Talk:Nichiren Shōshū

Image deletion and censorship

I don't think that image is reliable or verified. The source is a non-authoritative website claiming, "This is the only published photo of it, taken with their permission in 1910," with no proof of authenticity. Refer to WP:RS, WP:PROVEIT. I inlcuded that information when I removed the image, but other editors have been re-adding it without explanation. I see that editors Daileyn and Kyohyi have discussed similar issues of accuracy on this page, including WP:OR. Scandiescot (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Scandiescot

The only one who says that the image is not authentic is you. Your repetitive deletion of the image could be regarded as vandalism. Secondly the picture is available in Commons, due to its age there are also no copyright issues. Any religious “taboos” on showing this object are irrelevant to Wikipedia since Wikipedia is no member of any religious group. --Catflap08 (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I've already noted in my edits and above comment Wikipedia's standards for verifiability | burden of proof, original research, and identifying reliable sources. Scandiescot (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Guess the burden of proof that the image is not authentic lies with you. I have seen this image also printed in literature. I suspect the bylaws of your religious organisation to be the true motivation – better be honest on that one. The image is in the public domain. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Catflap wrote, "Guess the burden of proof that the image is not authentic lies with you."

See WP:RS, WP:PROVEIT, and WP:OR. The *claim* of authenticity does not meet the burden of proof. "I have seen this image also printed in literature." Source? Scandiescot (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Scandiescot

There is no need to wonder about the motivations of User:Scandiescot, as we can see in his first attempts to delete this image. His real motivations can be seen in the edit history comments for several articles (Special:Contributions/Scandiescot):

As I said in my edit The Dai Gohonzon has the inscription at the bottom "With great respect for the petitioner of the High Sanctuary of the Essential Teaching, Yashiro Kunishige and the people of the Hokkeko." at the bottom of Nam Myoho Renge Kyo Nichiren. Unfortunately catflap has not written anything to disprove that assertion, the image is inaccurate so it should be removed. This is a photo of a Joju temple Gohonzon but it's missing the inscription that the Dai Gohonzon has. See reference: http://nstmyohoji.org/NSTMyohoji.aspx?PI=BOP.5130 Noisemonkey (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Image violates the sanctity of the Dai Gohonzon according to Nichiren Shōshū teachings."
• "Nichiren Shōshū doctrine prohibits photography of all valid Gohonzon."

When it becomes clear to him that this image is not violating any Wikipedia standards and that Wikipedia does not follow religious regulations, the editor continued deleting this image from articles without consensus, and attempts to use WP standards to justify what is religiously-motivated censorship. Tengu800 11:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Nichiren Shōshū does not allow photography of its Gohonzon is relevant if an alleged image of the Dai-Gohonzon, which is in the stewardship of Nichiren Shōshū, appears on Wikipedia. The alleged source is a vague, unreliably sourced claim that the photo was taken with permission, which as noted, is not allowed in Nichiren Shōshū. If permission *was* granted one time, then a reliable source / citation needs to be included. One website created by a (now deceased) lay Buddhist, who described the image in a caption without proper citation, does not meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability | burden of proof, original research, and identifying reliable sources. I've tried to assume good faith on the part of editors who have uploaded the image, but I strongly disagree that it's authentic or that the source is in line with Wikipedia's standards. I've provided the relevant pages to support my claim. Scandiescot (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Scandiescot

This article continues to be problematic per Wikipedia standards and good scholarship practices. According to Wikipedia's definition of verifiability, the source needs to be the publisher or creator or document. The dominant/controlling editors of this page continue to rely only on unsubstantiated third party sources who do not have a reputation of fact-checking and accuracy. WP:Sources The only institution or source which can accurately verify this image is Nichiren Shoshu, the creator, publisher and owner of the document. If verification can't be claimed, the image should be removed. This has nothing to do with any policy of Nichiren Shoshu. It has to do with bad scholarship and abuse of Wikipedia policies. The poor editing and obvious bias by current editors of this page shows the dark side of Wikipedia (and I'm a big fan of Wikipedia). Daileyn (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Who says, apart from you and another editor that this photo taken is not authentic? On which grounds is its authenticity questioned? Again that is a Commons issue not Wikipedia. What is rather disturbing is the somewhat disturbing style of editing i.e. simply deleting information. This goes for this article as well as for the article of an organisation formerly affiliated with Nichiren Shoshu. Same pattern of disturbing behaviour. If this continues it might be a good idea to protect this page too. --Catflap08 (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Catflap08 wrote to Daileyn, "Who says, apart from you and another editor that this photo taken is not authentic?" Many Nichiren Shōshū members have expressed doubts on Internet fora about the image's authenticity. They have seen the Dai-Gohonzon, some of them many times, and had looked at the image right after returning from seeing it at head temple Taiseki-ji. WP:RS, WP:PROVEIT, and WP:OR are clear about the standards for accuracy and proper citation. The image in question does not meet those standards. Scandiescot (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Scandiescot

