Talk:Daisaku Ikeda

A comment on sources and neutral POV

I have seen a number of comments about validity of sources in various articles relating to Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shōshū.

It is my personal suggestion that all books and articles about one group talking about the other (in either direction) be aproached with a grain of salt. There is a lot of bad blood between the two organizations.

Consider the things you hear go back and forth between Catholics and Protestants on the Christian front, and they have been separate for hundreds of years. The wounds are much fresher in this case.

I am not going to tell people to ingore them all together (though that might be the safest route), but do take them with a grain of salt. Both sides see the other as heretics and traitors. It is going to be hard to get much out of them that is good.Emry (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be specific on which part should be edited to remove 'advert'. Thank you in advance for your suggestion. Note that the controversial articles which have been voluntarily argued by the readers on the validity and reliability should not count for improve the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.155.184 (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's just one example:

Ikeda took a lead role in this development and became President of SGI upon its founding in 1975. With the shared mission with his mentor, President Toda, he has carried the mission of world peace through the noble teaching in Buddhism on respecting the individual lives.

We've already read that Toda was mentor and President; there's no reason to repeat this here. But what was this "development"? What does carrying a mission mean? (Carrying out a mission, perhaps?). How are the teachings in Buddhism on respect for individual lives nobler than, say, what's written in secular moral philosophy on the same subject? Even if they are nobler, why say so here rather than in the relevant article on Buddhism? Or does this mean that Sōka Gakkai was nobler on this than was Buddhism in general -- but if so, why say this here rather than in the article on Sōka Gakkai? Further, if Sōka Gakkai derives from Nichiren Shōshū Buddhism, just how does Sōka Gakkai do more than Nichiren Shōshū Buddhism for the respect for individual lives, world peace, or both? As it is, this section says little or nothing that is clear (let alone sourced) about Ikeda, but merely surrounds Ikeda with pleasing buzzwords. ¶ What do you mean by "voluntarily argued by the readers on the validity and reliability"? -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

So please kindly help this article neutral as requested since July 2010. Here are those deleted back to only 2005, but they are very few compared with the increasing size of this page. You can add them back, and provided with the reliable reference please. I also challenge to check these various people if they share the same IP originators. I have no idea who are you who have involved with this page, but I could recognize only few active and professional users who try to make this page unreliable. I just wanna improve this page as I have tried in only last few years. Thank you very much. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda&diff=451232668&oldid=451232439 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda&diff=451232439&oldid=451229943 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda&diff=451233048&oldid=451232839 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda&diff=160328870&oldid=160326864 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda&diff=100764041&oldid=100588478 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda&diff=next&oldid=68858488 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda&diff=61685067&oldid=61684328 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda&diff=49582412&oldid=49541470 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda&diff=24267550&oldid=24267506 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda&diff=11867488&oldid=11867455 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.98.147 (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted your recent bunch of edits, 75.109.98.147, as they included the addition of material taken from here. This "Recommendation for honorary degree, SIUC" says nothing about release into the public domain, release by CC-BY-SA 3.0 License or release under the GFDL, and therefore must be assumed to be conventionally copyright. Adding chunks of it to this article (and thereby implying that if is yours, released by you under two copyleft licences) therefore violates that copyright. Do not do this again. -- Hoary (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do not do that. I have no idea what you are talking about. I quoted with reference from the university's website which is the standard practice. If someone did not quote, I agree with you to do so. Therefore, (1) please revert it back and (2) please discuss with my previous request because you are the person who continuously and relentlessly makes this page like an unreliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.98.147 (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This copied came from the history log, sequentially. "(cur | prev) 18:31, 11 May 2012‎ 117.195.102.153 (talk)‎ . . (8,131 bytes) (+175)‎ . . (undo) (cur | prev) 00:58, 16 February 2012‎ Hoary (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,956 bytes) (+743)‎ . . (→‎Deletion of the article: No, it can't be deleted. But here's what you can do.) (undo)"

Interestingly, some advanced user putted on the honored award list in March 2012. However, who is the person with knowledge and skill to remove 'March' from the "View history" page so next history log after 'February' is 'May'? Personally, I truly have no idea how to do this. But I know that this anonymous (who may have or have no account) knows in advance feature of Wikipedia to label this page as "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (July 2010)".

"(cur | prev) 11:40, 26 July 2010‎ 24.128.49.84 (talk)‎ . . (45,684 bytes) (+7)‎ . . (This article is unbalanced -- criticisms of Ikeda abound, and they need to be addressed -- earlier versions of this article were more balanced but criticisms seem to have been systematically removed) (undo)"

So any experts please help to make this page neutral. Now one thing for sure is that Hoary is guarding and protecting for the neutrality accuse. Added at 18:04, 11 February 2013 by 75.109.98.147

First, I am sorry, 75.109.98.147, I made a mistake: both in reverting and in writing my comment above. Clearly I was too sleepy when I edited last night. You say: I quoted with reference from the university's website which is the standard practice. Yes, you did. I didn't really look at the article in its regular, displayed form (which was my first mistake), and instead I looked at the editable form of the page (not really a mistake) but did so carelessly (which was my second mistake). For these mistakes, for the reversion, and for the description above, I apologize.

This is the diff between your last edit and my most recent edit. As you'll see, I've let stand most of your additions. However, I have reverted your unexplained removal of a single "citation needed" flag. Somebody (I don't think it was me) added this. It's not obvious that the flag was unmerited. If you don't like it, then either remove the assertion that it flags, or provide a source for the assertion.

As you'll see, I made a series of edits in an attempt to clean up the article and clarify its references. I don't think that any of these will be controversial. I wanted to edit a lot further (including some cuts that you might not like), but I didn't do so for a number of reasons. One of these was simply that the Wikimedia server was terribly overburdened and slow, so that for several of my attempted changes, having the change saved took minutes, punctuated by apologetic error messages from Wikimedia.

I still think that the article is terrible. It seems that you do too, and that you attribute at least part of this terribleness to me. You say: that I am the person who continuously and relentlessly makes this page like an unreliable source. Do you mean that I make it an unreliable source? If so, I'd like to know how. If you mean that I make it look as if it's derived from unreliable sources, then yes indeed, I do do that sometimes. Much of this article has been (and still is) sourced from the website of Ikeda or his own organization. Such sources can only be used for certain kinds of material. This is not merely my personal opinion; instead, it's Wikipedia policy. Please read this.

You ask: who is the person with knowledge and skill to remove 'March' from the "View history" page so next history log after 'February' is 'May'? I'm not sure what you're referring to. The history of the article shows revisions between February and May last year. The history of this discussion page does indeed show no edit between 16 February 2012 to 11 May 2012; perhaps you're referring to this. I can indeed delete revisions and thereby make them invisible to you. But neither I nor anybody else has done so: the "all public logs" of this page are empty. (If you think that hidden logs might reveal improper deletions by me or anybody else, feel free to post a question here, and an uninvolved administrator can then investigate and reply to you. (You can also post a message there about any other serious misbehavior of which you think I'm guilty.)

You also say that I am guarding and protecting for the neutrality accuse. "Protect" has a special meaning in Wikipedia (see this). The logs of the article show no protection by anybody. (By contrast, see the logs for the article on Obama, with all the talk there of changing protection levels.) If you're saying that I've been guarding the article against deterioration, yes, this is what I've been trying to do. Sometimes (e.g. around 14 hours ago) I get it wrong, but mostly I think I get it right. But of course I am not a good judge of my own competence or fairness, and you may wish to ask for a third opinion. -- Hoary (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC) slightly rephrased 04:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I need to apologize if there is any incorrect understanding about your intention, and I truly appreciate your latest tremendous efforts to improve this article. Currently, we have some criticisms here in the page. Not enough to remove the neutral POV?

