Talk:Soka Gakkai

Criticism of Soka Gakkai: suggested edit

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New edited Intro

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

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

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

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

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

Here is something incorporating the research of various encyclopedias:

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History edit

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2014

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

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

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

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

Reverted rewrite

I removed a rewrite that contained:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seeking clarification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Ubikwit. I understand what you are saying. My apologies. My wife accuses me of the same.

FetullahFan (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

The rapid expansion of the SG started with Toda's inauguration in 1951. It took form with Ikeda's assignment to Bunkyo and Kamata chapters in 1952-1953. From the organization's perspective, the case study of rapid expansion in the 1957 propagation campaign in Kansai is told in Volume 10 of Ikeda's "The Human Revolution," pp. 1305-1494.. It is admitted primary source material but certainly more detailed than Kitigawa's single sentence of condemnation. Readers will have to decide whether the expansion was "unscrupulous," "aggressive," "conversion by sword" or an organized outpouring of the efforts of grassroots members. Clark Strand reports on his visits with members who participated in this campaign. . The explosive expansion ended in 1971 with Ikeda's announcement of a "second phase" to the movement.

~~

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

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

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

The attempt to remove scholarly sources here is highly problematic.

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

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

Ubikwit, I looked at the links you shared. Thank you - I think they actually strengthen my argument. [WP:NOTNEWS]] may not actually be relevant to this entry, but to the extent it is relevant, it states: "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion..." More relevant, I think, to this discussion is the next section: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", which begins: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true or even verifiable does not automatically make something suitable for incllusion in the encyclopedia."

And in WP:RECENTISM we find this, under "Article Imbalance": "Subjects with a long history might be described in purely modern terms, even though they were more significant in the past than they would be today. Even when the topics remain significant, articles can cover the subject as if the most recent events were the salient, defining traits." --~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveler16 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me or did BrandenburgG edit the post made by Daveler16 – [edit 31 july 14]same person maybe ??--Catflap08 (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Just be on the safe side, without hinting at anyone, and in case some editors may not be aware of it. Please take a note of this guideline: WP:SOC.--Catflap08 (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Shii: As Catflap mentioned above, there is no consensus for removing the three sources. I simply don't have time to look at them at present, so won't contest it until I do.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how a book on Scientology could be a RS on Soka Gakkai in any conceivable context. Shii (tock) 16:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have now been reverted by Catflap but he didn't answer my question. Talk page first, people. Shii (tock) 17:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I took another stab, adding some references and keeping the ones we have been arguing over. I still think some of those should be removed (and some might think some of my new ones should be removed - but I hope not!) So this is, I suspect, a temporary fix. --Daveler16 (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@ Shii It might be useful to cite the full quote as Scientology and SGI do share the same tactics.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break!

This is getting ridiculous. Catflap is just undoing things with no discussion, no justification. I have undone her revert, and I ask that there be a discussion before any changes are made. I as much as invited it (or so I thought) when I made the change - and posted about it here on the Talk page. --Daveler16 (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If reliable sources compare SG to Scientology, there is a reason for that, and it may very well have a place in the context of this article. There would appear to be commonalities between the two "new religious movements"; moreover, I gather from the discussion of the Wallis source that scholars and other reliable sources have made the connection.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Full context is as follows: "The manipulationist movements appear, in terms of numbers of recruits and income, to be among the more successful of the new religions in industrial societies. Within this category fall Christian Science, the Japanese movement Soka Gakkai, Transcendental Meditation, and the subject of the present work, Scientology."

There is no data here. In a book about Scientology, this is obviously not satisfactory as a reliable claim about Soka Gakkai, and to put it in this article is a blatant appeal to authority. Furthermore, like the Kitagawa source, it was published almost 40 years ago and is therefore ancient in terms of its methodology. There are much newer and more useful outside sources. Shii (tock) 22:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shii: OK, thanks. I don't think that belongs in the lead, but the fact that SG has been catagorized in that manner could be mentioned in the "public perceptions" section.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are the changes I made to the text of the 2nd paragraph: I replaced a comma with a period. I added a sentence at the end with a citation to a website that I think meets all the requirements for a good reference. Those are the substantive changes. I have seen no arguments at all about either of these things, but one person keeps undoing this work. I also added citations - which are not tied to anything new, and which do not at all change the paragraph itself -- and have seen no argument at all against those - which I indicated above I am happy to discuss. The closest thing to an "discussion" has been an argumentative statement in the Edit Summary, which I have not understood is a substitute for discussion on a Talk page.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Daveler16: You have a good idea for the lead but two problems: (1) The lead should be summarizing the article, so put a longer explanation in the article. (2) You don't have good sources for what you are claiming. A book called "Planetary Citizenship" is not WP:RS regardless of who publishes it, and "Buddhism: A Way of Values" does not sound very good either. The Seager source may be decent, but provide a page number and a quote. Shii (tock) 01:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, understood. But NeilN removed the last sentence and I don't see an explanation other that "ask.com is not a RS". I checked the RS page, and don't really saee how he reached that conclusion.--70.181.118.149 (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Changed citations - no Middleway or SG pubs. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Issue on “the split”

I made the separation issue again a separate point in SGI’s history. Although some, even current SGI members, say quite bluntly it was a money and power issue the facts are quite simple. SGI was stripped of its status within Nichiren Shoshu same goes for its members later on – those are the simple facts. SGI was kicked out. Any views on how each side regarded the issue should and must be regarded as views as the facts speak for themselves there is NO beating around the bush on this one. I would however advise any editor to be careful to beat the anti-authoritarian drum when it comes to SGI’s current structure. Many editors spend much time here to make a bogeyman out of everyone who holds different or critical views on SGI rather to focus on defining SGI’s belief structure. Some may find the current version of the article overly critical of SGI but this is due to the article’s history as it once was entirely based on primary, hence SGI’s own, sources. I know it’s a bit difficult to find non-primary sources on SGI that describe what SGI’s religious practise is all about – but that has its reasons. SGI defines itself largely on conflict – them against us. Once an editor complained why this article can not be more descriptive like the one on Nichiren Shohsu and Nichiren Shu. The thing is – they have a doctrine that can be described and that does not change in every blue moon. Even their historic conduct and misconduct can be described in a larger historic context. Adherents of SGI however try to portray it with a halo that simply does not match reality. Hence secondary sources that would confirm such halo are hard to find.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

New description of Makiguchi's theories

I think this has been controversial, but I am removing the quote "We must make our children thoroughly understand that loyal service to their sovereign is synonymous with love of country." and replacing it with a new description of Makiguchi's educational theories. He may well have said this. But this is the kind of thing that you had to say in prewar Japan if you wanted to teach. It's hardly accurate to single out this one quote. As we note ourselves later in the article, he died in prison for insisting that the Emperor was human. -- Margin1522 (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you should get yourself familiar with the subject before you delete references, as it is his own discription of his theories. Especially since this section covers the early years of SG’s foundation. Modern views should and could be placed in sections were it is appropriate Engaged Buddhism: A Skeleton in the Closet? by Brian Daizen Victoria --Catflap08 (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It is also worth to note Makiguchi’s early involvement with Kokuchūkai and Tanaka Chigaku. Since SG and SGI are and always have been confronted with certain allegations I see no reason to brush under the carpet were those allegations originate from – what SGI is portrayed as today is left to today’s analysts. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