Those sources you mention are more unreliable than the factual picture. It is within the bylaws within you religious group not to take pictures of a gohonzon .- this is irrelevant to Wikipedia. The picture was taken in 1910 for gods sake, which means in a completely different setting as today. The Dai-Gohonzon is small so I even doubt that your so called 'eye witnesses' ever got be beyond the notion that there is a gohonzon out there. Please note that some editors did get a glimpse of that object as well in the past. It is minuscule as an object. I am slowly getting more and more annoyed at those shoshu and gakkai people believing Wikipedia should confirm to their somewhat irrational byways. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Catflap08 wrote, "Those sources you mention are more unreliable than the factual picture." What is your proof that the picture is factual? "The picture was taken in 1910 for gods sake". Source? Scandiescot (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Scandiescot

The purpose of Wikipedia is to convey information. Previous editors even took your organisation's by-laws serious in including an image that would give the reader an idea what that object of devotion was. Some Nichiren Shoshu believers objected even to that as the image did not show a Nichiren Shohsu Gohonzon – now as the Nichiren Shohsu obeject of devotion is on display you question the images authenticity – please give us a break.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Catflap08 wrote, "now as the Nichiren Shohsu obeject of devotion is on display..." Your proof of the photo's authenticity is _____? Scandiescot (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Scandiescot

Tengu's most recent edit, "Flagging this article for COI as editors have expressed religious motivations aimed at censorship of the article", is disingenuous at best. I've been very clear on this page and others that censorship is not the reason, but rather that the photo alleged to be the Dai-Gohonzon comes from an unreliable source with no corroborating evidence. I have not only mentioned the reasons why I think so, but have also included references several times to the relevant WP: pages. I have also repeatedly invited those who disagree, such as Catflap08 and Tengu800, to post any sources which align with Wikipedia's standards (WP:RS, WP:PROVEIT, WP:OR) to validate their claim of the photo's authenticity, but no such evidence has been provided. The flagging by Tengu does not come across as good faith. Scandiescot (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

First, please sign all your posts. You have explicitly shown religious motivations aimed at censorship in your past edits: "Image violates the sanctity of the Dai Gohonzon according to Nichiren Shōshū teachings," and "Nichiren Shōshū doctrine prohibits photography of all valid Gohonzon," while attempting to delete the image repeatedly -- against WP policies. Your religious motivations and conflict of interest (COI) are very apparent. You then continued to delete the image before a consensus among editors had been reached. Your attempts since then have been to warp Wikipedia policies in order to enforce religious censorship of Wikipedia content. By the way, if you read the Wikipedia guidelines you are citing, you would see that they are about claims made in article text, not about thumbnail image selection. Tengu800 09:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes sure … since religious taboos or bylaws that forbid the photographic display of a gohonzon in your religious organisation have no effect in Wikipedia it is best to question the authenticity of an over 100 year old image. 1910 is two years before Nichiren Shoshu even became a autonomous legal religious body hence separate Buddhist school (Shū).--Catflap08 (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Tengu800 wrote, >>You have explicitly shown religious motivations aimed at censorship... "Image violates the sanctity of the Dai Gohonzon according to Nichiren Shōshū teachings," and "Nichiren Shōshū doctrine prohibits photography of all valid Gohonzon," while attempting to delete the image repeatedly -- against WP policies... Your religious motivations and conflict of interest (COI) are very apparent.<<

This is incorrect. I included those reasons because if Nichiren Shōshū prohibits photography of its Gohonzon, then logically it follows that an alleged photo of one of its Gohonzon is highly improbable. If a claim is made that permission to photograph the Dai-Gohonzon was granted once in 1910, then the "burden of identifying a reliable source lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing any reliable source that directly supports the material." The only source provided for the image in question is a personal website which does not cite a reliable source for the image. Like the editors who have uploaded the image to Wikimedia Commons and various Wikipedia articles, that website makes an unsupported claim that the alleged photo of the Dai-Gohonzon was taken once with permission in 1910.

