaccurate, oversimplification of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo;

4. “considers repeatedly chanting its title in Japanese the road to…”—Who said so? If we are going to present what the organization "considers" to be the road to happiness, shouldn't we reference something of their's(ex. a publication)?

5. “the road to happiness, material wealth, and enlightenment”—pretty insulting to lump “happiness, material wealth, and enlightenment” together so casually and then attribute it to what the SG “considers."

6. “though it occasionally breaks with Nichiren tradition, especially on issues of priesthood”—too vague: what does “occasionally” mean? What is the “Nichiren tradition” and who defines it? Again, no references.

Lionpride82 (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

For the "lions" attention WP:LEAD&WP:LEADCITE--Catflap08 (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

May I reiterate my original concern that there is no balance between negative and positive statements in the opening paragraphs—seems to be about a 9 to 1 ratio. If I were unfamiliar with the Soka Gakkai, I would not want to read much further based on its description as a “fascist cult.” It appears that these accusations are not going to be removed so, at least, let’s fairly include opposing views. Most of the negative views seem to come from long ago while the more recent positive views are not included. I admit, I am on a learning curve regarding the Soka Gakkai, but from Web pages and the Richard Seager book Encountering the Dharma, I think there is plenty of credible evidence to balance the extreme accusations of fascist, militant and cult. I just received an email from my niece, an SGI member, that states there is a book just out by Tricycle’s Clark Strand that praises the Soka Gakkai. Can’t we agree to include the good and the bad? At the very least, I think Seager’s explanation for the controversy surrounding the organization, other than the political agenda of critics he also addresses, merits consideration: “Since its inception, the [Soka Gakkai] movement—like many if not most religions—has set out to transform the world, and it has not been afraid to take concrete action toward that end. In other words, there is a strong pragmatic streak in the Gakkai spirituality that does not shrink from the fact that a movement needs dedicated members, a strong motive, solid doctrine and practice, focused leadership, social awareness, money, and political will to transform the world. That this has repeatedly meant that the Soka Gakkai has been embroiled in controversy seems simply to go with the territory.” (Encountering the Dharma, p. xv)WmSimpson (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Some people are out of their league criticizing those who actually do know what the SGI teaches.

“How can we live happily in this world and enjoy life? If anyone says he enjoys life without being rich and even when he is sick – he is a liar. We’ve got to have money and physical vigor, and underneath all we need is life force. This we cannot get by theorizing or mere efforts as such. You can’t get it unless you worship a gohonzon…It may be irreverent to use this figure of speech, but a gohonzon is a machine that makes you happy. How to use this machine? You conduct five sittings of prayer in the morning and three sittings in the evening and shakubuku ten people. Let’s make money and build health and enjoy life to our hearts’ content before we die!” — Josei Toda

“What, then, does Nichiren Daishonin say about this? He says that if we take faith in the Gohonzon, he will give us the cause for becoming rich even if we didn’t do anything for it in our past existence. Once we have this cause, we can naturally become wealthy in this lifetime. And the Daishonin will give those of us who made causes for being sickly in our past lives the causes for being perfectly healthy. This is what he will do as soon as we start to believe in the Gohonzon." -- Josei Toda Mark Rogow 06/08/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC5C:CCD9:9D25:AB8B:83AA:D1EC (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

and more:

“When I meet you, I don’t ask: “Are you keeping faith?” The reason is that I take your shakubuku for granted. What I really want to ask you is how your business is, whether you are making money, and if you are healthy. Only when all of you receive divine benefits do I feel happy. A person who says “I keep faith; I conduct shakubuku” when he is poor – I don’t consider him my pupil. Your faith has only one purpose: to improve your business and family life. Those who talk about “faith” and do not attend to their business are sacrilegious. Business is a service to the community. I will expel those of you who do nothing but shakubuku without engaging in business.” — Josei Toda, Mark Rogow 06/08/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC5C:CCD9:9D25:AB8B:83AA:D1EC (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Catflap for directing us to this helpful reference. I think using this as our guide we can create a well balanced, accurate introduction.

I wrote the post above to make a simple point: our current wikipedia introduction represents the fringe of research on the Soka Gakkai. The introductions in other encyclopedias referenced presents basic information about the Soka Gakkai while coloring it with both praise and criticism. I agree, the introduction shouldn't sound like an Soka Gakkai infomerical, nor should the bitting critiques of the Gakkai by scholors and journalist be left out. However, the voice of praise for the Soka Gakkai of many notable scholars such as Richard Seager(who's work on the Gakkai was published by University of California Press) or David Machacek and Bryan Wilson(published by Oxford University Press), or respected journalists such as Clark Strand or statesmen such as Nelson Mandela and Rosa Parks, is entirely absent.

It's clear even from the use of references in the lead section that negative information was cherry-picked and grossly taken out of context from otherwise positive articles on the Gakkai. I have mentioned this in a previous post, but its worth bringing up again: Many of the references that supported the "fascist" characterization are from articles who's thesis is that the Soka Gakkai is not a fascist organization.

For example, here are one of the references that support the "fascist" characterization: Reference #2: Aruga, Hiroshi. "Sōka Gakkai and Japanese Politics," in Machacek, David and Bryan Wilson, eds, Global Citizens: The Sōka Gakkai Buddhist Movement in the World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 104-114

Here is the complete quote this "fascism" reference is pulled from: “On the one hand, this “reformist stance” had a refreshing appeal to those citizens who were dissatisfied with the existing order. 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 were never really a threat that it would move toward fascism.”

Here's another complete quote the "fascist" and "militant" characterization was taken from: Reference #4: Seager, Richard Hughes (2006). Encountering the Dharma: Daisaku Ikeda, Soka Gakkai, and the globalization of Buddhist humanism. Berkeley [u.a.]: Univ. of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24577-8.

On Page 69: “Much of the article consists of testimonies by Gakkai rivals 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.” …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 by words then current in the movement such as “neo-socialism,” “a third culture” neither capitalist nor socialist, “global nationalism,” and “Buddhist democracy.” Describing the Gakkai as a “militant society” of lay Buddhists whose overzealous members have occasionally become violent, the Times also dismissed charges that the Gakkai was fascist or even right wing. Its main concern was that should the Gakkai’s presence in the Diet grow, it might “favor a more independent and neutralist course for the United States’s principal ally in the Far East.”

On Page 207: “My goal here has been to create an informed impression of Daisaku Ikeda as leader, president, and teacher and to explore the nature of some of the controversies that have surrounded the Gakkai since Makiguichi first refused to accept a talisman from the Ise shrine. 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 view of both it and Ikeda resurfaces. Consider this odd contrast.

On the second anniversary of September 11, Ikeda wrote for the editoral pages of the Japan Times, a hightly respectable venue, reiterating his position that multilateraslim and heart-to-heart understanding among people around the world are the only ways to build a stable, peaceful global society. Quoting one of his dialogue partners, Iranian-born peace scholar Majid Tehranian, he called for us to step out of isolation: “Without dialogue, we will have to walk in the darkness of our self-righteousness.” The events of September 11 have made it imperative that we “look beyond questions of “friend’ or ‘foe’ and …learn to speak from the common ground of our shared humanity,” Ikeda products of the human heart, the human heart is also capable of fostering peace and solidarity.”

Again, I support FetullaFans proposal: Lets begin the article with a simple description of the Gakkai that includes properly referenced critiques and praises. Lionpride82 (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A New Section: Who Opposes SGI

Jimmy Wales commented once that editing should be based on honesty and facts. This is missing in the current article and - if not changed - will be the subject of open debate in various scholastic circles. Any scholar reading the current SGI page would realise the similarity of its contents with the style of cheap tabloid newspaper based on sensational nonsense, and the Intro is an example. The Intro should describe SGI based on FACTS not private POV of right-wing Japanese fanatics (fascist, militarist etc…). Jimmy would have agreed that Wikipedia should not favor Japanese tabloid writers. It is lack of scholastic honesty to delete FACTS of world-respected sources, engaged with SGI activities, such as Gandhi Smirti Institute, The United Nations Refugees Agency, SGI presidency of the U N Committee of Religious NGOs (2004 to 2007), Goethe Society, Simon Weisenthal Center…and many other SGI engagement, being FACTS of reality. Scholastic honesty requires that the article (and here: the Introduction) must impartially present SGI true engagements and what sort of activities.