[She described him as "a short, round man with slicked down hair, wearing a sharp Western suit"; they talked from "throne-like" chairs in "an enormous room" reached via "corridors of bowing girls dressed in white".], ["heavy-handed fund raising and proselytizing, as well as intimidating its foes and trying to grab political power".], ["a power-hungry individual who intends to take control of the government and make Soka Gakkai the national religion"], ["Ikeda yelling and pounding on tables in anger and later railing against President Clinton for having refused to meet with him"], and ["honorary president and unquestioned commander" of Sōka Gakkai, had said of Kōmeitō: "This time, not the next time, [the election] is going to be about winning or losing. We cannot hesitate. We must conquer the country with one stroke."] — Preceding unsigned comment added by จิตร (talk • contribs) 07:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that the article is very problematic, and becoming more so. -- Hoary (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just finished reading the whole message from you, hoary, as at first I saw only the last paragraph. Thank you so much for explaining the reasons and providing several useful information. Now I really feel regret that I misunderstood you. Another one question still remains. Who is the person that required citations on all single awards on March 2012? I just have curiosity as mentioned earlier. Academic neutrally, I would be happy to assist to make this article a reliable one, as I have done by trying to add to the list. But several small universities around the world or those awards bestowed decades ago have no awarding content on their websites. I agree that it is sensitive to do self-reference to Soka websites, but those informational pages also provide the pictures of awarding ceremonies with delegates, administrators, and faculty from such institutes. Can we do anything with that? We do have photos. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by จิตร (talk • contribs) 07:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I attached "citation needed" flags to the degrees for which sources weren't supplied. But I did then put quite some time into searching for sources. If this list stays (and I tend more and more to think that it is unnecessary), then everything in it should be sourced from the university that conferred the degree, or independently. -- Hoary (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If there are photos on internet, can we use for source of award? จิตร (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Are these captioned photos, on websites that are independent of Ikeda and SGI? If so, then yes. If not, then no. ¶ For recent degrees in particular, I'm puzzled by the difficulty in finding sources in the websites of the universities themselves. These days, are honorary degrees routine, or exceptional? If they're routine, then why does this article bother to mention them? If they are exceptional, then why doesn't the particular university publicize each one of them? (Some universities do announce them. Yale lists them all; Cambridge does so for the latest year.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Several small colleges still have small numbers of pages for their official sites, not to mention those that use other languages with only few pages in English. 1. If his affiliated websites have photos of university presidents entrusting those honored awards, it should be clear enough for judgement with common sense. 2. Is it OK for you to use websites in other languages? จิตร (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

To all my respectful collaborators, if there is no objection, I will delete the POV label on next month. With best regards, จิตร (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear friends,

I am posting these comments on both the Daisaku Ikeda and SGI site. 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 make my biases clear once again. 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.

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. As this trend continues I expect to see an invasion of criticism appear on Gulen's Wikipedia page.

Let me focus first on WmSimpson's plight. He sees his niece's participation in the SGI in one light based on 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? What he knows does not accord with what he reads.

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

Everyone on the Talk page seems to be quite dedicated-yet 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 can see some precedents for this in the article. In the second paragraph there is an introductory sentence followed by a pro-SGI sentence (although 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.

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.

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, ask the editors to post.

This would be a win-win for Wikipedia users. Aren't we really all 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 Public Enemy #1. This would serve a useful purpose. Interested readers would feel free to knock on the organization's door and see for themselves whether it is a good match--yet knock indeed with eyes wide open.

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

FetullahFan (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This is no path out of anywhere as Gülen is not Ikeda and vice versa. Ikeda/SG are via Komeito in political power. Gülen an Ikeda both head religious organisations – that is about it. Gülen AND Erdogan both fish in the conservative religious pond. Both Gülen and Ikeda have their critics. Critics of Gülen do not automatically make them supporters of Erdogan. Critics of SG and Ikeda do not make them fascists or whatever – keeping in mind that SG critics are rather on the political left. SG's Komeito is a coalition with LDP and keeping Nippon Kaigi in mind a rather right wing coalition.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

As per your suggestion I will move my response to the Soka Gakkai page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FetullahFan (talk • contribs) 09:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Remarkable deletions

In this edit, brand new editor TokyoSunrise (contributions) removes a chunk of the article, with the summary Unverifiable allegation of violent assault, violates Wiki libel policy. The material comes with sources. I haven't seen these, but TokyoSunrise doesn't claim that what's attributed to them isn't in them, or that they are unreliable.

In this edit, the same editor removes something attributed to 週間新潮, with the comment Referenced source of 週刊新潮 is the Japanese equivalent of National Enquirer in USA. Not credible source, not NPOV. Gossip magazines and "speculation" about someone. The assertion that "週刊新潮 is the Japanese equivalent of National Enquirer in USA" surprises me. The article shūkanshi says: "the genre is 'often described as bizarre blends of various types of U.S. magazines, such as Newsweek, The New Yorker, People, Penthouse, and The National Enquirer.'"

I suggest that both deletions should be reverted, and that uninvolved editors should pay close attention to the waves of edits to which this article is subjected. -- Hoary (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I am also a new editor to this page. I appreciate your excellent admonishment to "pay close attention to the waves of edits." I have read over several pages in the Talk Page and the history, but the sheer quantity is daunting. I'm sure I will miss important threads, but I hope that will not mean I -- or anyone else -- cannot still contribute.

FWIW, I appreciate TokyoSunrise's deletions: Concerning this edit, I did what research I could (I love research). It will surprise no one that the only sources are either pro-SGI or pro-Nichiren Shoshu. I found the following sources: The Human Revolution, Book 1, starting on p. 677 (approx. 40 pages); Jisai Watanabe interview: http://www.sokaspirit.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Senior_Priest.pdf; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jōsei_Toda (then search for "Ogasawara"); https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren/lZY3eYfCaVo; plus an abundance of blogs and obscure YouTube videos and websites.

No source seems to argue with these points: 1) During WWII, the priest Jimon Ogasawara, in line with government and military authorities, promoted the belief that Buddhism was subordinate to Shinto. 2) For this reason, he was expelled as a priest and excommunicated in 1942. 3) Toda believed Ogasawara's actions led to Makiguchi's death in prison, and he conveyed this to other Soka Gakkai members. 4) On April 27, 1952, a group of young men, including Ikeda, confronted Ogasawara and demanded that he recant and apologize. Here's where stories diverge, but the bottom line is that no one was charged, ever, with anything. No one required medical treatment, and eventually Ogasawara and the Soka Gakkai mended their relationship.

IMO, this event, which happened more than 60 years ago, is not reflective of Ikeda’s life. The deleted text blows the story out of proportion, and the wording is not neutral; in fact, I would call it inflammatory. Findemnow (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the allegations of a "violent" assault, which is a felony in Japan, the sources that were referenced in fact do not say anything about Ikeda assaulting anyone. There was an allegation made, long after Josei Toda's passing, that Toda struck the priest after the priest kicked Toda, and that was mentioned in the source given. That claim is denied by the Soka Gakkai members that were present at the event including Ikeda (they say the priest didn't kick anyone and Toda didn't strike anyone). The writer who claimed there was a physical altercation Murata, who later (after Toda's death) said that Toda described to him that the priest and he hit each other. I believe Murata is an unreliable source, as he's written unverifiable anti-Gakkai allegations, but in any case Murata never claimed that it was Ikeda who assaulted anyone. Since it is libelous to claim someone committed a felony with no source for the claim, I deleted this from the article.