Additionally, according to Wikipedia guidelines, "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." Scandiescot (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would wait until a consensus is found on the picture … this will be up to wiki commons. By repeatedly deleting the image you simply vandalise the article. I have also asked for the page to be semi-protected until issue is solved. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I came here as a third party per his notification on my talkpage. Lets say that user @Scandiescot: is right about everything but the image licensing and the last paragraph. First of all, yes, you are right edit warring is not vandalism but even that rule is important because if a user will do it over 3 times, he can be blocked. Now for the image: Commons and Wikipedia are separate organizations but are tied. For example, you can use a free Wikipedia image (which some people believe is a lot better), or you can use Commons image where you need to go through hoops of licensing. Now, for the folks here, this to me is not uncommon issue. Correct me if I am wrong anywhere... In Russian Wikipedia we had the same argument with a user there too who believed that the number of patents were not cited properly. We too, told him numerous times that Wikipedia doesn't cite patents and yet it continued.--Mishae (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

To me the case is quite clear, odd religious bylaws are of no importance to Wikipedia. Copyright issues are also not an issue in this case – so we go down the authenticity lane. Reminds me of the same discussion that took place on the Soka Gakkai talk page.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

On a separate note, I need to tell user Scandiescot that Wikipedia is first of all an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place for religious texts unless they are encyclopedic. For example an article on bible, torah, quran or Buddha teachings are not prohibited and are considered to be encyclopedic first of all.--Mishae (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The insertion of the picture was a result of discussion that took place earlier. To give the reader of the article an idea what a gohonzon looks like the picture of A gohonzon of a different school was included – to what to me appears a Shoshu believer protested as it was not an image of a Nichiren Shoshu gohonzon. Now a over 100 year old image of the dai-gohonzon is included we are faced with authenticity. Both users first mentioned their sects bylaws that have no effect to wikipedia.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I started to get the point. What user Scandiescot is saying is that since his religion doesn't allow photography it is unlikely that Nichiren Shōshū have been photographed. What he is not willing to understand is that this photo is an archaeological relic. Sometimes, even native Americans were photographed against their will throughout time, so I wont deny that the same is with this article. In North Korea they prohibit taking pictures of Kim Jong Il while in Burma it is illegal to take coins out of country. But sometimes, somebody does it, and risking their life and honour and put it in Commons which transports to Wikipedia. Plus, the image is used on this, Taiseki-ji, Dai Gohonzon, and Gohonzon article, making me wonder if there is an alternative image? Like, an understanding is appreciated and picture can worth a thousand words, but the same picture, I think, shouldn't be used on every Gohonzon related article, a bit of variation would have been appreciated. :)--Mishae (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Mishae, you're correctly representing my view, and you're correct about the general possibility of photos being taken even if prohibited. For me, the issue relevant to Wikipedia guidelines (and perhaps Wikimedia) is whether the image is authentic and correctly labelled. I and other people doubt that it actually is a photo of the Dai-Gohonzon. If not, then uploading it as "the Dai-Gohonzon" is inaccurate. For clarification, Taiseki-ji is the head temple of Nichiren Shōshū. According to that sect, there is only one Dai-Gohonzon, which is stored at Taiseki-ji. All Nichiren Shōshū Gohonzon are transcribed from the Dai-Gohonzon, but not all Gohonzon come from Nichiren Shōshū. For example, other Nichiren Sects issue their own. You're also right that multiple uploads of the alleged 1910 photo of the Dai-Gohonzon are unnecessary. Some people such as Catflap08 claim that the photo appeared in a book. If this is true *and* the book is a reliable source, then they should properly cite that book rather than using an image from a self-published website. The burden of identifying a reliable source lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Scandiescot (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If you actually looked around Japanese publications and websites, you would see that this and other images of this gohonzon have been published for many years throughout the 20th century. I've added publication information to the image. If you would like me to look deeper into the matter, I can perhaps add more images of Nichiren Shoshu gohonzons that are also now in the public domain. Best regards. Tengu800 05:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Well if a Nikken -Gohonzo or Nittatsu-Gohonzon image would be uploaded we would see the same behaviour. It boils down to the bylaws of the sect. If wikipedia bows to that … end of wikipedia. Other Nichiren sects are far more liberal on that issue as its an image nothing more. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There is always a chance of that, but then again, we can't prevent every what if situation. Hmm, so other sects of Nichiren are not concerned about it? Makes me wonder if Scandiescot should just follow the other Nichiren sect members advice and just leave the images alone. Just because there are Amishes in the world who's religion prohibits anything above 19 century, doesn't mean that the US government should shut down the Internet. :)--Mishae (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Well actually the text about the Dai-Gohomzon is in some incomplete anyway as the majority of other traditional Nichiren schools regard the object as forgery anyway i.e. not inscribed by Nichiren. They do however not say that its not a valid Mandala.--Catflap08 (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Mishae: As I've written repeatedly, my issue is with whether the image actually is the Dai-Gohonzon and meets Wikipedia standards for burden of identifying a reliable source and WP:NOR. I don't know why some participants on this talk page are ignoring that. In any case, although I still question the authenticity of the image, Tengu800 has added a citation, which is better than a self-published website. Scandiescot (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