To respond to your points, my addition was a description of his theories from 1919 up to the SG foundation. That is exactly the period in question. It was an accurate description of the central point of the book, and the reason why it is called the "creating value" society. Do we explain that anywhere else? The quote it replaced sounds like something that could have come from a nationalist Emperor worshiper, which he was not, although you seem to want to argue that he was. I'll repeat, the SG was regarded as a subversive organization during the war, and Makiguchi starved to death in prison for insisting that the Emperor was human. I have no intention of getting involved in an edit war over the Soka Gakkai. But it seems that other people who try to bring a more neutral tone into this article have complained about having their edits deleted. I think that should stop. -- Margin1522 (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, SG refused to install the talisman according to State Shinto that was about it – SG never ever was a resistance movement – the conflicts were on religious but not political grounds. And as I explained earlier Makiguchi was indeed involved with Kokuchūkai. As we look at the organisation’s history one should also quote the founders thoughts. That they may have changed over the years – fine. But no brushing under the carpet please! How SGI views those early years, how it portrays itself can by all means be mentioned – but white washing is a no go and deleting quotes that some may find uncomfortable is not on. Simple as that. And again one quote describes SGI’s split from Nichiren Shoshu as a move of democratisation – fine so it may be, but as a reader I would like to see evidence of SGI being an organisation with democratic structures. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

To add a little to Catflap's accurate reply, a more literal retanslation of 「創価学会」 would be something along the lines of "study group for creating social value".

The Soka Gakkai was never intended to be more than a study group within Nichiren-Shoshu when it was established. The fact that they kept the same name after being expelled doesn't serve as a basis for mistranslated the name of the group. Where, incidentally, are you taking that specific translation from?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:03, 31 July 2014; 18:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

What's the problem? 創価 means "create value" and "society" is a standard translation for 学会, as in 米国気象学会 = American Meteorological Society. -- Margin1522 (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Nichiren Shoshu that is not Shu :-) --Catflap08 (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, "Shoshu"; fixed.

The problem is that the group was not an independent organization when founded, but a layman group under the umbrella of Nichiren Shoshu. The translation of 学会 as "society" is fine for independent organizations, and may have more validity after the split, but seems to be a misrepresentation of the group vis-a-vis its status before the split. The translation of 創価 as "Value creation" or the like is probably OK on its own, but Using "society"The overall translation doesn't convey the nuances of the Japanese, either. Incidentally, I note that the SGI webpage doesn't use an English translation of the name for the group, but they do mention a literal translation of the characters

The Soka Gakkai (literally, "Society for the Creation of Value")

The translation I suggested also is problematic because it over-defines "value", but using value by itself sounds awkward, and "association" might be better than society. Here is a multi-page list of hits from an online dictionary for 学会.

The American Meteorological Society is a an independent group that studies meteorology.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision drafts

There has been a complaint at the Teahouse about the use of footnotes on this Talk page. I'd like to remind everyone that the Talk page of an article is for discussing the article, not for developing revision drafts (complete with footnotes). If we want to develop extensive revisions, then we should create a subpage under the Talk page and do it there. Or the editor proposing the revisions can create the new version as a subpage on his own User page, and invite other editors to comment on that. About creating subpages, see Wikipedia:Subpages. Thanks. -- Margin1522 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

About the neutrality of this article, the Soka Gakkai is a controversial organization. The Japanese version of this article is a massive article with three separate sections and thousands of words detailing the various scandals, exposés, incidents, and negative publicity surrounding the Soka Gakkai. But at least that content is factored out into separate sections. In this article, the negative tone seems to pervade the entire article. The word "cult" is used at least five times. I would like to suggest that this material (the "dumped safe", the "aggressive proselytizing", the "raccoon dog festival" incident and so on) be moved to its own section or sections. I'm not suggesting that it be deleted, or "balanced" with counterarguments. Simply that most sections of the article would benefit from a more neutral tone. -- Margin1522 (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If you would like to take that challenge on your shoulders I guess you are more than welcome to do so. I keep my edits on the page per se to a bare minimum at this point since I was at one stage simply sick and tired to deal with continuous counterarguments by the group’s adherents. This in an old version of the article was done by using primary sources and defaming non-primary sources on a regular basis. The ongoing difficulty in this article is that active adherents of the group dismay critical views full stop and regard them as attacks. Your description of the Japanese article seems to underline the controversial nature of the organisation in question. What would be most beneficial to the article would be an expansion of the belief section and also organisational structure. As SGI after “the split” underlined its role as fighting authoritarian issues in respect to its mother organisation I would like to see evidence of a democratisation process within SGI’s own structure – I was however unable to find any evidence let alone material on that one so far. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

To me it looks like the controversy in the Japanese article has less to do with the organization itself than with the fact that these stories are a staple of the tabloid-style weekly magazines, who never pass up a chance to bash the Soka Gakkai. As often as not they turn out to be baseless, but it sells because it appeals to the right-wing populist segment of their readership, who dislike the Komeito's politics, in particular its defense of Japan's social safety net and pacifist constitution. But be that as it may. With my contribution I was trying to explain why the organization has the name it does. I deleted the previous quote not because I'm trying to brush "allegations" "under the carpet" but because I think it is seriously misleading. The central religious question of his time was whether military aggression was the will of an infallible divine being (the Emperor). He said no. I don't think we should imply that he meant yes. But whether I can convince you of that shouldn't matter. My addition cited a overview of the literature by an expert in the subject, which is the best kind of source for an encyclopedia. I shouldn't have to convince you that my view is correct, or that I'm "familiar with the subject", or whether it was a good faith edit. I have as much right to edit this article as you do, and every contribution should stand on its own merits. -- Margin1522 (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Margin, I would laugh but I can't muster even a giggle. Every last primary source reference I provided, the very words of Toda, Ikeda, and Nichiren has been stricken from the record by the SGIphilic crowd [members]. Disingenuous comes to mind. Mark Rogow 08/06/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD27:DB49:845F:E6B2:FE26:FB17 (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see it. From your description it sounds like you were engaged in original research, namely offering your own interpretation of "primary sources" in the normal sense of "the very words". At Wikipedia, we don't do that. --Margin1522 (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