Right wing tabloids POV (brainwashing cult fascist militarists…) should also be mentioned somewhere in the article, perhaps together with "Who opposes SGI". I am proposing a Section on “Opponents to SGI”, which will include factual information about the views of Japanese nationalists, WW II crimes deniers, opponents to humanism and global citizenship, Holocaust deniers, traditional priesthood, and so forth. SGI is best known by both: who gives support and who opposes. I think this is a valid and important Section which can also deal with the controversy surrounding SGI.

Dishonesty in presentation in the current article can be also found in giving a title to Noriega and SGI: this is a typical tabloid propaganda inflating a balloon with a title about a meeting with Noriega (which occurred before his conviction) and gets blind on meetings with other world leaders some Noble Prize winners. Why not Mandela and SGI ? Why not? Jimmy Wales would have agreed that it is dishonesty in presentation to deliberately avoid the truth of other similar meetings with world leaders in art, science, music, politics, environment and peace activists, many Noble Prize winners – and who have the priority to be mentioned. It is also important to present the truth on the reason why these meetings with world figures took place: simply to present Buddhist view on life.

There are many other issues in the article that violate Wikipedia policy and will be accordingly targeted and changed, whatever time it takes. I’ll return to view this Talk page whenever time allows among the heaps of work I have. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Your idea for a section is ridiculously inappropriate. Shii (tock) 13:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Japanese nationalists, WW II crimes deniers, opponents to humanism and global citizenship, Holocaust deniers, traditional priesthood, and so forth - Ridiculous--Catflap08 (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The idea of putting together the real facts said by of world-respected sources such as United Nation, The United Nations Refugees Agency, Goethe Society, Simon Weisenthal Center, Nelson Mandela and Gandhi Smirti Institute as promoting source is Ridiculous.Kelvintjy (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can repeat your "ridiculous" judgment once and again. But it will not prevent future edit. I am relying on a Jimmy Wales statement about HONESTY and FACTS that should be the ground to information included in Wikipedia articles. Your POV that editing based on Honesty and Facts in regard to SGI - is ridiculous - does not fit with Wikipedia policy and Jimmy - when future editing will occur - will be asked to be the judge in the following:

Any organization is defined by its activities and engagement in reality. World-respected sources such as United Nation, The United Nations Refugees Agency, Goethe Society, Simon Weisenthal Center, Nelson Mandela and Gandhi Smirti Institute etc... provide a neutral and an impartial and true dimension about SGI activities in reality. These are Facts. Honest editors will not fear facts.

The current article is a PROMOTION to Japanese political interests (of anti-SGI sentiments). It is understandable that opponents to SG feel hurt because with the emergence of SG they lost 8 million votes of Soka members - and (together with various religious fanatics who lost domination) the case of hatred to SGI is becoming their obsession. But this is not SGI problem, it is the problem of fanatics failure to acknowledge the Freedom of Belief. The article now is a cheap sensational ADVERTISMENT, a promotion of political and religious hatred because it is devoid of Facts of who cooperate with SGI, and who is in opposition to SGI.

There is nothing wrong in stating the truth of who opposes and who supports SGI, provided that the information is supported by RS. Your POV that the article should not state the truth about SGI cooperation with the UN and other Human Rights and Cultural institutions - this private opinion will not work. If you are in doubt, then will you be more receptive to reality if such neutral institutions together with professors of various universities would have voiced their view on the matter? There is no escape from the truth. Simply. The longer the dispute about this article and its development - the better the light of neutral facts will emerge.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Godwin's law and WP:WIAPA--Catflap08 (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting that you say this article is "is devoid of Facts". For example: "The Gakkai and Kōmeitō attempted to use their political power suppress its publication. When Fujiwara went public with the attempted suppression, the Gakkai was harshly criticized in the Japanese media." Is this not an Honest Fact? Shii (tock) 16:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Shii, I beg your pardon … SGI is pristine, flawless beyond criticism, don't you feel your head splitting into seven pieces (that’s what can happen you know) -Irony out. If they now will try to portray themselves antifascist let them do it. Ample of material waiting to serve as reference (especially in Japanese) beginning with Makiguchi and his first publications. --Catflap08 (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The Talkpage is not meant to be a show of sarcasm "SGI is pristine, flawless beyond criticism, don't you feel your head splitting into seven pieces ..." This type of sarcasm is the product of a juvenile mind and immature attitude for editing in Wikipedia. And it shows the effect on editors of the Japanese tabloid distortion about SGI and Nichiren Buddhism. This is how this Talk page also displays this level of immaturity and fanaticism, with answers such as: "Ridiculous", Fishy", "Crazy"....These are shouts of immature objections and these words convey the spirit of lack of logic and lack of ability to communicate on a reason-based level.

If you have a RS for what you claim, then go ahead and mention it. HONESTY requires that you have to accept others RS. This is how I understand Wikipedia. If in doubt, let's ask Jimmy Wales, and we will in the future.

The article needs correction from beginning to end, and this will take place slowly even on the span of months or years - until the article is balanced and neutral. Correction will start with the Introduction. The introduction about any organization should contain FACTS about the involvement of this organization, with whom SGI cooperates, what are her activities, aims, and also what are the possible controversies as well.

Controversy has a definite definition in Wikipedia, which - in SGI case - leads to two controversies (currently and continuing. Controversy is about "Contra- Verse" - or Contradicting Arguments, being:/1/ support of SG in Japan to Komeito party -/2/ rejection of SGI to the Priesthood-defined role in teaching Buddhism (which is a major controversy in the sphere of Mahayana Buddhism in general). A private opinion of a paid journalist who half a century ago had the POV that SGI is militarist fascit - this is not a Controversy according to Wiki definition, and if in doubt Jimmy Wales will be asked about that - because the Wikipedia here is used for political/religious defamation, and absolute nonsense compared with Humanism, Nonviolence and working for World Peace supported by many world leaders in art and culture, many Noble Prize winners. Wikipedia is about neutrality, honesty and fair presentation.

A clear mind always distinguishes between FACTS and POVs. Readers should not be intentionally deceived as this article currently aims for. The Intro (and not only, but here we will start from the beginning)- should not dismiss FACTS and put just POVs promoting political agendas. This is dishonesty in presentation and the current Intro manifests dishonesty in presentation, which should include cooperation of SGI with the UN, The United Nations Refugees Agency, Goethe Society, Simon Weisenthal Center, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi Smirti Institute, Peace Proposals, Music Associations ...etc. These are impartial FACTS which must be included in the Intro as these are essential neutral information about the SGI current involvement and continuing activities. I may seem that I am repeating what I said before, but this is the only way that editors (who do not want to hear the truth) may slowly accept reality and come to understand that their biased approach is limiting them. I am sure you can do better, and me too, I work wholeheartedly on self-development including neutrality and balanced attitude. Current article is like someone closing the eyes on reality and searching into dead newspapers of 50 years ago about scandals. This - in itself - is a sign of fear from the truth and defeat before current true reality. The correction to this article may take a long time, and will involve scholars and various avenues. The horizon is open.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I could not care less to be honest what you think. If one looks back into the history of this article it was you who started a point to counter point discussion in the section on critical views on SGI. Afterwards other editors decided to start the article from scratch – that was your action not mine. It is not you who has to decide that references are POV's by journalist and as a last resort brand them as fascist. Please note that most critics of SGI are rather “left” or “liberal”. You however ARE an adherent of SGI so any edit of yours is not likely to be neutral. It just boils down to the fact that you can not stand anyone being critical of SGI. Fascist or not its a cult in my books. Fascism and cults work along the same lines anyway. Each and every edit of yours, each entry in the talk page actually underlines the fact why SGI is regarded with some amount of suspicion. So far you have a history of discrediting editors, to insult them and to discredit the integrity of authors of resources critical of SGI. Again you are the epitome of why SGI is being criticised and you are doing a service to those who do so. So to close this – I am glad for each and every comment of yours as it shows anyone with a right mind what this all about. Changing user ID's won't help much either as your use of language are quite unique – including IP-address. And please do not insist on honorary doctorates anyone in academia knows – they are being bought most of the times.These days they actually rather discredit the one who holds them. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Catflap, I did not count how many times you mentioned the word YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU...and on that I say: this personal attack means only the running out of valid arguments and shouting at the messenger, but it is not a big deal for me.