On the matter of self-published websites I have not a single clue what you are on about. The nichirenscoffe house site may be a bit all over the place and badly maintained (Since so many claim that they know what Nichiren wanted) , but it also contains and links to an ample amount of articles authored by ordained (therefore also academically trained) priests, lay adherents and references (including citations) of third party sources. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Catflap08 wrote, "On the matter of self-published websites, I have not a single clue what you are on about." From the link (excerpt): "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as... personal websites.. are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The founder of the website was an independent, non-academic lay Buddhist, Don Ross. At the bottom of the page showing the alleged image of Dai-Gohonzon, he thanked "Senchu Murano, Jackie Stone, Bruce Maltz, and Chris Holte for providing all this information" on that page. Senchu Murano and Jackie Stone are academics. The others are non-acedemic lay members. Don's site does not specify whether the academics were consulted about the alleged authenticity of the image or just the text on the page. Scandiescot (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said the site links ALSO to lay believers. I would not refer to Nichiren Shu priests as ‘self declared’ though including the usual training at Rissho University hence training in Buddhist studies. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)In a way I find it ab bit amusing that both adherents of Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai seem to be a chip off the old block at times. Same sort of discussion were held on the SGI talk page … if the information that one was presented with did not fit the perception of an editor the source of the information was being questioned i.e. references and resources. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Nichiren Shoshu and their adherents see unauthorized copies of Gohonzons as blasphemous counterfeits. This may explain why Scandiescot wrote in his/her edit summary: "Image violates the sanctity of the Dai Gohonzon according to Nichiren Shōshū teachings," when he deleted the picture for the first time. The request for a reliable source has already been answered by Tengu: The image is in Kumada Ijō's (熊田葦城) book Nichiren Shōnin (日蓮上人), 8th edition, page 375. Published in 1913 (大正2年). First edition published in 1911 (明治44年).

I am sorry that this image is offending Nichiren Shoshu believers but the community consensus is that Wikipedia is not censored. If you want to avoid seeing the image yourself, please see Help:Options to hide an image. JimRenge (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Additionally I hope that the next few days will be useful for all participants to cool their heads and come to a consensus on the talk page. In terms of text there is still a lot of room for improvement. Best to avoid any notion that would indicate supremacy etc.. In the long run though I guess a picture of a any kind that shows this schools object of devotion will remain to be part of this article. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I find it distressing that those outside of our religion seem to feel that anything goes when it comes to simple respect to the wishes of the religion. There are plenty of Wikipedia pages that have Gohonzon photo content and anyone that wants to can Google this image. Not a good thing. Mrsnak (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What some call "respect", others call censorship as per WP:CENSOR. There have been, I think, maybe one or two cases where images have been moved to separate pages, like images of Muhammad. It is, I think, perhaps possible for someone to start a request for comment as per WP:RfC to determine if such should be the case here. However, it is also very possible that if we were to accede to one such request on one issue, that a greater number of requests regarding an ever-greater number of images and text matters would arise as well, based on precedents elsewhere. Should individuals who feel the matter to be of sufficient importance to them that they would want to start an RfC, they would of course be free to do so. John Carter (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the image can't be verified beyond a Nichiren Shu biased website claiming it's in a certain book that nobody has access to can it just be removed? Not only that as stated in the Nichiren Shoshu Basics of practice p118 "There is a supplementary inscription on the Dai-Gohonzon which reads: “... with great respect for the petitioner of the High Sanctuary of the Essential Teachings, Yashiro Kunishige and the people of the Hokkeko-shu.”" as published by the Dai Nichiren Publishing Co which the depicted Gohonzon does not have. Book available here : http://www.dainichiren.com/index.php?id=28 Noisemonkey (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)noisemonkey

