Talk:Soka Gakkai

SGI & Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Edits

I set the changes back made by User :Naveen Reddy as the AnomieBOT only restored the references. Sentences like “Shit this article stinks, stinks like with your dirty minds and motives who foolishly dare to malign a organization like SGI” neither help the article nor the talk page and do raise some doubts about SGI's adherents active in Wikipedia. --Catflap08 (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Catflap ! Please enlighten me what kind of doubts arose in ur mind ? If I'm right you are solely concerned and work on only few articles in wikipedia like SGI Daisaku Ikeda and your contribution in those articles is negetive propaganda. Wont it raise doubts about your intentions, that you are one of those persons who belong to a group or organisation anti to Soka gakkai and who's sole aim is to malign Soka gakkai and people concerned !! Why did you revert my edit ? I made it look better "SGI is not a business entity which sells happiness,benefits and prosperity...We are a faith group we chant "nam myoho renge kyo "and we get courage wisdom and compassion in our daily lives. We work along with our mentor Daisaku Ikeda for betterment of ourselves and the society we live in.,... whom you labelled as a cult leader who is power hungry and greedy !! with your fishy references !! which serve only one purpose which is to malign SGI and Daisaku Ikeda. Have you ever thought how can a person or organisation can keep 12 million people around the world in an illusion and fool them and get around 200 honorary doctorates, meet so many well known personalities like politicians, artists and academicians and fool around with them. Would they even care to meet a person if he is like what you people are trying to portray ?? ..... Naveen Reddy 13:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC) (talk)

In general I stay clear from editing articles like SGI or on its president for over a year now and keep myself mostly to contribute on the talk page. I do however interfere when it comes to edits that could be regarded as vandalism. Reverting already starts with the first paragraph – SGI may say it has has 12 Million members … other sources including official japaneses ones do doubt that number. This continues throughout your deletion process.--Catflap08 (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

User :Naveen Reddy, if you are editing as a member, then there is a COI problem. Also if you are a member and write something like that, I can only imagine what the readings are teaching you about the negativity you are eliciting in the world. Have you reached 3:20 mins a day of 1 million daimokus chanting? Work on that please instead of converting people to your cause with abuseLihaas (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Reddy “We work along with our mentor Daisaku Ikeda for betterment of ourselves and the society we live in ...” if that means betterment then it can not get much worse. So far you and Safwan have set a prime example of why the organisation you yourself have declared to represent are regarded with suspicion in the first place. From my point of view you can corrupt this article to your hearts content. I do not care as again it will then represent SGI. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Pointing to Safwan or Naveen as "examples" in why to regard SGI " with suspicion" - this quality of attitude of personal attacks should be banned in Wikipedia. I had no time lately to even quickly view the Article or Talk page (only now an exception) as I have more important projects at hand. This means I will not have the privilege to read others comments for a while.

When the time is appropriate, the Article will change to a balanced and neutral edit. Universities and cultural institutions which were approached by Wikipedia in its projects - will also be asked to share in editing. Defaming SGI on Wikipedia is a case for Conflict of Interests and Conflict of Information.

It must be clear that among a spectrum of far-right to far-left opponents of SGI, some of those who attack SGI are the same who deny the Holocaust and vandalise books about Anne Franks and other, and while this is a FACT not a Fishy reference - then it will be also mentioned in the Article. To define an organization, both supporters and its opponents should be mentioned - including the rewards of recognitions of SGI by impartial neutral sources such as the UN, Gandhi Institute, Martin Luther King Jr Moorehouse Chaple... as well as meetings with world figures: Mandela, Margret Tatcher, Gorbachev, Linus Pauling... Yes, I know that I am repeating this coming approach in editing, and this to help expand the horizon for both neutral editors and opponents to SGI. Opponents to SGI will come to slowly understand that emotionalism, religious hatred and politicizing the article - will be exposed and will lose before the mature attitude of humanistic coexistence of all religions and accepting the reality of facts as provided by RS. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Mr Lihaas, Am I eliciting negetivity ? I'm fighting negetive propaganda against SGI/Sensei. Please, Don't undermine a practitioner !.People here are not so naive or innocent as you think ! they are here with a solid purpose. I don't have any regrets in pointing out what they did and doing wrf to SGI and Daisaku Ikeda pages. I will fight till the end ! Naveen Reddy 16:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Mr Catflap For your hurting words the following sentences from "Writings of Nichiren Daishonin" will suffice as an answer The “Teacher of the Law” chapter reads,“Since hatred and jealousy toward this sutra abound even when the Thus Come One is in the world, how much more will this be so after his passing?”,,,The “Encouraging Devotion” chapter reads, “Many ignorant people will attack us with swords and staves . . .again and again we will be banished.”The “Peaceful Practices” chapter states,“It [the Lotus Sutra] will face much hostility in the world and be difficult to believe.” Writings of Nichiren Daishonin Pg 200, Regards Naveen Reddy 16:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveen Reddy (talk • contribs)

You just keep on fighting - who cares anyway. You carry on with your edits and the article will be a perfect reflection of your org - absurd.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

When my niece, a Soka Gakkai member, became aware of my participation on the Wikipedia entry for Soka Gakkai, she sent me the book “Encountering the Dharma” by Richard Seager. I just finished it and was very impressed by his conclusions. I think he explains the political agenda behind the press vilification of the Soka Gakkai quite well. One of his references was to a 1965 New York Times Magazine article on the Soka Gakkai in which he points out that the Times “dismissed charges that the Gakkai was fascist or even right wing.” (P. 69) He also writes: “I think it is time to cease being overly intrigued by the Soka Gakkai’s history of controversy.” (P. 209) I again submit that Wikipedia referring to the accusation that the Soka Gakkai is fascist (or quasi-fascist) is not applicable to this religion and the accusation should not continue to be perpetrated by Wikipedia. WmSimpson (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)WmSimpson 4-8-2014

Prime source removal

These are not inherently bad sources. They just need due caveat, if one is to add it back it would need the caveat of where the source is [1](Lihaas (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)).

There surely are bad sources especially in controversial issues. Even more so if the sources are identical to the organisation in question. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User Ubikwit, sabotage

I think User ubikwit be warned about sabotage. He removed the lines about SGI's nuclear weapon disarmament efforts sourced from UN office of disarmament affairs. Naveen Reddy 16:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveen Reddy (talk • contribs)

A New Section: Who Opposes SGI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SGI CULTural movement

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

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

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

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