I expected an intellectual and reasonable answer to the argument I am challenging you with, namely about deliberate distortion in the Article, & I said this: " The Intro (and not only, but here we will start from the beginning)- should not dismiss FACTS and put just POVs promoting political agendas. This is dishonesty in presentation and the current Intro manifests dishonesty in presentation, which should include cooperation of SGI with the UN, The United Nations Refugees Agency, Goethe Society, Simon Weisenthal Center, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi Smirti Institute, Peace Proposals, Music Associations ...etc. These are impartial FACTS which must be included in the Intro as these are essential neutral information about the SGI current involvement and continuing activities". This is a big challenge for SGI opponents. The mentioned institutions had mutual activities and publications with SGI, and because these institutions are neutral (SGI opponents may think the UN and other educational institutions are biased) - because these institutions are neutral they will be mentioned in the article, so those who deleted these facts should return the article to its previous neutral and balanced presentation.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm new here, so forgive my butting in. After reading this page, I looked at a number of other entries about various religions - including the Church of Scientology, the Catholic Church and others -- and in NONE of them is every positive statement - or even neutral statement - followed immediately by a qualifier of negative comment. Only the Soka Gakkai entry is like that. Even the sex scandals of the Catholics are consolidated into one small paragraph, and is written (it seems) from the POV if the Church. So why is the Soka Gakkai - certainly less influential than Catholicism and less controversial than Scientology - the only one treated this way? --Daveler16 (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

That is because the Catholic Church has a whole article on the issue. See: Criticism of the Catholic Church--Catflap08 (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

So. Evidently someone who wants to know about criticism of Catholicism has a place to go, and people who just want info on the Church, and what it teaches and stands for, don't have to be subjected to one negative comment after another. That seems to be true of other religious movements on Wikipedia - Sikhism, Lutheranism, Baptist, Nichiren Shoshu are all religions I've looked at. Why is Soka Gakkai being treated differently than other religious movements on Wikipedia?--Daveler16 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai has been involved in a lot of newsworthy events, such as the recovery of the 175 million yen safe. This is the sort of stuff that is notable and needs to be preserved on the page. Shii (tock) 17:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

So... this little sect of Buddhism has had little scandals that "need to be preserved on the page", but these other religions' scandals do not??? The Catholic sex scandals, the accusations of kidnapping and violence against Scientology - none of those "need to be preserved" on their respective pages? But some safe that has nothing to do with the religion's teachings, that no one in the English speaking world cares about - this gets special treatment??? Look, I'm not yet suggesting any changes because before I jump into something ongoing I want to understand what's going on and the established protocals and all. But this is making absolutely no sense, and I'm trying to imagine why this religion is treated differently than other religions on Wilipedia.--Daveler16 (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. Scientology#Controversies lists exactly what you are discussing. Also I don't think an enormous money laundering scheme is a "little scandal". Shii (tock) 03:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Also the page Criticism of Soka Gakkai existed until 2007. It was then decided to merge it with the main article.--Catflap08 (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What am I talking about? How long can this be? First paragraph: bald statement that SG theology breaks with Nichiren. Second paragraph: statement that SG is recognized for pacifism followed immediately by “been characterized as being "quasi-fascist", "fascist", "militant", "overzealous", "manipulationist" and "authoritarian". Third para: sentence or two about history followed immediately by characterization of “controversial and aggressive recruitment”. Fourth para: mention of world wide expansion followed immediately by “widely viewed with suspicion in Japan and grapples with a reputation of being a "brainwashing cult", as well as a cult of personality centered around Ikeda”. Shall I go on? Pick any place: the SG’s growth explained as the result of threats and violence; the inclusion of some silly incident in 1951, like it’s a cornerstone of SG philosophy; chanting can be used for harm; SG’s pacifism “has been questioned”; all doctrinal pronouncements put through the filter of another religion – one can read through the Scientology entry without encountering immediate arguments with everything good that is said. Re-read the article with an open mind and see if I’m exaggerating. It’s as if the last word is always given to someone who obsessively dislikes SG – which is not the case in the other religions’ entries. Imagine if some disgruntled Catholic theologian wrote the entry for Lutheranism. That’s kind of the impression one gets from the SG entry.--Daveler16 (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, while I'm not completely sure about everything in the above post, I agree that there is a problem here at least in part because of the current non-existence of the Criticism of SK article, and an attempt, however successful or ham-handed, to keep the content on this subject as close to NPOV as possible in the comparatively few extant articles. I suppose I could see a few questions which might be relevant, although I hope everyone realizes I am asking these questions with absolutely no idea about the possible answers to them - that's generally why I ask questions.

1) Is the SG recognized generally as a "legitimate" heir of Nichiren, or, maybe like Baha'i or Ahmadiyyah, is it considered a heretical offshoot of Nichiren? I am guessing this question is primarily about the academic view of SG and academic history views of SG history.

2) There are at least a few article, like I think LaRouche movement, which are, basically, overwhelmingly negative, because the press coverage is fairly consistently and uniformly negative. I don't know much about recent independent press coverage of SG, but I suppose, maybe, based on my ignorance, such could be the same here. Maybe.

3) How many independent secondary sources presenting SG material are out there? We are supposed to use them where possible rather than primary sources, and, at least as of a few years ago, I had real trouble finding anything in independent journals and news magazines, newspapers, etc. available to me on SG. That could skew the matter a bit too.

Any responses? John Carter (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

We can easily compare the words and practices of Nichiren with those of the SGI to see, for example is SGI "theology" breaks with Nichiren. Were one to exhaustively investigate this, there is no doubt of the conclusion: YES. Mark Rogow 22 May 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD27:C349:F9E3:D5AF:EAFF:9EB (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I do not think its a theological debate if at any rate its one on Buddhist studies which has to be substantiated by preferably non-primary sources. I do however think sources will mostly be in Japanese as this debate does take place – so one would have to activate Japanese speakers interested in Buddhist studies. Care should be taken that it does not yet again turn into a we said they said style of article – been there, done that, fed up with it. @ John I know you have been absent for a while. An editor a while ago basically started the article from scratch again. What bucks me a bit is also the fact that SG proclaims peace activism of all sorts but appears not to be very active on the matter apart form proclaiming such activities - not even in Asia. Same goes for human rights issues and protection of religious minorities or religious conflicts (China) – just my two cents. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC) @ John ... good to see you back and active again. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Between some health problems, and computer problems, and other things, life has been kind of weird lately. Being subject to plural "invasive medical procedures" at the same time is something that, after having experienced it, I would never wish on anyone I didn't really despise. But, back on topic, I just checked the OCLC/WorldCat site and there do seem to be quite a few books and recent articles relating to this subject. In general, three of the basic "spin-out" articles for any group don't seem to exist for this one yet. One is the already mentioned "Criticism of" article, and there don't seem to be any clearly extant "History of" or "Beliefs and Practices of" Soka Gakkai articles either. There may also be enough material for at least a few articles about "SG in" specific countries. My early question about "legitimacy" was pretty much about whether the group is, like Baha'i and Ahmadiyya, more or less looked down on by the apparent parent body, Islam for those two, because of it holding beliefs which seem inconsistent with prior Nichiren. There are a lot of Christian "restorationist" groups of that kind as well, which claim to present the "true" beliefs of Jesus and the early Christian community, which the existing nominally Christian churches, in their belief, have strayed seriously and at times heretically from. Regarding peace activism, I might in the next few days be able to check the 2010 4-volume "The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace" to see what if anything they have to say about SG. And, FWIW, a few other newer religious groups, Scientology and the Jehovah's Witnesses, have been seen as having little if any involvement in broader concerns as well.