The image is published in a reliable source, so there is no reason to take it down other than censorship. The assertion that the image is not accurate is original research that doesn't have much place in the editorial process. Tengu800 00:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

you are still dodging my point. Where is the inscription mentioned in that article? This is from a published work by Nichiren Shoshu that this article is supposed to be about not original research on a page with a forward by a Nichiren shu priest who can found on the net disputing Nichiren Shoshu doctrine. I'm not disputing that this is a temple Gohonzon only that this is an image of the Dai Gohonzon with a specific image on it Noisemonkey (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)noisemonkey

The image was published at the beginning of the 20th century and merely used on the web as well. Having said that the picture was taken before a Nichiren Shoshu was even registered as a religious body. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Nichiren Shoshu did exist prior to it being legally registered as a religious body but as you may or may not know, the government of the time tried to force it to amalgamate with other Nichiren schools but they refused. Eventually they were allowed to register at the end of the Meiji Restoration. It wasn't called Nichiren Shoshu then, just the Fuji School. That's not really relevant to this discussion though. Noisemonkey (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)noisemonkey

No this is clearly not a discussion here but I would advise you to get back to the history books – non-primary source ones by the way. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

your sources are tertiary at best. Original unpublished research on a page written by a Nichiren Shu priest http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Gohonzon/DaiGohonzon.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noisemonkey (talk • contribs) 18:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope one could also refer to “Fire in the Lotus” by Montgomery when it comes to what date Nichiren Shoshu was founded. Keeping in mind that “the Nichiren Shu priest “ based his info on quite reliable secondary sources i.e. accepted with in Buddhist Studies such as authors like Dr. Jacqueline Stone. Having said that to some Nichiren Shoshu or Gakkai adherents with an evangelical like purpose in life this may be futile anyway. In this respect Nichiren Shoshu and Gakkai adherents active here are remarkably similar. So how on earth could have Nichiren Shoshu existed before it asked to be registered as such? Truth is that Taiseki-ji failed to uphold its supposed supremacy amongst Nikkō temples? Please get your FACTS right. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't accept unpublished original research from someone who has a clear POV on the matter very often, if at all. Please read WP:RS. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

In the whole discussion about the issue the user has made it clear where he is coming from - it hurts his/her religious feelings which is of no effect to wikipedia.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

in this whole lengthy discussion you have not responded as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROVEIT#Responsibility_for_providing_citations to what I and others in this discussion have posted before. Noisemonkey (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)noisemonkey

• "The Zen Of Magic Squares, Circles And Stars," by Clifford A. Pickover, Princeton UP, p. 30, identifies the design as a thirteenth century Nichiren gohonzon. Despite a quirky title, it's from Princeton, by a Yale graduate, and focuses on the history and mathematics of different religious and magical symbols. If anyone wishes to question the reliability of the source, please read this. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't disputing that it was a photo of a Gohonzon, simply that it's not the Dai-Gohonzon. P31 of that book is rather misleading though "Makiguchi Tsunesaburo, the founder of Nichiren-sho-shu Buddhism,," — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noisemonkey (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the most you could argue for is changing the subtitle, not removing the image (which is all you've been pushing for so far). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The image needs removing because it can't be proved that it's the Dai Gohonzon based on a neutral verifiable source. As I've said before the only source is from original research which is unpublished from a website I've already cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noisemonkey (talk • contribs) 20:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The book I cited discusses the Dai Gohonzon's design, and features a reproduction that matches the photo's design. At most, your argument only works for changing the picture's caption to "this photograph features the design originally found on the Dai Gohonzon." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I quote p29 of your book "The gohonzon mandala, an example of which is shown in Figure 10, is placed on an altar in Nichiren temples, as well as in the homes of Nichiren Buddhists. The original dai gohonzon—the supergohonzon for all humanity—resides in a temple in Kyoto. No photographs of the dai gohonzon are allowed, and no pictures have been published" Noisemonkey (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@ Scandiescot. I have no idea what you are getting at. The image as such and any quarrels on its authenticity, copyright an so forth has to be dealt with at Wikicommons. Now lets even imagine one would say its not the Dai-Gohonzon you would still contest the usage of ANY image of a Gohonzon used within Nichiren Shoshu. Right or wrong? Your religious reservations are of NO interest here. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Catflap08 -- I am not Noisemonkey. Scandiescot (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, the book (in isolation, not getting into what they've found on Wikicommons) still verifies that it is the correct design, though. The basis for the argument that the photo is not of the Dai Gohonzon is that authors can make mistakes, which is a double edged sword if not wielded hypocritically, and can mean that Pickover did not know about the photo in our article (that he had to get another author to give him the images indicates that). And again, if the image is the correct design (which no one is claiming it's not), it still has a place in the article -- attempting to only remove it instead of changing the caption shows that the editors doing so are only acting out of religiously motivated censorship, and have no right to edit the article at all, if not the encyclopedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Page Protection