Next, regarding 週間新潮 (Shūkan Shinchō), clearly this tabloid is an unreliable source, and negatively biased, since on the same page you referenced regarding shukanshi it states that Shūkan Shinchō was convicted in Japanese court of libel against the Gakkai. I believe a tabloid paper like Shūkan Shinchō is not a reliable source for encyclopedic data, let alone one that has been convicted of libel against the subject. In any case, I do not believe speculation about an individual's personal health (unverified by any source) is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic entry, so I deleted it. TokyoSunrise (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Murata's book in hand: Ikeda wrote the foreword. Pgs 61-68 include bad blood between Toda/Ogasawara who exchanged blows. Ogasawara filed complaint on Toda naming no other individuals. Dropped it after Toda/Oga made up. Ikeda's name is mentioned once that he was in Taisekiji with 4,000 others when Toda/Oga fought. Murata says Ikeda wasn't a leader but became one in 1953. The info on Ikeda page is not what Murata wrote and is in no other source.Elemential1 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Having the book in hand or not is no good reason to delete a whole section that also includes other references and make it appear as if the incident never took place. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08: As I wrote, no other source contains the info on this page. All sources agree Toda/Ogasawara got into it. None of the references has Ikeda personally involved in an altercation, but state he was present with between 47 and 4000 others depending on the source. The incident is appropriately listed on the Josei Toda page since it was Toda's fight. If you cannot provide a reliable source that contradicts the above then please undo your reversion of my edit. Thanks.Elemential1 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Elemential1 Daniel B. Montgommery, Fire in the Lotos, Page 186 --Catflap08 (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08 Page 186 of Fire in the Lotus doesn't even say Ikeda was in the room with Toda and Ogasawara. Montgomery states Ikeda was among the 47 youth who went out looking for O. Then page 187 Montgomery says "Murata claims Toda told him that Toda struck Ogasawara twice." Murata is the only reference on this Wiki page claiming Ikeda hit anyone yet Murata only says Toda hit O, and O in turn admitted kicking Toda and they apologized. No source says Ikeda ever hit or "violently harassed" anyone. I noted this when I made the deletion. If you have a source that states otherwise please provide it, otherwise I again kindly ask that you undo your reversion of my correct edit. Thanks.Elemential1 (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Elemential1 In the Montgomery book there is no Murata mentioned !? Violently harassing as the sections states does not say he (ikeda) was beating him himself, having said that he is also not known for having stopped anyone beating him either. Toda did indeed leave the room leaving the priest to the SG mob and actually saying so before leaving. You disagree with one source – and then you even try to portray it as if Ikeda and Toda had nothing to do with it? You are not serious are you? You deleted the complete section on the Osagawa incident not one sentence. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08Please re-read what I wrote and then you may see how nonsensical your reply is. You still provide no references to support what is on this page regarding the incident and Ikeda. Reviewing all sources- worst case scenario is Ikeda at age 24 witnessed Toda/Ogasawara hit or kick each other once or twice. Statements that Ikeda led a violent harassment and admit hitting someone are on this Ikeda page but neither of those scenarios are in any of the sources cited. So then how is any of the paragraph relevant? Despite Murata's account that Toda struck Ogasawara, in the Human Revolution Ikeda describes the incident as more civil and when some young men later start to harass Ogasawara he told them to leave him alone. Whatever version you want to believe none of the sources support what is on this page.Elemential1 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Popham on Toynbee on Ikeda

The article says:

British journalist and political commentator [[Polly Toynbee#Views on religion|Polly Toynbee]], an avowed [[atheist]], was invited to meet Ikeda in 1984 in memory of her grandfather. (According to Peter Popham, writing about Tokyo architecture and culture, Ikeda "was hoping to tighten the public connection between himself and Polly Toynbee's famous grandfather, Arnold Toynbee, the prophet of the rise of the East."<ref>Peter Popham, ''Tokyo: The City at the End of the World'' (Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1985; ISBN 4-7700-1226-8), p. 64.</ref>) Polly Toynbee described Ikeda as "a short, round man with slicked down hair, wearing a sharp Western suit"; they talked from "throne-like" chairs in "an enormous room" reached via "corridors of bowing girls dressed in white".<ref>Polly Toynbee, "Soka Gakkai and the Toynbee 'Endorsement'", ''Daily Yomiuri'', May 27, 1984; quoted in Popham, ''Tokyo'', p.64.</ref>{{relevance-inline|sentence|date=September 2014}} She wrote "I have met many powerful men--prime ministers, leaders of all kinds--but I have never in my life met anyone who exudes such an aura of absolute power as Mr. Ikeda."<ref>Toynbee, "Soka Gakkai and the Toynbee 'Endorsement'"; quoted in Popham, ''Tokyo'', p.65.</ref><ref name="grandfather">{{cite web|url=http://www.toride.org/edata/toynbee.html |title=The Value of a Grandfather Figur |publisher=Toride.org |date=1984-05-19 |accessdate=2013-11-07}}</ref>{{better source|reason=website not official archive of The Guardian|date=September 2014}}{{copyvio link}} In ''[[The Guardian]]'' on May 19, 1984, she also voiced the wish that her grandfather would not have endorsed their dialogue, ''Choose Life: A Dialogue''. She wrote, "I telephoned a few people round the world who had been visited by Ikeda. There was a certain amount of discomfort at being asked, and an admission by several that they felt they had been drawn into endorsing him."<ref name="grandfather"/>{{better source|reason= website not official archive of The Guardian|date=September 2014}}{{copyvio link}}<ref>http://www.culteducation.com/reference/gakkai/gakkai39.html {{dead link|date=September 2014}}</ref>{{better source|reason= website not official archive of The Guardian|date=September 2014}}{{copyvio link}}

Some strange phrasing in that. First:

British journalist and political commentator [[Polly Toynbee#Views on religion|Polly Toynbee]], an avowed [[atheist]],

I don't know why her views on religion are so important to this article. I have Popham's book in front of me; Popham doesn't mention it. Secondly:

According to Peter Popham, writing about Tokyo architecture and culture

This is an important part of chapter 3 ("The Righteous and the Damned") of his book, about extremes of wealth and poverty in Tokyo. Popham writes about SGI/Ikeda at length, for his discussion of extreme wealth.

There's also quite a bunch of warning flags, etc.

She wrote "I have met many powerful men--prime ministers, leaders of all kinds--but I have never in my life met anyone who exudes such an aura of absolute power as Mr. Ikeda."<ref>Toynbee, "Soka Gakkai and the Toynbee 'Endorsement'"; quoted in Popham, ''Tokyo'', p.65.</ref><ref name="grandfather">{{cite web|url=http://www.toride.org/edata/toynbee.html |title=The Value of a Grandfather Figur |publisher=Toride.org |date=1984-05-19 |accessdate=2013-11-07}}</ref>{{better source|reason=website not official archive of The Guardian|date=September 2014}}{{copyvio link}}

This is on p.65 of Popham's book. No second source is needed; the book does not purport to be an archive of the Guardian; copyright is not being violated.