There are available to me quite a few recent reference books which should have entries on SG. For main articles like this one, I tend to think that the best way to ensure that the main article on a topic is really NPOV is to find as many general reference work articles as possible, and basically structure the main article to more or less mirror them, with any additional material to be included in spinout articles. I can and will get ahold of all the reference articles I can find, and maybe e-mail them at request, but I think it might also be a good idea if anyone wanted to do so to maybe ask Wikipedia's Resource Exchange people for any relevant articles in reference works that can be accessed from the various databanks the Wikipedia Library has subscriptions to, and review them to see what can be found from them. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I've made a request at the Resource Exchange that as many reference articles available to the databank editors as possible on the Soka Gakkai available to those with free subscriptions be sent to me. I don't know how long it will take, if ever, to receive them, but I will let those here know about any progress I make, and, if requested, might well be able to forward such articles to others should they request it. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be kind of strange to characterize as "unorthodox" what is by FAR the largest Nichiren sect. I'd also say that the degree of adherence to what was written in 13th C Japan is a matter of interpretation - otherwise there would be just one Nichiren sect, right? Of course SG members would say that Nichiren Shoshu and Nichiren Shu (for instance) were deviating from Nichiren's intent - but should they then go and plaster that all over those Wikipedia entries? I don't think so. I might check the Nichiren Shu entry to see what the sect teaches - not what someone else thinks is wrong with it. Also: two recent books about the SG, in English, that I am aware of (perhaps you are too): "Encountering the Dharma" by Richard Seager, which is largely positive about the sect; and "Waking the Buddha" by Clark Strand, which I haven't read yet. Strand is a pretty well known Americsan Buddhist scholar and editor of Tricycle, so I'm looking forward to seeing what he says.--Daveler16 (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Your opinions are noted. However, size of a group does not necessarily relate to accuracy of their teachings - ask any Fundamentalist Christian about whether the Catholic Church, whose membership includes roughtly half of all Christians, is orthodox. However, there are cases, such as perhaps the Jehovah's Witnesses and some other Christian groups, and like I mentioned above the Baha'i and Ahmadiyya groups relative to what might be called "historical" Islam, whose teachings seem to be not only "unorthodox", but inconsistent with what some (presumably not including the JWs) would consider the prevailing academic opinion regarding the subject. If, and like I said I don't know, if SG teachings seem to be as seriously at odds with the independent academic historical view of the subject, that is probably worth noting. They would in no way be unique in that regard if they were, of course, but that would be something probably worth --Daveler16 (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)discussing at some length in some article regarding this subject.

But the Catholic entry on Wik isn't so transparently edited by fundamentalist Christians - that's my point. Just looked at the "Beliefs" section of the Jehovah's Witness entry, since you mention it. There is nothing there that says "this is not what the Bible teaches" or "this contradicts the Bible" - it just (as the title suggests) states the JH beliefs. My problem is that I'm finding that to be the case for most entries for religions, but the SG is treated differently. BTW, I've tried to find other 3rd party writings that could be considered objective, but so far hacve only found articles by Christian an--Daveler16 (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)ti-cult writers, who consider all forms of Buddhism cultish and wrong. Have you seen the Seager book though? I hope to get the Strand book next week. --Daveler16 (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

So far SG is hardly ever mentioned as a Buddhist sect per se, it does not even describe itself as such, but as a lay Buddhist organisation. As such an organisation it is the largest even though some see it as having passed its peak by the 1980's. So within traditional Nichiren Buddhims Nichiren Shoshu is yet again one of the smallest sects, Nichiren Shu the largest.

Even though, and as an ex-adherent, I refrain from editing this article in any major way. Nevertheless in my opinion the critical issues can be summed up quite easily.

• The issue of proselytising – past and present.
• The concept of “Human revolution”: This is the most fundamental difference as this concept per se is not mentioned anywhere within Nichiren Buddhism. It is based and formalised in Ikeda's fictional writing by the same name. Even though the books are based on the historic development of SG they are anything but an exact historic account of events. Some refer to SG therefore as practising Ikedaism.
• Religious tolerance: Extreme lack of it after the issue with Nichiren Shoshu, not practised in interbuddhist relationship. Not within Nichiren Buddhims let alone other Buddhist traditions.
• The “lay” issue. Even when compared to Christian protestants (a comparison some would like to see) its hard to detect the lay aspect in its organisational structure and decision making process. So how much is there on lay involvement than just the absence of priests? Most Christian congregation would see at least see an elected “council” or “council of elders “. So the comparison to Protestantism is more than dubious – SG's structure is highly hierarchical and not transparent. Same goes for the decision making process and issues on doctrine.
• Political involvement. Apart from constitutional issues Komeito's involvement in a coalition which is highly conservative. See Nippon Kaigi.
• IInteresting enough and maybe even just a side issue the weight given to the Lotus Sutra in daily religious practice of SG adherents has steadily decreased over the years.--Catflap08 (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with your last point. Except for publishing a translation of the Lotus Sutra, publishing Nichiren's lectures on the Lotus Sutra, featuring Mr Ikeda's lectures on the 2 key chapters of the Lotus Sutra in book form, and publishing, and the youth studying, a multi-volume dialogue on the Lotus Sutra, the SG barely has anything to do with the Lotus Sutra. I mean, come on - don't just be making stuff up.

Your point about it not being a sect is just silly, and I don't know what it has to do with anything. There are more SG members than there are members of Nichiren Shu, or Nichiren Shoshu, or any other Nichiren . . . group. That's a fact that cxan't be changed semantically.

Human revolution: obviously, the SG believes it's an important part of its practice, so who is anyone to say "it shouldn't be"? Is there a description in SG literature of what human revolution entails? If so, that's what should be included. If someone wants to say "other Nichiren sects don't teach this", then they should go to the entries for those sects and say so.

Not sure what the point is about religious tolerance. I'm aware of a number of interfaith activities the SG has engaged in in Chicago alone.

The SG entry DOES say that the SG has separated itself from Komeito, so I'm not sure what the point of constantly mentioning Komeito is. There is a Komeito entry so perhaps whatever has to be said about it could be said there?

I think the SG is a lay organization because there are no clerics leading it, guiding it, or interpreting doctrine for it. So I'm not sure what you mean about THAT, either.

More later. --Daveler16 (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Shii (tock) 01:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Daveler16, you write: "I would agree with your last point. Except for publishing a translation of the Lotus Sutra, publishing Nichiren's lectures on the Lotus Sutra, featuring Mr Ikeda's lectures on the 2 key chapters of the Lotus Sutra in book form, and publishing, and the youth studying, a multi-volume dialogue on the Lotus Sutra, the SG barely has anything to do with the Lotus Sutra. I mean, come on - don't just be making stuff up."