What you are looking at is part of the history of the organization. It's not a criticism of the organization, it is an encyclopedic summary of events that really happened. What would a "counterargument" be to the "raccoon dog festival"? Nonsense. Shii (tock) 17:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, but "it happened" is no reason why we have to mention it. Lots of things happened. Is there no other reason why this organization grew so fast other than "aggressive proselytizing"? That would be a counterargument, and it wouldn't be "nonsense". Which BTW is a word that we shouldn't be using here, if I could point that out. -- Margin1522 (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"Lots of things happened." Lots of things that did not personally involve Daisaku Ikeda. You have a lot of nerve to be accusing the editors of this article of bias when you are basically attempting to whitewash Soka Gakkai's history of some of its most important events. Shii (tock) 06:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said I was talking of an OLD version of this article in which any kind of critical remarks were “counterargumented”– mostly using primary sources. He, baut they said, but SGI says, but she says etc etc --Catflap08 (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The "raccoon dog festival" amongst other issues has and should be mentioned as long as editors strongly connected to SGI try construct a certain halo that is not justified. So either one decides to dump the history section or one is allowed to tell the organisation’s history. A History that it might not be proud of but also a history that many are not aware of. Yet again I ask for proof of its democratic structures which should by all means be part of the article – as if those structures do even exist. For that reason the quote No. 64 "A spirit of openness, egalitarianism, and democratization pervaded the SG, embodying and giving new life to the idea of self-empowerment. In 1991, these liberalizing developments led to the split between the Japan-oriented, priestly Nichiren Shōshū and the lay-based, globalized SGI”. I want to see proof of that. In the year 2014 – if not its simply PR-material. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Catflap—RE: mentorship section: I don't understand why the publisher of a book supersedes the credibility of an author. Strand has been published by several firms. He is who he is. What's the deal? Ltdan43 (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Middleway Press is owned by SGI, they publish SGI material solely – The quote as it appeared made it look like a non-primary source which it is clearly not. Strand therefore defines SGI’s view – it should be then identified as such. WP:PSTS--Catflap08 (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Margin1522: Sorry there is no beating around the bush on this one – aggressive proselytising has been part of the organisation for most part of its history. This continued well into the 1980’s . It has reached its peak in terms of growth as most observers would agree upon. When having a history section in the article this amongst other issues has to be mentioned. It has moved to the fringe of Buddhism in general and indeed even within Nichiren Buddhism. Even though out of print I would strongly recommend reading “Fire in the Lotus” by Montgomery which to my mind is at this point the only books that gives a neutral overview on Nichiren Buddhism. I would also recommend to set aside some time in reading the article’s history.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Catflap—OK, you got me now. How come Wikipedia uses SGI sources on the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren entries? Are they valid or not? Do we have to vet every credible expert based on who publishes their works? Since when are respectable sources defined by their publisher?Ltdan43 (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that some of the editors here are misinterpreting the primary sources policy. Primary sources are materials like census data, frequently cited by editors engaged in original research or axe-grinding. But this group seems to think that primary sources are any and all sources connected to SGI, which must be disallowed. This is clearly overreach. When you have a question about Catholic doctrine, it's OK to cite a Catholic theologian or The Catholic Encyclopedia.

Meanwhile we are allowing sources like The Road to Total Freedom: A Sociological Analysis of Scientology. How is that relevant, unless the goal is to imply that both Scientology and the Soka Gakkai are deviant religions? And we allow conspiracy theories sourced to Shukan Shincho, one of those tabloid-style weeklies I refered to earlier, which are notorious for irresponsible journalism.

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid this article has a serious POV problem. It reads like a systematic attempt to paint the organization in an unfavorable light, as if it had been dogged by scandal at every step in its history. There is blatant editorializing (the new "Leadership" section). Many of the few sympathetic statements are followed by a "but" that immediately takes it back. So, I'm going to tag it as POV, something I've never done before. And if possible I think the tag should stay for a while, to give other editors a chance to work on these issues. -- Margin1522 (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The National Enguirer too is notorious for irresponsible journalism, yet, the Enquirer broke nearly a dozen major stories proven to be true. Each story should be taken on its own merit. Where have I heard that before, Margin1522? Mark Rogow 08/06/2014

Sure, mixed in along with the baseless slander and unsourced accusations, every now and then the shukanshi will break a story that turns out to be true. Typically involving drugs, money, or sex. In that case, it will be taken up by a major newspaper. There's no need to quote the shukanshi when we can quote a newspaper. The same goes for the National Enguirer. --Margin1522 (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The bias and distortion on SGI page has a cause. It is not a coincidence that reference to the Japanese version of SGI has been mentioned above; it is plain obvious that the Japanese opponents of SG has their motivation and benefit in distorting the image of the SG. Any reasonable person can understand this fact. I do not believe that Jimmy Wales agrees for Wikipedia to become a tool for service of the Japanese politics. While Wikipedia is a huge establishment with various departments and divisions, the responsibility for allowing for bias comes rather upon the department or section of Religion related articles.

In a previous Talk, there was an open admission from administrative editors that - in their opinion - SGI belongs to so called "new religions", "cults" etc... such as Scientology, Mormons and so forth. With this arbitrarily invented classification, the text of SGI article is made to suit that unsubstantiated understanding. In this Talk page above the Catholic Encyclopedia was mentioned (regarding RS) and of course it is understandable that a Catholic Encyclopedia would express its own vision about new religious movements. And a Nichiren Shoshu editor here would also 'see' SGI from the perspective of Shoshu, and so does an editor motivated by Japanese right-wing fanaticism...each would compete in taking part in the stabbing of SGI on Wikipedia. If this article is not intended for brainwashing of the masses of readers - then Neutrality requires that RS of independent scholars who perceive SGI as a progressive world peace movement, should be also included as well as SGI sources which refer to FACTS (such as activities for nuclear disarmament, exhibitions showing WWII concentration camps, Simon Weisenthal Centre, cooperation with Martin Luther King Jr related chapel etc...). These facts and current studies about SGI should be included in primary sources because they are facts not POV - otherwise the article becomes deception motivated. For example: Shakubuku in post war Japan and until the split with the priesthood: That was how the way the priesthood demanded proselytizing to be done because this was their understanding, but SGI since the 80-s changed Shoshu emotional propagation into dialogue and making friendship based on humanity. To ignore this fact and inflame issues of half a centaury ago - this does not agree with scholastic honesty.

One of the most ridiculous matters in the article is the Noriega link! There is no wise scholar who would associate him/herself with such immaturity in brainwashing readers about a "link" between Noriega and SGI, and this particular 'argument' against Ikeda was openly mentioned in the Encountering the Dharma (a RS) as a nonsensical attack against SGI. Ikeda met also hundreds of Noble Prize winners, head of states, a long list of supporters and they have also "links" with SGI, mutual exchange and over 60 books of dialogue on peace and humanism. The neutrality of this article is disputed not just over what I quickly here mentioned. The list is long, and will be addressed in details, but I do not intend to participate now as I am fully occupied with my studies, and haven't clicked on Wikipedia for months by now. Still few months to go, and I will be back. In the spirit of dialogue and cooperation with all editors, especially with opponents, I offer my respect, as I believe that the dispute is caused simply by misunderstanding of SGI. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@ Ltdan43. If you would care to read the guidelines on primary sources that should answer your question. The publisher IS SGI – so make it clear. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@ Safwan you do not seem to know what primary sources are in respect to Wikipedia guidelines WP:PSTS . When the organisation is described using primary sources is counterproductive. If no secondary and indeed tertiary sources can be found you have a weak case. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked up the "Encountering the Dharma" reference he mentioned and it doesn't say what he think it says. Basically the author took SGI's word for it and didn't look into the Noriega thing himself. Shii (tock) 17:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a couple of things. Shi, the "raccoon dog festival" is hardly "one of its most important events". It's not commemorated in the SG, it's not taught, it's not held up as an example of how to practice. As I understand it, the priest in question ended up a great supporter of Toda, and while there may have been some immediate disciplinary action, Toda spent the ensuing years embraced and supported by the priesthood: it was something that happened, was resolved, and had no lasting effect on any of the parties involved. None of this, of course, would be chronicled in a 3rd party publication - "Nothing of consequence happened", it would have to say - so I don't know how to resolve the citation issue without using either an SG source, or just common sense.