Popham quotes more of Toynbee on Ikeda than currently appears in the Wikipedia article; it's interesting material and perhaps the addition of more of it would be beneficial. -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Ms. Toynbee is not a political commentator, but as it states on The Guardian Wikipedia article, she is an opinion columnist. She is also a long-time leader of controversial atheist organizations and a proud anti-religion activist. Popham repeated lines from an opinion piece by Polly that was critical of a religious leader. Huge surprise, since she gets paid to promote negative opinions about religion and its leaders. Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia of opinions, or an encyclopedia of facts?

There are many other problems with the Popham text. He alleges that Ikeda was "hoping to tighten the public connection between himself and Polly Toynbee's famous grandfather, Arnold Toynbee." How could he know what Ikeda was "hoping"? Sheer speculation. Regarding Popham's second-hand conveyance of Polly's slams, what is the relevance of how Ikeda's hair, weight, and clothing appeared? Wikipedia is not a gossip tabloid. Her other comments in Popham's text show how sadly ignorant Polly was of Japanese customs, and the rest of the scenes she describes sound like any hotel hallway or executive meeting room in Tokyo. As an opinion columnist and anti-religion activist whose style is sensationalistic anyway, she was just doing her job, but her job as a paid atheist propagandist is extremely misleading when framed on Wikipedia in any other way.

Then there's her vauge "I telephoned around" comments, although never mentioning to whom she telephoned, and claiming those unnamed sources conveniently said something that supported her opinion. The reference given here is a website called Toride, an obscure anti-Gakkai group in Japan, not The Guardian, so citing any text found there is extremely misleading as well. No matter who references Polly's opinions, they are extremely biased and terribly misleading, which violates Wikipedia standards and should therefore be deleted.TokyoSunrise (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Toynbee has long been high up in humanist organizations that aren't obviously controversial. I am not aware that her style is "sensationalistic". I am not aware that she is a "paid atheist propagandist". The text here is not about the religious beliefs of Ikeda and the organization he headed (and heads), it's about the opulence of what surrounds him. Popham (himself not a fanatic) doesn't present Toynbee as some fanatic or paid mouthpiece; Wikipedia need not do so.

I'm interested in the opinions of established editors who have edited a wide range of articles here. -- Hoary (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Toynbee has often worked as an employee of activist atheist organizations, such as the one for which she organized atheist ads on public buses and tube stations at Christmas. I'd say that means she is a paid atheist propagandist. She also used her opinion column in the Guardian (for which she is paid) to promote the same atheist organization. In any case, I think this Ikeda article would be a lot less contentious if everyone would edit based on facts rather than opinions.TokyoSunrise (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Read about Polly Toynbee she is one of the most renowned British Journalists. She may be an atheist but she has every right to one as some others describe themselves as Buddhists. She was in Japan and accompanied her grandfather – her cedibility and integrity is undisputable. It appears however, that the conclusions and observations bug you as a person which is of no relevance whatsoever here. If you say she is a ‘paid atheist propagandist‘ one could say Ikeda is a paid Buddhist propagandist – so what? It just proves yet again that some SGIists react quite irrational to critical views – as this is one of them … a critical view. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Popham use of The Guardian article by Toynbee is clearly a copyright violation. Popham reproduced verbatim some 6 full paragraphs of the text of The Guardian, adding his own commentary before and after it as if he was also present (although he wasn't). He added conjecture on his part about someone else's experience, as if he was involved, and also added unreferenced and libelous allegations about a woman being raped. The entire framing of the Toynbee material is also inflammatory, opening with an assertion that the Toynbees had "no idea" why they were being "mysteriously" invited to Japan. In Popham's permission acknowledgements, The Guardian is not listed, although the text of the chapter in which it is pasted states it originated there. In the back of the book, the Toynbee material is listed as having originated from the Daily Yomiuri, although no permission is acknowledged from that source either. A search for it in the Daily Yomiuri archive doesn't show it ever existed. The Guardian doesn't allow use of its material without permission, as is clearly stated in their archive, so apparently Popham's book used it improperly, cut and paste. It's also odd that this material, besides violating copyright, is stuck in the middle of an obscure 1985 book about Tokyo architecture (which was only published in Japan, and in English, making it even more obscure). Most everything else in the book is about buildings and design, including some architectural drawings. It would appear the author threw it in to get some sensationalistic attention for an otherwise drab book about buildings. Basicallyyes (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The Relevance of Polly Toynbee

I have studied past discussions about Polly Toynbee's meeting with Ikeda, so I'm aware that this is not a new issue, but I am compelled to speak up: Nearly half of the "Books" section is devoted to Polly Toynbee's single, self-described "brief polite conversation" with Ikeda in 1984, three decades ago. Ms. Toynbee's role as an atheist activist is well established in the UK (she writes, "The only good religion is a moribund religion, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/oct/05/afghanistan.terrorism), and that appears to have fueled her reaction to Ikeda--a view that her grandfather clearly did not agree with. I strongly believe her comments have no place in this article. They are given undue weight, particularly her "wish" that her grandfather had not endorsed the publication of his dialogues with Ikeda, leading readers to jump to the conclusion that her grandfather would have agreed with her. This exactly fits Wikipedia's admonition to "Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). Findemnow (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ms Toynbee is an outspoken atheist yes, one of the most renowned British journalists and granddaughter of Arnold J. Toynbee, yes. She is therefore a witness of a visit that took place by invitation of SGI and she gave her testimony of that. There is no reason to delete her recollections as they are one of the few first hand experiences to be published. NOT to publish her impressions and delete them would be sign of undue weight and will if it happens again brought to further attention. Since SGI’s and Mr. Ikeda’s activities are hardly of any interest outside of Japan her account MUST be mentioned and recorded.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ms Toynbee is certainly not "one of the most renowned British journalists." As The Guardian Wikipedia article shows, she is simply an opinion columnist, and has been a long-time leader of atheist organizations using controversial and unpopular tactics, including posting atheist ads on UK public transport during Christmas (which she personally sponsored). Her opinion, noted above, that "the only good religion is a dying religion", combined with her paid career in broadcasting opinions against religion, even using her opinion column in The Guardian to fundraise for her atheist group (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/23/atheism-disestablishentment-rowan-williams-humanism) clearly puts her opinion pieces for The Guardian in the category of "misleading" when cited on Wikipedia in relation to world religious leaders.

Regardless of Polly's lack of neutrality and lack of credentials (paid opinion columnists are not neutral journalists), if we look at the opinion piece she wrote regarding her short visit with Ikeda, we find it is misleading itself. In it, she says the visit occurred ten years after her grandfather's death, and that her conversation with Ikeda was brief and superficial. She also says she hoped for a chance to speak with Ikeda in more depth, implying her visit was shallow. The comment about her "wishes" of what her grandfather did or didn't do ten years earlier is also irrelevant.

Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions, whether positive or negative. This an encyclopedia for facts, not a sounding board for showering praise or venting criticism. Based on the misleading nature of Polly's comments, in addition to her lack of neutrality, and the fact it was her job at that time (and still is) to write opinions from a religious detractor's point of view, Polly's comments should be deleted from this article. TokyoSunrise (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Polly was described on this Talk page as a witness to a visit, which is odd since it was her own visit. She is also described as giving testimony. It's not testimony it's her opinion from an atheist POV. I see her comments characterised as one of a few first hand experiences published, also odd and untrue. Dozens of prominent figures published their experiences with Ikeda such as Gorbachev, Pauling, Rotblat, Betty Williams, Lawrence Carter, Hazel Henderson. Those are relationships with world leaders and scholars rather than brief one-off impressions of a person whose job is to publish opinion pieces against religion. I find comments that Polly's opinion about a religious leader "MUST be mentioned and recorded" on Wikipedia quite curious, as her opinion is no more important and in view of her bias even less notable or reliable than anyone else's opinion. So I agree Polly Toynbee's opinions should be deleted. Basicallyyes (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Toynbee's job is not to publish "opinion pieces against religion". (If it is, she seems very inefficient at this. See her recent contributions to the Guardian.) I don't think that it ever was. (If you think it was, do you have any evidence for this?) She describes what she experienced, and does so in a way that's sufficiently interesting to be quoted at length in a respected book about Tokyo. Perhaps because she's a journalist, she writes more vividly than do most people who report on their meetings with other people. The description merits but needn't monopolize this area of the article. Can you put forward a description by Gorbachev, Pauling, or somebody else that might accompany it? -- Hoary (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Polly is prejudiced or not, it was a journalist's subjective impression of a short meeting with the leader of an organization that she knew very little about. Is it really that valuable? I think this article and the SG article would be a lot less contentious if we restricted our sources to academics who have actually studied the subject. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did a lot of research yesterday into these topics. I also investigated how many doctorates Ikeda has. I kept seeing the number 300 honorary doctorates or morebut in actuality I discovered it is 173 doctorates plus 182 professorships. I made that edit with references such as from the University of Hong Kong. I also found third party sources for the UN Peace Award and UNHCR Humanitarian Award that Ikeda was given but those edits were reverted by someone claiming to be neutral. LOL I started researching quotes from Gorbachev, Pauling and others but now the page is locked. Locked right after someone who claims neutrality added a link to WayBack dead page on the "cult info network." And right after my academic additions were reverted, with the excuse that my edits didn't follow the manual of style. My edits followed the manual of style perfectly! What a joke! Basicallyyes (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, first we have to know what we have here. If you want to make a POV argument, this is another arrow in your quiver. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The Plot Thickens:December 2014 Page Protected (RFPP)

I am feeling not a little hijacked by the recent lockdown of this page. I can only talk about edits I made -- all but one were intended to clarify language, clean up links, fix grammar, spelling, etc. My one substantial edit (deleting Polly Toynbee) was made in the interest of balance for which I made an argument. It was reverted, but it generated some interesting discussion that I hoped to continue. Now suddenly it's trashed. Where was the edit warring -- I saw no one repeatedly deleting/reverting. I saw nothing that wasn't thoroughly researched. The RFPP includes an obscure accusation of "interested parties" making "unstable" edits -- I challenge you (whoever "you" are) to clarify your meaning. Surely you're not suggesting that someone like me can't have an opinion -- of course I do, but I work hard to base my edits on fact and provide references (check any of my edits) and I saw no one who didn't do the same. Are you saying that only those who have a history editing this page are entitled to continue? That is the definition, IMO, of hijacking. One purpose of locking a page is to get editors to discuss their disagreements here on the Talk Page, but instead it has stopped discussion in its tracks and disregarded valid work on this page. This is plain wrong. Please help me understand. Findemnow (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree the behavior by user Ryulong is wrong. Although Ryulong hasn't participated on this Talk page (not even once that I can see), apparently they feel ownership over this article. Suspicious to swoop in and revert weeks of edits (by both long-time editors and new editors) with the excuse of "restoring last stable version without intrusion from people with vested interest and to a version that meets the manual of style." What was unstable? No explanation offered. What problem with the style? The page was more in line with the MOS than before Ryulong's interference. What intrusion by vested interests? All recent edits were copyedits, formatting, or facts with supporting references, and other topics were in discussion here on the Talk page. From this unilateral intrusion, it would appear Ryulong has an agenda. TokyoSunrise (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

‘Please help me understand‘ It is unacceptable to delete sourced material just because you do not like the content – period. Ms. Toynbee is well published, her wok is acknowledged and honoured by well establish British news papers and universities. She may be an atheist but she is also the granddaughter of Arnold Toynbee. These are her observations … period. --Catflap08 (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

"My one substantial edit (deleting Polly Toynbee) was made in the interest of balance"
That's a rather interesting interpretation of "balance".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 01:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add a few notes

Happy New Year!

Please add some notes:

1) "Presidency" to the section heading "Resignation from Soka Gakkai" so that it reads "Resignation from Soka Gakkai Presidency"

2) Under "Further reading" please add

• Hammond and Machacek: "Soka Gakkai in America". Oxford University Press, 1999.
• Strand, Clark: "Waking the Buddha". Middleway Press, 2014.

3) Under External links please add

• Academic Honors

Thank you very much. Starrynuit (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Good call. I've made the change.
2. Not done. The title of the first suggests that it's about the organization as a whole; the title of the second doesn't give an idea of its content (though it's published by SGI).
3. Not done. The article has enough documentation of academic honors as it is, I think.

-- Hoary (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the update. Your decisions about items #2 and #3 make sense, too.

Can you please make another edit or two?

1) Regarding the sentence: "He, along with Sōka Gakkai, was excommunicated by Nichiren Shōshū on August 11, 1992."

Can you please insert the sentence:

He, along with all the members of the Sōka Gakkai, were excommunicated by Nichiren Shōshū on November 28, 1991

before the sentence already in the article, "He, along with Sōka Gakkai, ...."

2) In the Selected Works section, can you please replace

• Human Values in a changing world with Bryan Wilson Reprint edition, London and New York: I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd., 2008; ISBN 978-1845115975

with

• Human Values in a Changing World: A Dialogue on the Social Role of Religion with Bryan Wilson Reprint edition, London and New York: I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd., 2008; ISBN 978-1845115975

Thank you very much again for your time and best wishes.

Starrynuit (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Starrynuit The adherents of SGI were NOT expelled along with Mr. Ikeda in 1991 but in 1997. In 1991 Mr. Ikeda and large parts of the SGI leadership were expelled, but not the adherents of SGI. Would you please also get familiar on how to insert footnotes please? Under normal circumstances footnotes should not appear on a talk page.--Catflap08 (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Further the term ‘Excommunication’ is wrong as there is no Communion or Eucharist in Buddhism. Just because the term may have been used elsewhere does not make it right, even when repeated a mistake will remain to be a mistake.--Catflap08 (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It's normal for words to have their original meanings extended over time. Yes, the OED gives examples going back to 1526 for "To cut off from communion; to exclude, by an authoritative sentence, from participation in the sacraments and services of the church, or from religious rites in general". However, the OED's second meaning for the verb is "Transf." (i.e. "transferred sense"), first exemplified by this quotation: "To be reiected and excommunicated from the fellowship of all honest men." That's from 1602. I think the latter, four-century-old usage is good enough for WP.