Shan-wu-wei's commentaries on the Lotus Sutra number in the hundreds, if not thousands, of volumes. He too gave great weight to the Lotus Sutra but he was criticized harshly by Nichiren. Tientai, though a votary of the Lotus Sutra, was taught by Nichiren to be inferior to Saicho. His works on the Lotus Sutra too number in the thousands of volumes, yet his beliefs and practices were likened by Nichiren to be as useless as "last years calender". Nichiren writes:

"how great is the difference between the blessings received when a sage chants the daimoku and the blessings received when we chant it" to reply, one is in no way superior to the other. the gold that a fool possesses is no different from the gold that a wise man possesses; a fire made by a fool is the same as a fire made by a wise man. HOWEVER, there is a difference if one chants the daimoku while acting against the intent of this sutra". Mark Rogow 05/29/14 sect s

--Daveler16 (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Mark Rogow: Catflap suggested the SG has been consistently de-emphasizing the Lotus Sutra. I listed those items to show that that statement is incorrect. Beyond that, your statements go a long way to clear up what is wrong here. Rather than being an entry for "Soka Gakkai", evidently some people want it to be the entry "What Other Nichiren Sects Think Is Wrong with The Soka Gakkai". I mean - how in the world does Nichiren's criticism of Shan wu wei have to do with the Soka Gakkai? Has the SG addressed this in any of it's literature? Is it a topic at their meetings? Who cares? Other than people who for some reason care about Shan wu wei - who cares? Is this a discussion esoteric differences between Buddhist sects, or an explanation of the Soka Gakkai?--Daveler16 (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

“Your point about it not being a sect is just silly “. This is not about silliness, but SGI is not a Buddhist sect or has it declared itself a school in the sense of a “shu”? Its a self declared lay organisation so if it wants to be regarded as such the use of terms referring to established schools and sects is confusing in the light of Buddhist Studies. Further on most Komeito members are SG members anyone denying the connection or influence is either naïve or detached from reality.

In terms of religious tolerance everyone knows were SG stands.--Catflap08 (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"YUIGA YOGA: This means that the life of Nikko Shonin equals that of Nichiren Daishonin. A Gohonzon called the “Tobi” (Flying) Mandala” is enshrined at Butsugenji Temple in Sendai City in Northeast Japan. It was inscribed co-operatively by the Daishonin and His immediate successor Nikko Shonin. This fact evidences what yuiga yoga signifies.” –Josei Toda as quoted in: From “Lectures on the Sutra” Third Edition, 1968 Seikyo Press.

Please note that no where in the Lotus Sutra or the writings of Nichiren Daishonin, can we find the concepts or words, YUIGA YOGA but in the Shingon esotericism of Shan-wu-wei this is a core principle. Central to Lamanism, an offshoot of Shingon, are the Four Treasures and the most important Treasure is the Treasure of the Guru. The other Three Treasures are subsumed within the Treasure of the Guru. This is known as Guru Yoga. The same goes for the SGI, whether it is implicit or implied. Mark Rogow 05/30/2014

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)What is your point?

My point is that the SGI appropriates the Daimoku, the Lotus Sutra, and Nichiren because it can't stand on its own religious and philosophical underpinnings. Just as Shan-wu-wei appropriated Ichinen Sanzen to bolster Shingon, the SGI appropriates the Lotus Sutra to bolster Ikedaism. Mark Rogow 05/30/2014

Mark, care has to be taken not to focus on what differentiates SG from your group but non-primary sources that describe its position in a Buddhist and also wider context. Critical or not. Above I mentioned the obvious issues. Apart form the “Japanese Journal of Religious Studies” its hard to track scholastic material on that. Some of the sociological surveys that kick around I am a highly sceptical of as it appears to me that their authors do seem to have a connection to SGI, especially as they were sold in their own bookshops. The lecture by Levi McLaughlin is one of the few sources that describe its structure. Yet again I guess it will be Japanese material that will highlight SG's organisational structure as in its lack of transparency it is no more different than any groups and traditions based on ordained bodies. Having said that in the latter at least some of the bodies and councils are known or made public in their own publications. Some editors have already started to seek the help from Japanese speaking authors which I think is most beneficial to the article.--Catflap08 (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Most notably and of seminal importance is what differentiates the Soka Gakkai from the Japanese speaking author Nichiren Daishonin. Comparing his writings with those of the Soka Gakkai, one can readily come to perceive the differences between SGI's principles and practices and Nichiren's. This is my contention. Of course, the opinions of other Japanese speaking scholars as to SGI's positions in relation to Nichiren's are interesting but not nearly as definitive as Nichiren as a primary source. Mark Rogow 05/31/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC5C:CCD9:18B7:843D:80FE:BD26 (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I may have contributed to some internecine warfare here. Is this "Talk" area for discussing the relevant Wikipedia entry and any possible changes to it? Or is it where various sects can argue with each other about whose is better? Honest question. I don't want to be involved in the latter, but I would like some changes made to te entry.--Daveler16 (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, another question: Does the exact same etry appear in every language? I mean, if I could read the Japanese Wikipedia entry for the SG (or German, etc), would it be a close translation of the English one (or maybe: is the English a translation of the Japanese?)? --Daveler16 (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Develer16. This is not an internicine conflict. SGI's religion and practice is so divergent from Nichiren's and ours that it should be characterized as a "red on blue" conflict [rather than a "blue on blue" or internicine conflict]. SGI's conflicts [schisms] with the Nichiren Shoshu, the Kenshokai, and with various factions within SGI [Singapore, Italy, Spain, Argentina?, Japan?] may be considered internicine conflicts. Mark Rogow 01/06/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC5C:CCD9:7C8F:7C70:AE6E:9B0A (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Mark Rorow: Perhaps you're not seeing it, but you are exactly illustrating the problem that brought me here in the first place. You belong to a religion that does not think the SG is teaching a correct teaching. Fine. But that could be said of any adherent of any religin about any other religion. So why isn't every entry about a religion peppered with negative comments after every positive comment? Why do people feel compelled to not allow a picture of what the SG teaches and believes, without trying to negate every such statement? Again, it does not appear that Catholics are parsing the entry for Lutheranism, or Scientologists editing the entry for Bahai, or anything llike that for any other religion. Why does the SG get this special treatment on Wikipedia?--Daveler16 (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought that question was already answered, by my statement above regarding the lack of a "Criticism of" page, and I very strongly urge the above editor to read WP:TE which deals with non-productive repetition of questions. There is sufficient basis apparently for a "Criticism of" page, and I cannot see any good reason not to have it created. Perhaps the above editor might consider maybe doing something to actively help develop the relevant content, rather than apparently repeating questions which had I believe already been answered, even if not necessarily to that editor's personal satisfaction. At present, I am waiting for some further reference sources on SG, which can help establish sources for some of the other potential spin-out articles. Others are, of course, free to start them on their own in the interim, particularly if they feel so strongly about perceived problems to this particular article. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - didn't know that's what I was doing. I meant only to pose a rghetorical question to an editor who had challenged a previous statement. Just read the WP-TE instructions. Is it your idea, John Carter, that critical and negative statements about the SG be taken out of their current contexts, and all put into one section? I will be glad to begin editing, but would like it if there were an agreed-upon format for those things.--Daveler16 (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Wikipedia:Criticism Shii (tock) 22:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned before a separate article "criticism of SGI" did exist until 2007. Can always be retrieved from the archives and worked on.--Catflap08 (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

As someone who's done a lot of rhetorical questions myself, I'm really not in a clear position to complain, but do so once in a while anyway. Personally, I think we would all be better off if the material were not explicitly removed before being but elsewhere. Catflap08's apparent suggestion as well, to go to the old Criticism of Soka Gakkai page, the test of which can be found here, and maybe start a page in user space, like at User:Daveler16/Criticism of Soka Gakkai, and copyedit and otherwise improve the page there, possibly with inclusion of some of the material of criticism currently in this page. Then, if and when you are done, notify everyone here of the new article, and we can go ahead and remove the bulk of the material, although we should still follow standard procedure and keep a short summary section here as per WP:SS with a "see also" link to the new page.