On Noriega (a similar situation, I think), here is exactly what Seagar says: "On Web sites styled as cult alerts with obscure, presumably unofficial links to Nichiren Shoshu, they cite, for instance, his acquaintance with Manuel Noriega, whom he met in 1974 during a stopover in Panama, and with Fidel Castro...Such spurious charges distort the meaning of Ikeda's networking and the resulting dialogues with (list of academics and Nobel laureates). These meetings serve a number of constructive ends, most basically that of satisfying Ikeda's passion for self education. They have played a crusial role in his journey into cosmopolitan complexity, becoming both pilgrimage and mission..." (p. 115). It may not call the allegations concerning Noriega "nonsensical", but it certainly undermines their importance and credibility; and it appears to me he did "look into it" himself, as he was aware of the websites he mentioned and their source, and rather than "take the SGI's word for it", he drew his own conclusions - and stated them clearly. Just my observation, fwiw. --Daveler16 (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"It's not commemorated in the SG, it's not taught, it's not held up as an example of how to practice. " I don't think you understand what Wikipedia is. We don't do PR for organizations. The Catholic Church may not want to put too much emphasis on the Inquisition or the Crusades today, but these things are still a major part of its history. We must record similar pivotal events in the history of Soka Gakkai, which involved current or future leaders of the organization, even if they are not given emphasis in primary sources. That is, to me, is common sense.

The key words in the Seagar book are, "whom he met in 1974 during a stopover in Panama" -- we now have reliable sources showing that Ikeda did much more than just that. In fact he named a garden in Tokyo after Noriega and provided him with social capital and financial support. Seagar does not mention this so his account of their relationship is not useful to us. Shii (tock) 20:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No wonder the "raccoon dog festival" is not remembered in SGI – what a surprise that would be. There are quite a few things in SGI that are not remembered and thaught. --Catflap08 (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said? Someone called the "Raccoon Dog" think "a significant" event. I said it was not - yes, from the SG perspective, but I also said "As I understand it, the priest in question ended up a great supporter of Toda, and while there may have been some immediate disciplinary action, Toda spent the ensuing years embraced and supported by the priesthood: it was something that happened, was resolved, and had no lasting effect on any of the parties involved. None of this, of course, would be chronicled in a 3rd party publication - "Nothing of consequence happened", it would have to say - so I don't know how to resolve the citation issue without using either an SG source, or just common sense." You left that part out when you answered me. Do you have a constructive suggestion for addressing that problem?

And Shi, I understand WP does not do PR for organizations. Does it do PR for an organizations enemies? Again, re: the incident in question, no one was hurt, everyone ended up as friends (at least for a while). By what stretch of the imagination is that comparable to the Inquisition? I would like a solution to the problem of balance, if y0u have one. And on Noriega, color it as you will, but Seagar did find that the negativity was coming from web sites connected to Nichiren Shoshu. I assume I can put that in the article? --Daveler16 (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@ Daveler16 We are talking of he “Racoon dog INCIDENT”. Exactly on what the article is about. It took place it did happen so be it. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Even though I did mention it earlier on I would like to highlight the following guideline : WP:SOC--Catflap08 (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC) I am really thinking of filing a complaint as I feel that there is some sock puppetry going on in here.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Claim of democratisation

The following quote is placed quite prominently within the “Separation from the Shōshū priesthood” section: “A spirit of openness, egalitarianism, and democratization pervaded the SG, embodying and giving new life to the idea of self-empowerment. In 1991, these liberalizing developments led to the split between the Japan-oriented, priestly Nichiren Shōshū and the lay-based, globalized SGI". Could anyone provide, especially secondary tertiary, sources which underlines the fact that such a democratisation process took and takes place within SGI? The only process I was aware of within SGI-UK was crushed.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The source is a review of the Seager book. If the claim can't be found in that book then the book review's rather grand claim is not reliable. Shii (tock) 01:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally I am not do bothered about the quote per se but rather the claim that it makes. Is SGI a democratically structured organisation or not? I guess it is not on that basis I find that quote should be deleted as it would be a POV.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit reversions

In [this dif], we see Daveler16 trying to add a Christmas tree worth of cites for the statement "The organization has received recognition for its peace activism", and one more cite for the statement "Others have concluded that the SGI doesn not meet the criteria to be called 'a cult'." In other words, he is trying to bring some balance to this article. And we see the additions being dismissively reverted with a curt "Not likely".
Now, I will admit that there were problems with the Christmas tree. We don't need 9 cites to make a single point. One or two is plenty. But Daveler16 is a new editor and maybe he doesn't know that yet. If that's the case, we can discuss it here at the Talk page. We could make suggestions, such as one or two is plenty, or if we really need 9 then perhaps they could be handled better in a single discursive footnote that says something about each book. What we don't need is to revert these cites outright, especially since one was to Seager, who has been cited elsewhere and is one of the basic references for this article.
About the second addition, I see no problem whatsoever, either with the statement or the cite.
Apparently Catflap08 still feels justified in removing any source connected in any way to SGI, and feels strongly enough it about to ignore any collateral damage. I made an argument against that view yesterday, but Catflap08 has failed to addressed it here in Talk page. Instead, we're getting the same pattern of aggressive reversions of every attempt to bring some balance into this article. If this continues, I'm afraid I'm going to have to take it up with whatever recourse we have for dealing with disruptive editing. -- Margin1522 (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The huge citation mess is not Daveler's fault, it is Catflap's too. Both of these editors need to skim our featured articles to see how good intros look. Shii (tock) 01:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hold your breath. In a “good” intro no references whatsoever should be found as it sums up the main article. --Catflap08 (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC) And for God’s sage Middleway Press IS SGI how can that not be a primary source! [[3]]Middleway Press --Catflap08 (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC) @ Margin1522 I feel it necessary to delete sources that make the reader believe they are non-primary sopurces.--Catflap08 (talk) 06:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Catflap08. I'd like to suggest rereading WP:USEPRIMARY. Whether a source is primary or not doesn't depend on the source's affiliation. It depends on whether it is primary or secondary as explained in the article. For example, the Book of Mormon and the personal writings of Joseph Smith are primary sources. A book about Joseph Smith is a secondary source if it provides "analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation" of these basic texts. We don't allow editors to offer their own interpretations of the basic texts. We do allow editors to cite interpretations published by someone else. For example, as long as it offers "analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation", a book about Joseph Smith is a secondary source. That is true even if it was written by a professor at BYU, which is owned and operated by the LDS Church, and published by the BYU Press. Do you see the point? Speeches by Ikeda to the UN are primary sources and we shouldn't cite those. But a book about the speeches could be a perfectly valid secondary source, even if it was written by a scholar at a university or institute that is owned and operated by SGI. It's OK to cite what scholars of a faith say about it, even if they are affiliated with the faith. In fact it's pretty hard to write an article without citing them. Do you see what I'm trying to say? -- Margin1522 (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That explanation elides the fact that the SG owned press is not a "third party", and therefore their publications are not thrid-party publications. Maybe WP:SELFPUBLISHED comes into play here to a certain degree. BYU is an accredited university, incidentally, not in the same category as a press operated by SG/SGI. Like other university presses, their works would almost always be subject to a peer-review process.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm eliding the fact because it's irrelevant to WP:USEPRIMARY and wasn't mentioned. There is no requirement on Wikipedia that a press be unaffiliated. The Catholic Encylopedia was edited by professors at Catholic universities and published by the Church. It's cited thousands of times. The Deseret News is cited nine times in the article on Joseph Smith, a "good article". Nobody complains that The Deseret News is a publishing arm of the LDS Church. On Marx and Brecht, we cite the publishing arm of the US Communist Party. Can you explain to me why those presses are OK, but Middleway Press is not?