I asked for the page to be protected.--Catflap08 (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

@User:Fujimann: This edit is unsourced and needs rephrasing because it can not be said in Wikipedias voice (Nichiren Shoshu adherents believe that ...). Please add a reliable source and rephrase to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:V. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In other words, Wikipedia is neither pulpit nor pew. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason I restore the multiple issue is that no one have do a proper evaluation on the article. Oshwah, please do a proper evaluation before removing the tag. Kelvintjy (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

SGI Denies Dai-Gohonzon

In November 2014 the executive board of Soka Gakkai Intenational (SGI) decided that the Dai-Gohonzon has no meaning at all, which is completely absurd. This is one of the biggest slanders against the law. There version of the Dai-Gohonzon is a gohonzon inscribed by Nissho Shonin. We ask all SGI members, "Do you really want to follow Gakkai?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.97.110 (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Question: why are most of the references Nichiren Shoshu's own writings, when there are so many academic sources that could be used? Also, why is there no mention of the relationship with the Soka Gakkai before "the end of World War II"? Thanks. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Daveler16 Well to be honest it might be the case that what you have listed might not help much to describe Nichiren Shoshu. As an observer I do not get the impression that the issues you have listed are not much of a concern within Nichiren Shsohu let alone describing its dogma. In respect to it’s per World War II stance one is advised to look at Buddhism in general in Japan. To my knowledge no Japanese Buddhist School, nor organisation, seriously opposed the Japanese expansion policy per se. If any group or faith did at the time speak out in opposition to war crimes and atrocities this should indeed be mentioned in the respective article. SGI is just one of the groups, formerly affiliated with Nichiren Shoshu that have been expelled or distanced themselves as explained in the article. Reading material on and offline SG/SGI is not much of a subject within NST as we are talking of incidents having taken place more than 20 years ago. Please do get yourself familiar on how to edit talk pages as sources included by you seem to appear below my entry.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The difficulty of the relationship between NS and the Soka Gakkai takes up over a third of the very long SG entry. Either it merits less there, or more here. Or both. I think it's rather indisputable that the only reason anyone outside of Japan (and possibly few outside of Shizuoka) would ever have heard of Nichiren Shoshu were it not for that relationship. I think also that it's been established on other entries for religions that their history colors their current status and value. Aside from that, I think there are various sources that address the omission of any mention of the Dai Gohonzon from the time of Nichiren until about the 9th High Priest, the inscription of Gohonzon for the defeat of Russia in the Russo-apanese War, the machinations of various priests during WW2. Don't be concerned, though - I haven't edited this page, and so have no intention of doing so until participating here on the Talk page for a while. Also, it;s certainly not my main concern. I'm just kind of surprised that previous editors have let some things slide that are easy to discover.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Perosnally I believe the Dai-Gohonzon to be a fake in sense what NST makes of it – and to the extent what SGI made of it prior to the split – up until then SGI was quite willing to carry the faithful flock in bus loads to Taiseki-ji. The doubts about authenticity of the Dai-Gohonzon can be found though either via articles on the subject or sources. If it is however, the real mc coy or not, THE main object of worship to NST. If the issues of authenticity should be made part of the article please note that doubts about the authenticity of the Dai-Gohonzon predates the split between SGI and NST by decades … if not centuries. It is no news. Please note that serious Buddhist Studies may have touched one of the subjects long before any sectarian split paid attention to them. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

It appears that user Tokubarai is closely associated with the subject of Nichiren Shoshu, and is perhaps a paid employee of the Nichiren Shoshu temple organization. The vast majority of edits Tokubarai has posted on multiple subjects refer only to Nichiren Shoshu and appear to be aimed at propaganda for the Nichiren Shoshu organization. This includes photos he claimed are his "own creation" that are photographed from vantage points within the Nichiren Shoshu head temple that no one but employees could access (such as the balcony behind/above where the high priest sits). He also regularly takes the stance of the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood in his edits, and his edits regularly fail to include any third-party or neutral sources. Therefore, it appears that @Tokubarai has a major conflict of interest WP:CONFLICT and external relationship with the subject WP:EXTERNALREL as well as possibly being paid by the subject WP:PAY. Haroli43 (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)