Also, for what it might be worth, there does seem to be a lot of information on ProQuest, JSTOR, Newsbank, and EBSCOHost regarding Soka Gakkai. Although almost all of it will probably qualify as reliably sourced from the sources there, there is a real question regarding how much material is useful here, and which extant and potential articles to put that material in. I'll give my existing request for articles/entries from reference sources at least till the end of the week, because I tend to think that they provide the best basic approximations for how to proceed ourselves. If I don't get a response by then, though, I'll start wading through the material myself, and will probably be able to e-mail useful pieces sometime thereafter, hopefully rather sooner than later. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe a separate page, also linked from the SGI article would be best. The key issues are in my opinion the ones on proselytising, structure, finances, religious tolerance, intransparency, decission making process, involvement in politics and the absence of factual peace engagement. If the page is recreated I would suggest semi-protection right from the start. --Catflap08 (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC) This information is already well integrated into the article. Migrating it to a separate criticism page violates a Wikipedia guideline. Shii (tock) 03:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Not true Shii: "Dedicated "Criticism of ..." articles are sometimes appropriate for organizations, businesses, philosophies, religions, or political outlooks, provided the sources justify it; see the "Philosophy, religion, or politics" section above for details." as can be read here WP:CRIT. In the end this is a proposal.--Catflap08 (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe the number of articles and subcategories in the Category:Criticism of religion is a significant indicator that such articles are not in fact a violation of wikipedia guidelines, provided one takes into account that such "criticism" is not necessarily meant to imply purely negative criticism, but rather to be a place for material regarding assessment of the group, aka criticism, from independent reliable sources. John Carter (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

In a way I must also admit that these critical views are will always be challenged by the groups adherents – may it be within this article or in a separate one. Some won't be able to stand the fact that not everybody shares their views. The benefit of the current situation is that the article is protected which eases things a bit in terms of what makes it into the article.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream Christian denominations, for the most part, are ecumenical and refrain from publically criticizing eachother. The SGI has no compunction in criticizing the Nichiren Shoshu, either in public or private, and I have no compunction in criticizing anything or anyone who fails to follow the teachings of Nichiren, least of all those who call themselves Nichiren Buddhists but act against the intent of the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren. Were I to be silenced here or anywhere, it would be expected and it would hardly be the first time nor will it be the last. Mark Rogow 06/04/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC5C:CCD9:A12F:9830:484A:1FF1 (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow - go away for a day and there's a lot to digest. I looked at the archived "Criticism" page and think it's fine. It noted controversies and criticisms without being catty or snide (or dogmatic). Might I ask: why was it de-activated? I would have no objection to simply editing the SG page to remove the incessant negativity, activate the old page, and include a link to it on the SG page - as I think someone else has suggested. Also, in response to Catflap's "The key issues are in my opinion the ones on proselytising, structure, finances, religious tolerance, intransparency, decision making process, involvement in politics and the absence of factual peace engagement. " I don;t think the internal workings of the SG are an "issue". Some religins have popular elections, but many don't. including NIchiren Shoshu, whose leasder is chosen by his predecessor in a secret ceremony, or the Catholic Church. But big deal - that's their way, and I likewise don't see how the SGs methods are of some special significance. I also question your statement about "factual peace involvement". What d you mean? Thanks.--Daveler16 (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I should think that the internal structure of SGI is quite a major point of controversy. In the end it criticises Nichiren Shoshu on exactly this issue – being authoritarian and what have you. The appointment of leaders etc is not a public process and hence the decision making process also on dogmatic issues even less transparent than any group based on ordained persons. So where is the lay aspect? The peace activities would be interesting if they would be listed or mentioned apart from the odd letter to the UN. Also SGI's stance on human rights violations which by all means are part of any peace movements agenda. But in the end this process helps to get more Japanese speaking editors on board in order to find more non-primary sources. --Catflap08 (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the organization is a substantial point of contention.

They criticize the priest-to-disciple relationship, etc., which is only a small part of Buddhism overall anyway because most Buddhists don't go on to become priests. Meanwhile, though part of the criticism is that the priest are elitist, the Sokka Gakkai can be seen as having an almost a quasi-military type organization, involving an induction and indoctrination process run by an officer class, with the "layman" representing enlistees.

There are definitely contradictions relating to the organization of Sokka Gakkai and their criticism of the organization of Nichiren and other Buddhist sects. It could be said that SGK is just more politically organized, but Nichiren Buddhism was politically active from the beginning, with Nichiren himself having been temporarily banished from Edo a couple of times for political activity. So organization can be an issue historically as well insofar as SGK is derived from Nichiren.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The Nichiren Shoshu "leader picking process", as well as its internal structure, is not even mentioned in its Wikipedia entry, much less criticized by SG members. I would suggest that that is because, while the SG might think the process is messed up, it recognizes that it is Nichiren Shoshu's decision to do it that way, and that, and a self-governing organization, it is entitled to do it the way it chooses. At the very least, I would say an encyclopedia entry is no place for external groups to argue about how an organization runs itself. And that idea seems borne out by Wikipedia's entries for other religions which (again, sorry) do NOT argue with internal organizational decisions. I would say also that the Nichiren Shoshu entry is a model for what the SG entry should be like. There is no argument or criticism as it's doctrines, practice and history are explained; the closest thing to a criticism is the very last sentence, and even that is more of a statment of differences than an attack on what NS teaches. I think that's a good way to do it. Do you agree?--Daveler16 (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

SGK is technically classified as a "new religion" under the umbrella of Buddhism--see the post on this page of entries in other encyclopedias.

The fact that it is "new", whereas Nichirenshu is traditional, with more than a thousand years of tradition is a substantial issue in light of traditional Buddhist organiation/ordination practices and those of SGK, which portrays itself as a lay Buddhist organization when it is actually more of a "new religion" with Buddhist origins, but a completely different organizational infrastructure, and different methodology for transmitting teachings.

There doesn't seem to be anything comparable to the historical circumstances of any article on other religions, but you haven't specified any.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what the age of a religion has to do with making it's internal dynamic as a subject for debate. Besides, the SG, like Nichiren Shoshu, would argue (and document) that it is practicing correctly the Buddhist tradition as practiced by Shakyamuni as well as Nichiren. That may be beside the point though. My argument is that it's not up to outside groups to say what any orgainzation's internal processes should be (as long as they're not illegal) and the crticism of the SG's process has no place in its Wikipedia entry. Also: I have no idea what you mean by "There doesn't seem to be anything comparable to the historical circumstances of any article on other religions, but you haven't specified any". --Daveler16 (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither the SGI article nor the Shoshu article should have a criticism section. Such sections are inferior to describing the history of each group accurately. Shii (tock) 06:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're not sure about that, you should read WP:COMPETENCE, because you apparently have an insufficient grasp of the subject matter.