I think this is fairly important principle. If you're going to insist on excluding Middleway Press from the article, I'm willing to take it to dispute resolution. I'm quite confident that a press can't be excluded on grounds of being a "primary source" or "self published". If you want to want to look for other grounds, go ahead, let's hear it. -- Margin1522 (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I take that back. We do have a list of companies engaged in the self-publishing business, namely presses where authors pay to have their books published. Needless to say, Middleway Press is not on it. If you want to argue that it should be on it because SGI uses it to publish itself, well, good luck with that. --Margin1522 (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

As Catflap mentioned above, the source can be used, with proper attribution. There are guidelines on using such sources. With regard to SG/SGI, Middleway Press is not a secondary source published by a reliable third-party.

What exactly is it that you are arguing for anyway? Does it relate to the following passage?

Soka Gakkai is a modern lay Buddhist movement. It is the largest Buddhist sect in Japan with 8 or more million members and an additional 4 million members in other countries. [8] “Soka Gakkai” translates as “Value-Creation Society.” The organization follows the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin (1222–82), a Japanese monk who crafted a reinterpretation of Buddhism based on the Lotus Sutra. Since its founding in 1930, The Soka Gakkai has been the object of a lot of criticism and even persecution. Unlike other Nichiren sects, Soka Gakkai does not have a class of priests, and its emphasis is on the practitioner rather than dogma.

That contains specious and spurious statements that have been debunked above, in particularly, the fallacious assertion that SG is a "sect" of Buddhism. If you have a reliable secondary source to support anything asserted in that primary source, then present it, otherwise, please stop the POV pushing based on the primary source. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

One thing I want to ask is, let's stop misusing the terms "primary" and "secondary" source. A primary source is data that requires interpretation, like census records. We discourage it because editors who use primary sources tend to be doing original research. Instead, we say use secondary sources, namely someone else's published interpretation. None of this has anything at all to do with the affiliations of an author or a publisher. -- Margin1522 (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I think SGI in general and Margin1522 specifically don't like primary sources because they [Lotus Sutra and Nichiren] either hang SGI or they [Makiguchi, Toda, and Ikeda] hang themselves. I believe that the reader can easily correctly interpret the words for themselves without having to rely on secondary or tertiary sources. Mark Rogow 08/06/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD27:DB49:845F:E6B2:FE26:FB17 (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That is an incomplete description of what "primary source" encompasses. Anything published by SG is a primary source about SG. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a PR website that re-presents organizations own (mis)representation of themselves to the reading public. SG is not a "sect"of Buddhism, for example, not matter what they or their misinformed members try to tell the public about themselves. Can I make that any more clear? I think that the example at hand is highly useful for illustrative purposes.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, but as it says in WP:USEPRIMARY, anything is a primary source for something. I really would like to suggest that you read through that guideline again, carefully, because the differences are a bit subtle. As it notes, there are three criteria to consider about sources for Wikipedia: (1) Is it self published? (2) Is it independent? (3) Is it primary? Those are three different criteria. What you and catflop are complaining about is (2), namely that Middleway Press is not "independent". You are objecting on grounds of WP:Independent sources, so that's what you should say. About "sect", that's Daveler16's word, not SGI's. And I have to say it looks like nitpicking to me. He was using the word in the way that we say "denomination" about groups of Christians, and you object that religious scholars don't use the word that way. Fine, so correct it. It's supposed to be a collaborative effort here. About the (mis)representations, that seems to me to be one of the biggest problems with this article. You guys appear to be on a mission to uncover things that SGI wants to hide ("sweep under the carpet", as catflop put it), and to show that its "representations" about itself are false. I think we have to be very careful about that. This shows up in all of the "while", "although", and "but" language is this article. For example, (SGI says A), "but" (Fact B). Now it may be true that SGI said A, and B may be a fact, with sources to prove it. But putting the two together to imply something is WP:SYNTHESIS, and we're not supposed to do that. Not that such an implication is banned. But we have to find a published source that puts A and B together in a package for us to use, so that we can say "It's not Wikipedia making those (negative) implications, we're just quoting somebody else." -- Margin1522 (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally I do not really care who is on what List. If Wikipedia is not up to date – so be it. Middleway Press is owned by SGI – just look up the homepage. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Also I do not object primary sources – but what I do object to is making them look like a non-primary sources. If beliefs are described – fine they should know best what or what not they believe in. If it comes to controversial matters things are quite different. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Catflap, please, let me repeat, a source is not "primary" just because it is affiliated with SGI. Those are two different things. If you mean "SGI-affiliated" you should say that. Calling these sources "primary" will just confuse people who expect the word to have its normal meaning. Anyway, thank you for not reverting the SGI-affiliated cites. That was my main concern. I hope I've addressed your concerns by moving the cites from the lead down into the body of the text, and making Urbain's affiliation clear. The Pacifism section needs to be expanded further, and since Daveler16 has done the work of providing page numbers, I think that could be done by going through these cites one by one and providing a short summary or quote from each one. -- Margin1522 (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW: Over at the WP entry for Nichiren Shoshu. there are 17 citations. Numbers 1,2 and 4 are to the website "Nichiren Shoshu Myokan-ko Official Website". Number 3 is to the "Nichiren Shoshu Temple" website. Numbers 5 through 9 are to various archives of the "NSglobalnet" website. So over half of the entry is based on Nichiren Shoshu's own writings - not subsidiaries of NS, mind you, but the actual subject of the article itself. Don't know if this is illuminating for this discussion, but it doesn seem interesting. --Daveler16 (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Daveler16 When it comes to the concepts a school believes in it comes natural to cite primary sources as they should know best what there teachings are about. In matters of dispute especially theses sources become somewhat redundant if not marked as being a primary source i.e. what other think of the matter. The schools you mentioned do their thing, believe in what ever they want to believe and their adherents do simply not sell their belief as the best thing since the invention of sliced bread. SGI’s has strived out into politics economics (businesses it holds). So it is what is is not a faith per se but an organisation. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Misunderstanding Primary Sources