I see nothing wrong with the appearance of footnotes on a talk page. However, it would help to have them dumped close below whatever they are for. This is easily accomplished: simply add "<references />" where you want them dumped. (Shortly above, I've done this myself.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@ HoaryI agree words can change their meaning over time, but it would be strange to speak of excommunication when being kicked out of college for instance. In the article on excommunication the section on Buddhism mentions that there is no real equivalent – the only ones who used it were, again, those who inserted the Gakkai/ Nichiren Shoshu issue. I suggest to use terms that are generally accepted and explicit, most of all use terms that are neutral (one cannot always influence that when it comes to quotes though). The term „excommunication“ adds a bit more drama to something that can be described with a cool-headed wording. You have rightfully hinted at the authoritarian connotation the term holds, again this a road one should also not travel down. Some editors and authors use this terminology, but when looking at the subject objectively one also comes to the conclusion that at the bottom line this was a conflict between two equally autocratic organised leadership circles – again best to keep things neutral. Thanks for correcting the footnotes – sure one can insert them, but a talk page will look messy and all over the place when footnotes appear on the bottom of a talk page giving the impression they have something to do with the last comment added. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. "Excommunication" is indeed not the best word. But let's try hard to preserve a collegial spirit hereabouts. -- Hoary (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for the feedback. Thank you very much to Hoary for the many updates to the Selected works section, for correcting my usage of the footnotes, and for sharing the OED definitions!

Best wishes

Starrynuit (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Tags

In terms of the Polly Toynbee quote I would like to see some tags removed:

• better source needed – It is a quote. It is a quote of Ms. Toynbee’s own published words.
• copyright violation? – The article of Ms. Toynbee has been published in printing via a national newspaper and in the world wide web.

--Catflap08 (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done.

Popham's book has no axe to grind. Polly Toynbee may be quoted via his book with no warning flags about a dubious source or a copyright violation.

Not all of what's quoted appears in Popham's book. Some is from one or other website with an axe to grind. We shouldn't rush to assume that the reproduction there of the article is accurate. Thus "Better source needed". Moreover, it can be assumed that anything appearing in the Guardian is conventionally ("all rights reserved") copyright and that reproductions of large percentages of the whole violate the copyright of the publisher or author. Thus the copyright warning flag.

Time permitting, I'll look for the original (newspaper) on microform. -- Hoary (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hoary: I have my severe doubts if this can account for copy right violations if one quotes an article or somebody’s work. After all this is also one of the reasons why quotes footnotes and what have you are inserted in the first place, as a published work is not copied but cited. Ms. Toynbee’s article was published on many sites critical of SGI and has conveniently disappeared from some sites (or the sites dissapeared) except for this last one (http://www.toride.org/edata/toynbee.html). I do have some reservations about toride, but not about her article itself. I am not concerned about Popham, but I strongly resist deleting or questioning Ms. Toynbee’s words. Too often I have seen some editors going to great lengths to even questioning Ms. Toynbee’s integrity. In the end Ms. Toynbee is not merely writing about Mr. Ikeda, but writing about on meeting Mr. Ikeda. WP:COPYRIGHT WP:QUOTEWP:CSH:FOOT--Catflap08 (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No, quoting Toynbee (to the extent that we do) doesn't constitute a copyright violation. But WP shouldn't point to sites that violate copyright. And of course I'm not questioning PT's integrity at all. -- Hoary (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see the only thing that the toride site does is giving a complete quote. Author date when and where originally published are included. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Reproduction is not legitimized either (a) by reproducing something in toto or (b) by saying who wrote it and where it's reproduced from. -- Hoary (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In that case any links, quotes and citations are a violation of copyright?? Are you being serious? We better shut down Wikipedia then. Complete newspaper Articles are cited all over the place. Please also note that the article is used in fair use. I have the impression some just do not like the idea of the article’s content to be read full stop. --Catflap08 (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I think he's saying quotes gotten from websites or other sources whose accuracy is not necessarily verifiable or which may not be considered reliable is at issue here, and, yeah, there are at least a few cases when sites poorly reproduce material from other more reliable sources in a very problematic way. While the original source may well be reliable, the webiste might not be. Having said that WP:RX might have some editors who have access to databanks where the material might be reproduced. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The toride site is a clear copyright violation and I've removed it. The appropriate template would have been Template:Uw-copyright-link which says "Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement." Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well the article can be accessed here:The Guardian Archive.A wee fee though. I will happily include a few quotes from the article with the appropriate footnote. Anyone who wants to read the complete article can pay the fee then.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Polly Toynbee