The sangha is one of the Three Treasures of Buddhism, and relates directly to monasticism and the transmission of the teachings. SGK has attempted to attack and undermine that, replacing it with something along the lines of a modern bureaucratic structure.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting to do some editing - that is, composing offline. I'll share it here first when I have something competent. Ubikwit (is that right?) - yes, NS doctrine is different than SGI doctrine. NS doctrine is in the NS entry. SG doctrine should be in the SG entry. They should not be arguing on each others' entries - that's all I'm saying.--Daveler16 (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

In the process of doing so it might be worthwhile to include a link or something where one can read up on what SGI's doctrine is and who decides what the doctrine is. I am saying this as SGI's doctrine is quite obscure and even their guidelines for daily practice seem to change quite frequently it might be helpful to know who decides that. Lays? --Catflap08 (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I've added a new section about the"Criticism of SG" page. --Daveler16 (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Locked for editing? Could someone explain why? Did something happen?--70.181.118.149 (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

SGI CULTural movement

Cult and Culture have 4 common letters, but SGI opponents read just 4 letters of the word "CULTURE" (being the nature of SGI movement, with Peace and Education). Those who view SGI as a cult have to face reality and correct their imagination of what is cult. Cult is a well defined system of religious authority: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult and this definition applies to various religious systems including the Catholic Church. The concept of CULT would exclude SGI from being a cult because there is “no religious authority” in SGI (after the split with priests). The Object of Devotion, Gohonzon, is the highest authority in Nichiren Buddhism and Gohonzon is a property of any individual. Those who want to understand will understand that there is no higher spiritual authority in SGI than Gohonzon, the individual and not the organization. There is absolutely no demand from members to do anything in particular. Ikeda said that it is a principle that individual members come before the organization. In many cults, the organization of the church is given priority over individuals and even the LAW of the country, suppressing criminal activities of the priests. I am challenging those who mistakenly imagine SGI as a cult. Members are free to attend and free to leave – and SGI structure is most open structure. Scholastic studies define cults as 'closed" and SGI encourages members to open up and engage in society. This will be included in the Article. Leadership in SGI groups is based on volunteering. There are no "Confession" chambers (as in the churches) nor any closed secretive system, and no leader declares himself as infallible God’s ambassador and claims being beyond mistakes (as in the churches).

But of course, this is not a shared view with opponents to SGI (some who are religious fanatics, others right-wing Japanese political opportunists, others simply misinformed). An article in Wikipedia must be based on honesty, scholastic honesty. It is dishonest to speak at length about SGI as a fascist cult and deliberately delete true information about SGI being acknowledged by the United Nations, The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Simon Weisental Centre, Gandhi Smirti Institute, Martin Luther King JR Moorehouse Chapel, Goethe Institute, and this is just on the top of my memory as the list also includes many world figures in literature, politics and science, many Noble Prize Winners.

Am I repeating previous posts? Yes I am and I will - because opponents to SGI are unable to face reality of facts (and blame each other for deleting these facts from the article). A discussion about Cult and Culture I believe is a good opportunity to engage various Universities and CULT-ural institutions around the world in opinion on whether SGI is a cult or a peace movement based on Nichiren Buddhism. This is why I believe it is beneficial to have the distorted views of SGI opponents published - BUT along side the other scholastic and Human Rights Institutes who cooperate and support SGI.

Catflap: You were referring to Soka Uni finances. Your personal interest in these financial matters is under question mark. This is because you mentioned in the past that SGI finances are not known to you. What are your RS references of criticism regarding financial matters of SGI or Soka Uni? Soka Uni is in the US. The US authorities do not see any critical matter concerning the Uni finances. Why are you interested in rumouring and whispering about money and financial matters - and what are your RS that Soka finances are critical and an interest of a Wikipedia article? You mentioned that you joined SGI for 20 years. I know of some individuals who also joined and withdrew or were expelled from SGI for various reasons, such as making personal advantage of others. If you want to direct Soka Uni on how to use money why don't you ask first some reliable source to investigate the finances you are repeatingly interested in.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I was about to write a lengthy response – but why bother - useless. In your books any criticism or alternative views are evil full stop – none of our heads has split into seven pieces so far though. Finally (yet AGAIN) Mr. Ikeda never received THE Goethe Medal from THE Goethe-Institut but some medal by the Goethe-Gesellschaft – less known. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipidia's function is not to decide between black and white on an issue. Wikipedia will reflect both black and white and the shades of grey it is not up to wikipedia to take sides … the controversy of an issue will be be reflected either within the article or/and its talk page. Being a subject of religious belief this article will probably never reach a state of consensus. I would however advise adherents of SGI to accept the fact that people do exits who do not share their faith may it be on religious grounds or having opposing views on how SGI perceives itself – who ever that itself might be – as a dogma on SGI is not to be found. The word 'opponent' will never be found in the article as its usage would indicate to taking sides. That the article still needs a lot of work is obvious but by branding either editors or resources as fascist won't help the matter either. Due to its own history labelling SGI as antifascist is just as futile as labelling it AS fascist – both 'accusations' however will be mentioned. In the end one should allow a reader (after studying the resources) to form his/her own opinion. Attempts to discredit information or to label the resources before hand will quite rightfully lead any objective reader that there is something to be hidden that he/she should not be made aware of. Wikipedia does not patronize.I would also like to to that mention Mr. Ikedas honorary doctorates over an over again could potentially back fire. The attempts to contribute a medal that was never bestowed on him Goethe Medal will high lighten the fact that no honorary doctorates has been awarded to him by any German university and very few by any EU university. This may be due to the fact that European universities are being generally financed by public i.e. tax payers. The fact that a high amount of doctorates are being distributed by Chinese or Russian institutions will lead to raise some eye brows by some. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)--Catflap08 (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Having few mintes to spare here, I want to tell Editors who do not differentiate betwen 'Facts' and their 'Personal Opinion' to read Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. The Fact of various recognitions of SGI and Ikeda (by hundreds of professors of world wide universities and institutions) - is just that: a Fact. As such it will be mentioned as a fact. 'Personal Opinion' of SGI opponents - that these honorary degrees "backfire" is just a personal view about the Fact.

As the list of recognitions is a fairly big one, it takes a bit of time for creating a special section about these recognitions which should be mentioned in the future article. Not without a meaning question marks emerge of why some of the 40 Chinese Universities which acknowledged SGI - some even have a special departments to study SGI teachings and Peace Proposals. Denouncing war crimes committed by Japanese fascists, their mass rape and mass murder during the war - and encouraging cultural exchange and dialogue - are reasons why SGI teachings resonate within the cultural mind of the academia, and are seriously studied. In any case, the Facts of recognitions, medals, and images of cultural activities of SGI: musicals, dancing and multicultural nature of SGI engagement - these Facts are essential part of SGI and will be stated together with the UN medalion of Peace conferred in 1983. I do not see a reason why recognitions should be classified into Europeans, Americans, and Chinese etc… If any, I think the valid classification of SGI honorary recognitions is that of Time: after split with the priesthood, decidedly more thinkers and human rights institutes supported SGI stanc against religious domination, some seeing a "Protestant character" in rejecting authoritarianism and emphasising on Humanism. Some RS refer to this perspective openly and quoting them will enrich the article. The same is valid for SGI heritage of meetings with world figures and publishing common books (subjects on Humanism, the Environment, Nonviolence and Dialogue as the only way for Peace). These are impartial facts. Now time's up. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Another impartial fact is that Soka Gakkai has manipulated the Japanese election system. Shii (tock) 04:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I find it strange that you said that Soka Gakkai has manipulate the Japanese election. Mind provide us the news or the the court that Soka Gakkai had been found guilty for manipulating the Japanese election system. Instead, Soka Gakkai had been proven innocent in the Japan court system and it proved that you are wrong here. Kelvintjy (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The grounds for including information on Wikipedia include publication in a reliable source. In this case, both Japan Echo and Akahata have reported the facts and there has been no judgment against them. Shii (tock) 20:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