Some of current editors of this article seem to misunderstand the guideline for citing Sources. Go to: WP:PSTS, and read: “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources”. Apparently, the wording of this clear guideline does not completely (or utterly) exclude Primary Sources. A PSource can refer to a neutral fact. On the other hand it is reasonable to reject a PS if its essence is propaganda; this is fair because Wikipedia does not do PR for organizations.

However, some of WP Administrative editors seem to misunderstand what PR is. A citation of Self-praise is one thing – and citing impartial verifiable facts is completely another. To explain: there is a difference between a PS saying : “SGI is working for world peace”, an apparent self-judgement by SGI, and between “SGI president published proposals for peace”, or “ SGI held meetings with Gorbachev”, etc… which describe Facts. Note that the noise made about Noriega in the article uses an undeniable Fact (but the conclusion of making a “link” a ridiculous POV). Discerning Facts from POV is important. Facts that impartially reveal SGI activities in meeting Castro, Noriega, Mandela, Kissinger etc…belong to the same category – and hence should be equally mentioned even by PS - as these Facts are shared with world figures. Facts are not fabricated POVs. And any reasonable person would accept that Facts are different from PR, such as internal statement by SGI about itself (and which would have been otherwise a PR).

Neutral editing should refer to SGI link with Goethe Institute, Martin Luther King Jr chapel …etc… in the very same way other Facts should be presented with honesty and without fear from the truth. Wikipedia guidelines do not reject a reliable and traceable PS (SGI Quarter for example detailing a meeting between SGI and Simon Wisenthal Centre) – because this is a mere Fact describing a real SGI shared activity. Some editors, however, do not agree because they do not understand WP guidelines (and which does not consider PS as utterly unacceptable – as these editors mistakenly think).

This means that PS can be used if presented Facts relate to events which are shared with world institutions. The idea that PS are absolutely unacceptable in WP is simply incorrect. Nevertheless, with the current misunderstanding of Administrative editors of the margin of using PS – there seem to be no other way than to present this matter to the opinion of the cultural institutions (whose shared activities with SGI is rejected by WP Admin Editors).

Engaging cultural establishments, universities, human rights institutions in the subject of editing citing facts about these establishments and cultural institutions - is beneficial for neutral editing, and would protect Wikipedia from bias. Yes, there is a solution to the problem of WP editors misunderstanding WP guidelines, which is found in the following post on the Necessity to Help Wikipedia’s neutrality. Regards to all. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

We have already put in the article that the acquisition of personal awards and honors for Ikeda has been budgeted by the Gakkai as "charity services". We could add that one of these honors was purchased from the Goethe-Gesellschaft (not the Goethe-Institut as you've repeatedly claimed on this page), but how would that add to the article? I don't understand your point. Shii (tock) 13:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting note BTW, Soka Gakkai's website says that Ikeda received a "special commendation" but the Goethe-Gesellschaft website says that he didn't receive any honors from them. It looks like they gave him a medal made by Johann Gottfried Schadow without officially commending him for anything. Shii (tock) 13:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Goethe-Gesellschaft page that you cited was for their Golden Goethe Medal, which is their highest honor, and for honorary membership, and he didn't get either of those. Here is their page for the medal they did give him, which as you say seems to be a special honor. I wasn't able to find anyone else who got that medal. The German page is quite fulsome in its praise of Ikeda and a bit more detailed than the one at SGI. For example, it mentions the Culture Center Villa Sachsen, Germany, a place that Goethe visited and wrote about, which is owned and operated by SGI. (Also BTW, apparently a lot of different Goethe medals and awards are given out in Germany. One of them is from the Goethe-Institut, and we even have a Goethe Medal page about it. So maybe that is where the confusion came from. It wasn't that one.) -- Margin1522 (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is possible that Ikeda simply purchased the medal from them. After all, it is an antique and a museum piece, and apparently did not come with any formal honors. Just my speculation though. Shii (tock) 15:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a donation involved somewhere. Although of course we don't know what it was for or who got it.

BTW, about the "budgeted... as 'charity services'" quote, it seems you posted it. Do you still have that book? The quote is missing at least a few characters gramatically and it seems to conflate two separate passages. We are the only site on the Internet that quotes the first part, but I found the second part quoted at one other site. He got an award (probably a plaque or something like that) in 1984 from a charitable organization in Brazil. So it doesn't really say what our translation says it does. Also I think the author is fairly dubious. He makes his living writing books that attack the Gakkai and expose the underbelly of Japanese politics. Black money, etc. I would surprised if he named any of his sources. Political reporters in Japan almost never do. So at first glance it looks like we have a scandal monger who deals in unverifiable allegations, with a financial interest in attacking the Gakkai. Not the kind of source we should be relying on. I think we should consider scrapping that whole note. --Margin1522 (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's worth discussing, but I think it is RS. It's cited in a book published by Routledge: [4] And in a Japanese academic work: [5] (p. 64). The author is a former newspaper reporter and is still published in reputable newsweeklies like 新潮 45. Shii (tock) 18:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, OK, but in that case I think the quote should be fixed because right now it's incomplete. Also, is there any information about the context? Who told him that it cost billions of yen to meet Gorbachev? Is there any hard evidence for that? Who was it paid to? In general, about Ikeda, I think it's a characteristic of new religions to have charismatic leaders. Compared to the Happy Science guy he looks like a pretty sober figure to me. That might be a value-neutral way to approach it, if students of religion have anything to say about that. --Margin1522 (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Well the thing on the medal issue was that Mr.Ikeda never ever was a recipient of the Goethe Medal issued by the Goethe-Institut which next to medals like the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany is one of the highest merits on can receive in the FRG. He presumably got a recognition of some sort by the Goethe-Gesellschaft which is far less known and prestigious. An observation that is interesting is that Mr. Ikeda received a whole lot of recognitions by either universities that depend most on external financing or/and countries which are not known to have true democratic structures (i.e. China). --Catflap08 (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The Necessity to Help Wikipedia

What is neutrality and honesty in describing an organization? You are not defined by the opinion of others, you are defined by your engagement and activities in the real world. To summarize SGI in the Lead Section by POV of biased opponents who lived half a century ago, and rejecting SGI real activities and engagement with Human Rights Institutions, Cultural Establishments etc… is a failure in editing and which requires correction.