Apart from minor edits I have stayed clear to edit this article, and the one on Soka Gakkai, in any major way for quite a while. This is also due to my own engagement with the group in the past. What I will surely not tolerate is, if attempts are made to actively withhold information already been made public. Even though the copyright issue regarding the toride link does, at this point, seem to have substance I will seek clarifications within Wikipedia. Taking action outside Wikipedia is up to my discretion. As already stated elsewhere I have no problems whatsoever to cite the article and include referenced quotes. In my books however I believe that making the reader rely on my quotes is a somewhat mediocre solution. The average reader should be allowed to make their own conclusions reading the article of Ms. Toynbee completely may it be by link or a footnote. I would not go to such great lengths if the article by Ms. Toynbee would not be one of the very few critically describing meeting Mr. Ikeda in English. Due to my engagement with the organisation in question I am today more than ever before critical of religious fanaticism of which this article, and the one on Soka Gakkai, bears testimony. For that very reason my intention is to let Ms. Toynbee’s words to be read without interpretation. As said before some would like to see any mentioning of Ms. Toynbee be deleted full stop – such an attempt disgusts me to say the least as it also shows some individuals intentions. Making the full article available to a select few just does not seem to be a solution, a solution to those in defence of SGI and Mr. Ikeda have contributed. Some might not have noticed, but the more effort is being put in to withhold information the more interesting the information as such gets. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it worth noting that WP:ELYES would reasonably allow the reproduction site to be included as an external link, and the quotes based on the pdf version of the original to be included based on the text of the original. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I am not too worried about the toride link as such but that the complete text is made available. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I am in awe of the lengthy discussion devoted to Polly Toynbee's words on this page. I appreciate the education about what WP can cite (or not), but I don't want to lose focus of the core issue: what PT has to contribute meaningfully to an encyclopedic entry about someone she met only once and only briefly. I remain concerned that PT's opinion leads readers to jump to the assumption that her grandfather would agree with her, which is clearly not true—to the best of my knowledge, she never discussed Ikeda with her grandfather, nor did she ever accompany her grandfather to Japan (despite Catflap08's assertion under the "Popham" section above). Even Hoary has asked about including responses from people who have had more meaningful interactions with Ikeda. Popham, without any firsthand experience with Ikeda or SG, resorts to inflammatory rhetoric (for example, he calls Soka Gakkai a "bizarre phenomenon" that "leaps out and punches you in the face") and raises allegations that have been totally discredited. Flimsy stuff. Personally, I don't see how PT's article is relevant. HOWEVER, at least one person has a strong personal attachment and seems to feel that PT's impression is key to understanding Ikeda. OK, then take it out of the books section and put it in a "Controversies" section, as is done with other WP subjects. Summarize her point (and, please, can we leave out the personal description, which, frankly, makes PT sound petty) and include a link to wherever. Findemnow (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@talkIt might be worthwhile to read her COMPLETE article. In the end most views on SGI are personal opinions. I guess why some adherents are cheesed off by Ms. Toynbee’s article – is her name, Toynbee. She is also one of the few individuals who met Ikeda in Person and who’s impressions and thoughts on SGI are not likely to ever be published in the SGI Quarterly or World Tribune, which is normally the place to praise the dear leader errr sorry Sensei. Belittling her won’t change the fact that she is a well published journalist in her own right.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that virtually no one outside of the UK has ever heard of opinion columnist Polly Toynbee (who is listed on Wikipedia's "atheist activist" page), the point here is simple: What does one person's opinion about a subject have to do with the encyclopedia page on that subject? How does anyone's personal opinion, whether positive or negative, have a place on an ENCYCLOPEDIA page? Polly Toynbee didn't write a journalistic report about Ikeda, she wrote AN OPINION COLUMN piece about her brief encounter with him. Wikipedia isn't an opinion column, it's an encyclopedia. A personal opinion is not a fact. It's as simple as that. Personal opinions have no place on pages of religious leaders like the president of the Mormon church, the Dalai Lama, and the Pope, because otherwise they are going to be long and contentious pages indeed. Why is this page any different? If Catflap08, who admits a negative bias against Ikeda and the SGI, is adamant about including personal opinions, then why not add positive opinions by far more famous and neutral people than an opinion columnist? I'll tell you why - because a personal opinion has no place in an encyclopedia, no matter whose opinion it is. Basicallyyes (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that virtually no one outside of the UK has ever heard of opinion columnist Polly Toynbee -- Oh, has a survey been conducted? ¶ Toynbee was primarily describing what we saw. This is called journalism. Good journalism has its place in Wikipedia. An atheist can be a journalist, even a good journalist, about a subject to which she is personally unsympathetic. It seems to me unlikely that Toynbee is either negligible as a journalist or a rabid ideologue, when I consider the awards that she has been given. -- Hoary ("outside of the UK", talk) 08:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@talk) That’s the difference … what you or I say here ARE personal opnions. And the fact that you never heard of Ms. Toynbee what should that prove? Hardly anyone has heard of Mr. Ikeda, of SGI. Funny enough though if she would be in praise of SGI you’d think quite differently. Again, it’s a published article, not a letter to the editor, but written by an established journalist who just does not share your personal opinion. She is an atheist, yes, so what? You should allow the average reader of Wikipedia to form their own opinion. --Catflap08 (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hardly anyone has heard of Mr. Ikeda, of SGI. Well well, I learn more remarkable facts every day. ¶ Funny enough though if she would be in praise of SGI you’d think quite differently. Here's a neat idea: Everybody keep their speculations about others' thought processes, motivation, etc to themselves. -- Hoary (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Hoary Listen I am not getting into a debate on the notability of Ms. Toynbee, journalist of a nationwide published newspaper, compared to Mr. Ikeda leader of a Japanese religious organisation. Also for the record Toynbee as far as I know is an atheist yes, I am not sure if she is an agnostic though. The article has a continuous history that SGI’s adherents are eager to drag anyone into the limelight who speak in praise of SGI, while at the same time belittling and even defaming editors and authors of sources critical of SGI. I guess if her name would not be Toynbee some could not care less. Ms. Toybee makes quite clear what she thought SGI was aiming at to invite her to Japan and as a Journalist it is her damn job to voice her opinion. In the days of religious fanaticism it becomes more evident than ever that some individuals expect their religious beliefs to be exempted from criticism. Wikipedia is a battleground of opinions and views but what it surely not is, is serving as an elongated propaganda and marketing tool. And even if your world view falls into pieces, at least in the West hardly anyone knows of SGI and Mr. Ikeda. Justified or not the most renown Buddhist would be the Dalai Lama, anyone willing to find out about SGI should be able to get an idea on Wikipedia, which is not a proselytising tool. Since SGI is hardly known in the West not to refer to an articles written by an established journalist would be somewhat irritating actually and since it’s a fringe subject even more so. Readers of the Guardian or the Independent are not known to be thugs and usually do not depend on opinions and views to be force fed to them. I say this because I would not be surprised if someone comes along to discredits the Guardian. Same could be said about “Die Zeit” a German newspaper also known to have published articles not in praise of SGI. What I can gather (and have experienced) SGI has enough “royal correspondents”.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be repeating yourself. Please don't. I'm not sure how the degree of fame in the West of Ikeda or the organization he heads is relevant here; but its relevance aside for a moment, assertions of yours such as "in the West hardly anyone knows of SGI and Mr. Ikeda" are so hard to believe that I start to question the credibility of the more reasonable-sounding among things you say. -- Hoary (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Presenting only Polly Toynbee's comments is misleading to Wikipedia users, since the rebuttal to her article isn't presented. The man who invited her to Japan (Richard Causton of the UK) published his own view in The Guardian on May 28, 1984. In it, he expressed disappointment that Polly Toynbee did not present "both sides, part of a journalist's duty." And that "at least three-quarters of the time in Japan was taken up with political matters and, at her request, no space was given to religious matters, i.e. the Buddhist movement, the members of which were her hosts, and who are the target of her attacks in this article." Causton wrote quite a lot about it in The Guardian, and his view emphasizes how misleading PT's comments could be, especially taken out of context and excerpted as they are on this Wikipedia page. When an atheist activist requests of a religious leader "no space for religious matters" during her visit with him, then later slams him for not having "even a whiff of spirituality" (as she did in her article), then I'd say her reporting of the experience lacks credibility - it's both biased and misleading. Basicallyyes (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Now this could be interesting. Wikipedia has articles about two Richard Caustons, and it's obvious that this one can't be either. A bit of websearching came up with this obituary of a Richard Causton, described as the head of SGI in Britain (and posthumously "Honorary General Director of the worldwide SGI movement"). So he was very close to Ikeda indeed, and it's normal for such a person to react in such a way to a portrayal that's less than flattering. This certainly doesn't mean that he can't be cited in rebuttal of Toynbee, of course. Still, it would be interesting to have a second lively (journalistic) description of the style of the man from somebody who is/was not so related. Anyway, do you have the title and page number of Causton's piece? -- Hoary (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well in the world you live in it might come to a surprise that hardly anyone has heard of Ikeda and SGI. The average reader will hardly know anything about Nichiren Buddhism. I do interact occasionally in Buddhist forums and even amongst those hardly anyone has heard of Nichiren Buddhism to any great extent. What leads you to the conclusion that I dispute the notability of the article itself beats me. So, Mr. Causton was not pleased with the article (The way I can see it covering two pages at the time) now that’s a surprise isn’t it? His response to my mind rather reads on how unthankful M. Tyonbee was (how could she dare) – though that is the way it is. After Mr. Causton’s passing I lived in the UK and saw with my own eyes with which fierceness the reassessment movement within SGI-UK was wiped out – so much for democratic structures. It puzzles me why the article should not be mentioned, good grief the SGI folks invited her even and were/are cheesed of she did not buy into all that. She was invited because she was the granddaughter of the late Arnold J. Toynbee and in the article she clearly states what she thought SGI was aiming at – to this day SGI can pride themselves only with this one book and they did not get hands on his notes. Again the fierceness with which SGI editors fight criticism says much about SGI full stop, it reminds me of Islamic fundamentalist or adherents of Scientology … that is an opinion by the way.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry Catflap08 that you've had negative experiences with some members of SGI in the UK, but I'm not sure that gives you the right to grind an axe on Wikipedia. I had thought you were a bit more neutral, even though you've admitted hard feelings about the SGI, but now it appears you are strongly biased against the subjects of the SGI and Ikeda. Your "imagining" of Polly's article filling up 2 pages of the Guardian is telling, since you provided the Guardian archive link that shows it was only a part of 1 page. And you state the SGI and Ikeda are not well known, yet the archives you mentioned (costing 8GBP or $12 USD per day to access) show that The Guardian alone has mentioned the SGI or Ikeda in some 50 articles.