First, the clear fact is that there have not been court verdicts that Soka Gakkai (SG) has manipulated the Japanese election system. This rings truer than any allegations made by a journalist. Secondly, it is unwarranted to claim that a journalist’s story has weight simply because SG has not raised a judgment against it. You are setting here an impossibly high bar. Finally, a publication’s reliability and objectivity should be considered. Japan Echo has been regarded as a far-right journal. For example, it once carried an article denying the occurrence of the Nanking Massacre (in which 200,000-300,000+ Chinese civilians and disarmed combatants perished at the hands of the Imperial Japanese Army). Meanwhile, Akahata (translation: “Red Flag”) is the organ paper of the Japan Communist Party (JCP). Any student of modern Japanese politics—I count myself one, having studied Japan’s politics, foreign policy and society in university—will share with you that the JCP and Komeito (supported by SG) competed in part for the same voters, especially in the big cities. So it’s unlikely that Akahata will provide reliable and unbiased reporting on SG. Better to look elsewhere for that, I think. Thanks for the chance to comment; I look forward to your response.--Voorthuis87 (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Your characterizations of both journals are wrong. First of all, you have misstated the ideology of Japan Echo and its articles, but anyone can click on the Wikilink and see that you are wrong. Both are reliable sources on factual information and are well-regarded in Japan, as the response from other newspapers indicates. Shii (tock) 12:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but I beg to differ. In fact, I did exactly what you suggest (checked out the Wikipage for Japan Echo). Actually it's there that I discovered that the mag ran an article denying the Rape of Nanking and caught hell for it worldwide. That, coupled with the fact that a majority of its editors occupy the right side of the political spectrum (again according to the Wikipage) I think qualify it to be referred to as “far-right.” Whitewashing war crimes, denying history and angering Asian neighbors—all these are hallmarks of Japan’s far right. Actions speak louder than words, and Japan Echo wanted to help that cause, I guess, otherwise it wouldn’t have run such a piece. Other publications have been shut down for denying genocide (think "Marco Polo" magazine). I’m surprised that Japan Echo didn’t meet the same fate. Regarding Akahata (trans. "Red Flag"), given the political context in Japan, trusting it for a fair and reliable portrayal of its opposition (Komeito, SG, the Liberal Democrats, Democratic Party, etc.) is like asking a wolf to guard the hen house. You get the picture. Obviously, a political paper worth its salt in any country is going to do this as this is their job. From this reasoning, one would think that only a Japan Communist Party supporter would hold the Akahata in any esteem. Anyway, I checked out these two publications as they’re the ones you cited earlier in the thread. Given that what we’ve got here is a contextual discussion about Japanese politics, it’s not at all convincing that these publications are interested in being impartial nor reliable in the conventional sense, lest they fail to do their jobs. I hope this is helpful. Thank you.--Voorthuis87 (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss this any further because I don't want to lecture you on reading comprehension or on the state of the Japanese news media. I think there are enough sources available online for an educated observer to figure out for him- or herself that an accusation published in both Japan Echo and Akahata is both notable and likely to be true. Shii (tock) 14:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn’t mean for this to upset you. However, I would like to ask that you respect Wiki rules and refrain from personal attacks. As it appears unlikely that we’ll come to an understanding on this score, I’d just like to back up and revisit a question that Kelvintjy posed earlier which is germane to our discussion, but you have conspicuously chosen not to address. Initially you stated: “Another impartial fact is that Soka Gakkai has manipulated the Japanese election system. Shii (tock) 04:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC), to which Kelvintjy asked: “Mind provide us the news or the the court that Soka Gakkai had been found guilty for manipulating the Japanese election system.”… Kelvintjy (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC). You’ve been prolific in discussing media reporting. Could you point to any court decisions finding the SG as an organizational entity guilty of manipulating the Japanese election system? Thanks and I look forward to your reply. --Voorthuis87 (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the Okinawa incident reported by Akahata and other papers. I don't know why it wasn't prosecuted, but it is also mentioned in the Japanese Wikipedia article on Komeito. Shii (tock) 19:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the Japanese Wikipage on Komeito, The Okinawa Times and Ryukyu Shimpo report allegations which are just that--accusations. Anyone can make them and for any reason. Contrary to your position earlier, I think any educated person should take what the Communist Party paper Akahata prints with a big grain of salt, especially when it’s talking about its political rival, Komeito (supported by lots of SG types) for obvious reasons outlined above. In terms of your assertion of “impartial fact,” I think we can conclude that your answer to Kelvintjy’s question is “No,” there were no court verdicts finding SG responsible for any of the claims you allude to. Thank you for answering this question.--Voorthuis87 (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not what the Japanese Wikipedia says, please find a better translator. Shii (tock) 02:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry for Atahara Shimbun begins "Shimbun Akahata (しんぶん赤旗 Shinbun Akahata?, lit. Newspaper Red Flag) is the daily organ of the Japanese Communist Party". The entry for Echo states, in part: "Many scholars supported the magazine including Hugh Cortazzi,[7][14] though Cortazzi also condemned one issue from 2006 which reprinted an interview between Shoichi Watanabe and Taro Aso in which Watanabe denied the Nanking Massacre and advocated Japanese exceptionalism.[15] In the same vein The Globe and Mail was highly critical of a 1984 issue in which a series of authors seemed to be watering down Japan's responsibility for World War II by arguing that "Japan, simply to assure its own survival, was given little choice but to wage war with the United States." Roy Andrew Miller's book Japan's Modern Myth includes an extended criticism of Japan Echo, which he accuses of being a "public-relations organ" promoting the same discredited ideas of Japanese linguistic and cultural uniqueness found in the Kokutai no Hongi." So I wonder if you could explain what sort of "reading comprehension" is needed to understand those things as meaning something other than what they say? Thanks.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

On Akahata: So? It's your own responsibility to do due diligence and determine how trustworthy Akahata is considered on factual reporting, investigative journalism, and opinion articles. I'd give them equal footing with the Asahi Shimbun.

Echo: You're condemning them for repeating someone's words? Japan Echo translates and reprints notable news stories from various Japanese sources, including opinions some might find objectionable. The quotes from Roy Andrew Miller do not exceed an unreliable opinion from a biased source, similar to an editorial in Akahata.

Again, you seem to misunderstand at a very basic level what the basis for trustworthiness is in journalism. I feel like if you don't understand what this is about, you need to take a journalism class rather than get lectured by me. Shii (tock) 04:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Space between "Soka" and "Gakkai", and official website

This article establishes that SGI is an international offshoot of the Japanese organization "Sokagakkai" (no space), but then goes on to repeatedly confuse the two. It lists SGI's website as the official website of the group, but doesn't seem the link to the organization's main official website anywhere. Also, the article title should probably reflect the main organization's official romanized name, "Sokagakkai". This is how it appears both on their official website and on the plaque outside the "Sokagakkai Kyoto International Culture Center" that I just passed by on my way back to my hotel. At the very least the official spelling should be mentioned in the lede. 182.249.134.18 (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming policy is to use the name that is found in our sources, therefore the space Shii (tock) 15:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

SG and SGI are in effect the same thing. Without SG there is no SGI. And in effect SGI is controlled by SG.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Charter

In the end, the present beliefs and goals of any non profit religious organization such as this one can judged by it's latest official charter. In the case of this group, the charter as adopted by it's Board of Directors is publically set forth in it's web site under "SGI Charter". Most notably, the charter affirms such purposes and principles as: 1) non discrimination against any individual on any grounds; 2)freedom of religion and religious expression; 3)encouragement of members to act as good citizens; 4) tolerance and respect for other religions; 5)respect for cultural diversity; 6)protection of nature and the environment; and 7) helping all people to enjoy fulfilling and happy lives. Again, the complete--David M W Jr. (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC) charter can be viewed on the SGI website. Religious organizations such as this one grow and mature and should be judged by their most recent statement of their purposes as publically adopted by their leadership.<ref> SGI Charter. Board of Directors. October 16, 1995.</ref>

That may or may not be true, but the group's own statement of purpose is not relevant to Wikipedia. Quoting from WP:USEPRIMARY: "The organization's own website ... is not likely to be an acceptable source for most claims about how it or its products compare to similar companies and their products." A similar thing could be said about a religious group's website. Shii (tock) 03:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You know, it is possible to start new threads once in a while

Unfortunately, this page is getting kind of physically long on the screen, which can make it a bit harder to find the new comments, and given the length of some of the existing threads even harder sometimes to respond directly to the comment to which you are responding, because it can be hard to find in the edit box. For any new discussions or points being raised, it might make it easier to both find and respond to new comments if they are in separate threads. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)