Although shared activities between SGI and various Cultural Institutions (or Universities) is regarded by some WP Administrative editors as a "propaganda", this very shared activity is also part of the Cultural Institution or University engagement. Pursuing the statement of such impartial institutions, on whether their activities with SGI can be presented on WP – will help WP Admin editor acknowledge rather than reject the activities of these cultural institutions.

Contacting the institutions in concern, presenting the dispute and obtaining their statement - may take a very long time. And the volume of the task is also huge. Someone noted that the Japanese WP article has many sections of scandals etc…so, there is nothing in essence against having many sections citing SGI huge scale of engagement in human rights issues, peace, education, music, cultural festivals, aid to refugees, opposing fascism and teaching world citizenship ....as all these are facts confirmed by official acknowledgements of neutral sides.

The reason for asking independent Institutions and Universities about their approval to cite their activities with SGI (which admin editors reject) on this WP page - is intended to support WP neutrality. The same institutions and universities were also approached by WP to include their pages. There is a conflict of interest between neutrality of these universities and rejection of editors of their activities with SGI.

WP offers a mechanism of self-correction through the Dispute R B. But the DRB is not capable of solving disputes. Experience provides the actual proof. A board involving the same Admin editors who are part of the dispute and/or editors who misunderstand WP guidelines - is academically ineffective and has no scholastic capacity.

Some editors on that Board show lack of interest in voicing their input (or become unwilling to be involved) - possibly out of clash with the opinion of other influential editors. In any case a reliable and impartial scholastic authority is the most reasonable side to present the dispute to.

A third party, a neutral scholastic and impartial side is necessary to make the proper feedback to WP. I think WP - being open and neutral - would welcome scholastic authorities impartial statements about a dispute involving a scholastic or historical account.

Don’t forget that one of WP Founders, Mr. Richard Stallman himself stated (email: 9 Jan 12) to me, about the failure of the DRB: “Your experience parallels mine. I tried to find an editor willing to lead a dispute resolution process about the question of what name Wikipedia should use for the system which was made by combining GNU and Linux, and was unable to. It seems to me that Wikipedia needs to reform this process because the process does not in practice function. But I have little influence in Wikipedia. Dr Richard Stallman, President, Free Software Foundation”.

This is a proof which justifies and supports the move to engage scholars who are also responsible about the neutrality of references in mass media in general - or with their own engagement with SGI - to help solve disputes which the DB is incapable of.

The concept of supporting WP’s neutrality has in fact another aspect in addition to the above. The other aspect pertains to legal matters, but this will be presented later because of the currently limited time.

Let’s view the mentioned avenue (of supporting WP neutrality) without hasty replies because this is an avenue for the future and requires exploration of its impact. Regards to all. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Where are the secondary sources on that??? Your aim is not to help Wikipedia, but to help your cause that is no really substantiated by neutral sources. Frustrating as it may be but most guidelines have their reason. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"The concept of supporting WP’s neutrality has in fact another aspect in addition to the above. The other aspect pertains to legal matters, but this will be presented later because of the currently limited time." A thinly veiled threat Safwan? Not even Wikipedia wants to tangle with the Soka Gakkai multi-billion dollar multi-national religious corporation and its battery of lawyers. Some of us say, lets get it on. Mark Rogow 08/06/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD27:DB49:845F:E6B2:FE26:FB17 (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Disputes in the Cyberspace

I treasure and use WP very frequently. Many pages (for ex. those related to Physics, Mathematics and the like) are trustworthy – but this is not the case in subject of Religion, in particular here: Nichiren Buddhism and of course SGI. We have 2 kinds of editors: volunteers and paid admin.editors, who make decisions also in DRBoard. The influence of editor’s own religion (and political beliefs in case of Japanese editors) may invariably affect the neutrality of SG article.

But openmindedness of WP leaders, higher than the ‘Department for Religions’ – this openmindedness and their respect to reason, would definitely allow to consider this problem and share in searching for a ‘safety valve’ in the system to ensure neutrality (in particular re. editors who r providing political support to certain sides, who may be generous in their hatred to their opponents).

Disputes in dailylife of society can be resolved through the Legal System, but WP nature is that of a presence in the cyberspace, sharing the field with many other websites on the internet. For this reason, a proper side to judge the neutrality of certain pages can emerge from within WP and from other intellectual institutions, universities, cultural contributors to humanity, Nobel Prize winners, world acknowledged researchers etc… a top gathering of volunteering concerned world figures - who can act as friendly monitors (or as an Arbitrators Board) in the cyberspace which WP shares. WP shares gracefully in developing access to information enhancing culture, education and peace. The view of those concerned about culture, education and humanity is then not contradictory to WP great concept.

In the future, a study in most universities of the world will develope to advise on measures to help in Academic Dispute Resolution. Many professors and their graduates will be interested in ways for examining neutrality of a powerful tool like WP, and can advise on the way to balance opposing views. This “CyberArbitratorBoard” for Neutrality of Information, composed of the highest caliber of educators and human rights leaders in the life of current humanity - can have a positive mark on assuring better reliability of offered information in a certain article. Not all websites will agree, and those for ex. belonging to right wing fascists or the yakuza level websites - will not benefit from this CyberEducatorsBoard, and this is fair enough. Freedom of Expression on the cyberspace should be maintained. For all. But does WP admin editors allow for this Freedom of Expression? This is a disputed matter.

Take for example the noisy title of the Raccoon Monk incident. One editor even imagined - as if dereaming and not thinking - that it is a shame comparable to the impact of the Inquisition of the Catholic Church - in that aspect that SGI wants to disassociate itself from speaking about it. Such a rediculous view does not know that the Incident is proudly taught in SGI literature, detailed in the Human Revolution, vol.1 and that - after all - the monk in concern thanked the SG for their courage to face his inferiority to the military during the war. Freedom of Expression should allow editors to include the SG version of event in the article. And this incident is seen to conform SG commitment to fight against fascist Japanese spirit, which destroyed millions of families during the war.

Another example: a misinformed WP editor implies that Ikeda paid money to meet Gorbachev or to a certain University…. This accusation should be brought to the intellectual mind of the cyberspace. Ikeda met with several kings, head of states, human right activists, world-acknowledged prize winners and they all can be made to be informed on the defamatory implication of their awarding SGI, their lack of merit in awarding SGI, or taking money for medalions, as claimed by WP admin editors. When Ikeda received his award from Oxford University, he was one of over 20 (?) or more other world figures - from different fields of achievements. To imply “buying” award is reflective not on Ikeda, but on Oxford University and all the hundreds of world acknowledged figures who equally as himself received the same award. The same goes for medailions, some of the highest National Honors.

Freedom of Expression to explain these things is suppressed by admin editors. This should be known world wide, as this defamatory inclination is directed towards these Universities and world figures which are implicated in WP of taking money for awards, whether for Ikeda of others.