In a search of The Guardian archive employee listings, Toynbee doesn't show up as a staff writer until 1998. This is consistent with her own Wikipedia page and The Guardian Wikipedia page, where she's described as a commentary/opinion page writer. In 1984, she was a freelancer who wrote approximately 2 commentary/opinion pieces per month. The topics she wrote about in The Guardian in 1984 included her irritation at long lines in the post office, her friend Marj who took on everyone else's problems, a neighbor who was evicted for not paying rent, a former prostitute who became a teacher, an old cow that someone wanted to kill, a class reunion, and one titled “If your children snarl, argue, and kick the hell out of each other, don’t worry, it’s not your fault.” Many of these ran with cartoons on the same page, so based on the archive listings from 1984 it would appear Polly Toynbee was not the illustrious journalist she is made out to be on this Talk page. Certainly her status is higher now, 31 years later, but trying to give greater weight to her 1984 writings in light of who she has become today is disingenuous.

The well-written and level-headed rebuttal to her article by Richard Causton was published on page 10, May 28 1984, titled "The double shock of Japanese culture." Causton politely asserted Toynbee's biased view, calling into question the credibility of Toynbee's framing (when she herself requested to talk politics and have no discussion of spirituality, then later criticized Ikeda for not seeming spiritual, etc,) and Toynbee never denied Causton's recounting of those facts. As such, and in light of Toybee's farcical role at the paper in 1984, I believe her comments in the context of an encyclopedic entry are very misleading.Basicallyyes (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well in the world you live in it might come to a surprise that hardly anyone has heard of Ikeda and SGI. A small part of the world I live in is this Wikipedia article. One part of the article is the long list of honorary doctorates. Many of these currently lack independent sources (which they should eventually get), but I find it hard to imagine that people would perpetrate fictions about them. Let's err on the side of (extreme) caution and say that in reality he's only got a hundred of them. I imagine that a number of places claiming to be universities are autocratic, but most are some mixture of democratic and bureaucratic. In these, people sit in dreary committee meetings to decide such matters. They talk (boast, complain) to their friends. So you have thousands of people right there. If I understand correctly Ikeda has universities deliver their doctorates to Tokyo; but I may be wrong and I know that's he has at times travelled to pick them up. There could have been hundreds of people present at the same event. ¶ Another small part of my world was, on and off, Richmond Green. For a long time there a shop announcing itself as "SGI" was there. Acquaintances in the area asked me about it ("It seems to be Japanese, but religious. What's it about?"). No, the number outside Japan who have heard of the religion and/or its head is negligible compared with the number of who heard of, say, Beyoncé, but the same thing can be said about most people (e.g. Polly Toynbee) who have biographies here. SGI is not part of my world and never has been, but whether or not they're members of SGI, presumably somebody is buying at least a significant percentage of the Ikeda production of I B Tauris and SGI's own publishing branch Middleway. ¶ As it happens, I've a hunch that if you were to take a random sample of twenty Brits and asked them who Ikeda and Toynbee were, you'd get somewhat better answers for the latter; but I don't claim this as fact and even if I had clear evidence for its truth I'd find it no more than mildly interesting. -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Basicallyyes I am sorry your post actually is quite ridiculous, but follows the same tactics as the one of other editors prior. Maybe it surprises you that journalist tend to write on a wide range of issues not focused on one issue alone … prostitute that became a teacher – what is irritating about that? A newspaper has limited space … oh dear there are cartons in a newspaper now that is truly new to me. Honestly, there is no doubt about Ms. Toynbee’s integrity as a journalist, free-lance by the way … hence not employed be for example by the Guardian/Independent … but being published numerous times does count that at least some hold her in some sort of esteem. The history of this talk page does however show that usually SGIists tend to defame critics which I find rather irritating but what does not come as a surprise either. Sure she has not as many honorary doctorates as Mr. Ikeda but I am quite sure she deserved them based on her OWN work– not to shabby. Also the British Press Award and Orwell Prize. I am an academic myself and thankfully, since mostly financed by public funds, the honorary doctorates Mr. Ikeda received from west European universities are quite clearly arranged. So quite a number of people will find the list included in the article illuminating and amusing at the same time. Actually it back fires. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I totally understand your point of view, I simply don't think grinding an axe based on personal bias is a proper framing for encyclopedic information, even when it's thinly veiled by esteem for a journalist. Also, as is evident in the archives you mentioned, comical photos and cartoons were often added within the text written by Polly Toynbee, emphasizing the sensationalistic and farcical nature of her writing in those days.Basicallyyes (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

“comical photos and cartoons were often added within the text written by Polly Toynbee, emphasizing the sensationalistic and farcical nature of her writing in those days” Good grief give me a break … now you are trying to make it look as if Ms. Toynbee was asked to publish her articles in order to make fun of the content? --Catflap08 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppets

On a more or less regular basis it seems, again, worthwhile to ask editors to take a look on the Wikipedia guideline on sock puppets WP:SOCK. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Need Help with References

I have added some awards and inserted references, but I'm not confident I'm doing it correctly. I'd really appreciate some feedback (this stuff is really complicated). Thanks in advance. Findemnow (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Building peace

As a state house of representatives has declared that Ikeda has dedicated his entire life to building peace and promoting human rights through education and cultural exchange with deep conviction in the shared humanity of our entire global family I'm sure there's something to this. Personally I find the building of peace to be admirable (not that personal opinions should be here or there), but when I read the article I'm at a loss to see what his contribution has been. It all seems very abstract, which leads me to think that his contributions may have been theoretical, but there's no hint of theory. I understand that he likes to discuss things with people; has he perhaps persuaded opponents to talk directly with each other, or is there evidence that he's nudged the people he's talked with toward less bellicose stances? Or just what have the achievements been? -- Hoary (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree more on real life action. Leadership in Sino-Japanese relations was big. Founding one of the world's largest & most ethnically diverse Buddhist group. The daily practice of Soka people praying for and taking action for peace. Ikeda led the org. of that to go global. Soka schools teach peace & humanism. He preaches anti-nuclear activism through SGI & is pushing for a world peace youth summit. Last month Soka youth groups presented 5 million signatures for NuclearZero in response to his call for kids to get involved http://www.wagingpeace.org/five-million-voices-for-nuclear-zero/ Elemential1 (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the China initiative was real, and rightly is written up in the article. But the rest seems oddly nebulous. Any more of this "real life action" that you mention? In particular, what have all these dialogues achieved? Perhaps people could add this material to the article. -- Hoary (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of macrons

According to Wikipedia MOS macrons for modern Japanese names should not be used. "Use current anglicization officially used by each party": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles#Names_of_modern_figures No Soka-related orgs or people use macrons. Please undo the revert of my edits. Thanks. Elemential1 (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Elemential1's request to remove macrons. This was an edit I made before the page was locked and all recent changes were reverted. Findemnow (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Urgh. You're right; I was wrong. This particular part of MOS-Ja is new to me. (It wasn't there the last time I looked.) I'll convert back. This may take a little time, but I'll complete the job eventually. -- Hoary (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Done, I think. I have of course not touched macrons in the titles of articles, books, etc, macrons in quotations, macrons in names that have articles with macrons in them, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)