There is nothing wrong with discussing this matter. It is already on Talk page. This is great. Lets face it. In a future SGI article and under the title AWARDS - a new section should open up: and All the awards will be presented. This is not PR propaganda but a statement of Facts originated by sharing with universities and other humanistic institutions. Facts should not be suppressed. You are free to object to certain awards, and comment thru some sources accusing the awarding University or head of state of taking money and of "lack of merit" in giving SGI awards. This is consistent with the Freedom of expression of the truth and both sides can present their views.

Before I will leave you with a tiny fraction of the awards SGI received, there may emarge a possibility for a question on defaming members of the SGI. This is a mass damage because WP article is aggressively implying an anti social character of SGI members, while they are peaceful gentle and upright. How this will take place in the future is beyond my current knowledge. Now a tiny list of those sides lacking merit and taking money for supporting SGI:

Order of Merit of the Italian Republic in the Grade of Grand Officer (2006, Italy); National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (2002, USA); Nelson R. Mandela School of Medicine, University of Natal (2002, South Africa); Tagore Peace Award (1997, India); Knight Grand Cross of Rizal (1996, Philippines); Simon Wiesenthal Center International Tolerance Award (1993, USA); Rosa Parks Humanitarian Award (1993, USA); Order of May for Merit in the Grade of Grand Cross (1990, Argentina); National Order of Southern Cross in the Grade of Commander (1990, Brazil); Humanitarian Award (UNHCR) (1989);

One of WP Admin editors, John Carter, once mentioned that WP is developing and hasn't reached its fullness yet. Very true. We are all work in progress. Regards to all. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please be reminded that the “Human Revolution” is simply fiction and no historic account. It is for a reason that names are changed in this “work”. The “Human revolution” is a novel.And also … buying awards is a day to day business. Thankfully at this point european educational institutions are mostly publicly financed. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Catflap: I don't even know if "axe to grind" covers your anger. What happened to you? Are you familiar at all with the SGI?Ltdan43 (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Catflap, I take your point. Yes, The Human Revolution is a novel describing events in a literature style - and may not be considered here as a reference, but I mentioned it just to help you understand that the Raccoon Monk event is part of a proud and treasured SGI history (of opposition to fascist thinking and war supporters). There are RS dealing with that event and they will be mentioned to clarify the accusation of "violence" in an event which had a happy ending and no legal issues. When someone is accused of being antisocial, violent, etc... one has the Right to respond. The same is true for University professors or head of states, nobel prize winners but who are implied by opponents to SGI of taking money from SGI. I will explain more in the coming post. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

the monk in concern thanked the SG for their courage to face his inferiority to the military during the war. The Inquisition was very popular in Spain too, and the Crusades were popular throughout Europe. Regardless of whether events are positive or negative, Wikipedia must include them if they are notable. Shii (tock) 17:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The Right to Correct Information

Movements such as the Right to Knowledge and the Right to Information are growing on community and social organisations levels demanding correct delivery of information. The contents of chemicals in a product you buy can pose a serious health issue and incorrect information about items we purchase can bring the advertiser to court. Such demand for “Transparency” and “honesty in delivering information” and has been growing with the growth of the internet. The internet itself is a source of information and WP is one of its products.

Cyberproducts involve interaction with anonymous contributors, who may also use bullying, threats, defamation and so forth – having their personal agenda. A self-respecting Encyclopedia such as WP can successfully inhibit such trends by adhering to an acknowledged policy. There is nothing in WP policy which encourages defamation or bias of delivered data. As you personally have the Right to Correct Information of a product you purchase, so do Readers of WP, they have the Right to Correct Information – to use the same designation of this human right, or the Right to Unbiased and Neutral delivery of information.

This comes in contrast to current SGI article, edited with an aggressive trend for defamation starting from the INTRO section describing the organisation by the “Opinions” of some observers – not by facts of its real engagement in society. For an independent scholar it is not SGI that is important, but the attitude “priming” the mind of reader, bombarding the mind of reader with one negative word after another, brainwashing reader … It is the attitude of respect to readers and respect to the truth that is in concern in this article.

The Intro should include facts and also controversies. It should include references to factual SGI activities in culture, music and art, its engagement in education, Buddhist humanism and world peace, as well as work with the United Nations and other Human Rights institutes. There are 2 controversies which should also be included: political and religious. The political is about member voting for the Komeito (with both sides views) and the religious controversy is about laybelievers rejecting Nichiren Shoshu priesthood(with both sides views).

When one is attacked, one has the right for a response and clarification. WP does not deny the Right to Expression to put things in their perspectives. Take for ex. The Intro’s aggressive bombardment of the mind of reader with words of militaristic fascistic etc... there must be a response to this. WP is not a blog for gossips and accusations. Response and clarification must also be included to abide by WP policy of balance and neutrality.

WP policy of citing sources of information WP:PSTS clearly allows for Primary Sources to be used (if clarifying events and not clashing with another policy preventing self-praise or PR). How to apply WP policy to protect the article from being a list of Japanese pre-election gossips? It is by accepting what other RS, including PS – have to clarify. In any statement of accusation against SGI or its activities there must be the “ON THE OTHER HAND” response. The Right to Expression on SGI article demands a response – for each levelled accusation, one by one, using RS including PS. To accuse someone of a negative or antisocial attitude and prevent or supress the Right to respond to the accusations – this is a remanent of middleages mentality and is not supported by WP guidelines.

The implications of current article about SGI nature as being anti-social, fascist, militaristic, violent bribing professors and head states to get medals etc... does not work for WP’s benefit. WP integrity does not allow accusing hundreds of University professors who acknowledged SGI to be money collectors (or that meeting Gorbachev or others was arranged through money). But such POV-s also are welcome if there is a response to them. Let the list of Awards be presented in a special section, and opponents can choose and address the Awards they criticise of being without merit. If you “heard that someone said" that a certain Goethe establishment sells awards or that a University board of professors were getting money giving SGI awards with no merit, then fine, that accused side: Goethe as an ex. here, or University Professors etc...can be informed about these accusations of dishonesty and they have the right to their Expression to protect their integrity. Regards, SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOAPBOX --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Safwan has been soapboxing here for literally years now. It's not clear to me whether he has ever contributed beneficially to the article. I was here around 2012 when he did attempt to edit the article and the results were not good. Shii (tock) 17:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Well the latest edits by Daveler16 just seem to go down the path. Wonder why. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Daveler16: Your latest edit inserted "revitalizing the lives of its members" as a benefit of Soka Gakkai. This is not something I usually see in articles about specific religious groups (as opposed to generic articles like [[Religion and happiness]) and your source that this is a notable part of SGI is a whole book. You need to (1) provide page numbers and quotes, as before and (2) explain why this is something special that is more worthy of mentioning on this page than it would be on, e.g. the Scientology page. Shii (tock) 22:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Shii and Catflap: This discussion on Talk page is about correcting the article - but I will use your words of Soapboxing and offer independent readers to see the sopaboxing in the article. Please read the following post and please understand that a chnage to the structure and conetnt of the article is inevitable. Regards SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Safwan, you write: "Cyberproducts involve interaction with anonymous contributors, who may also use bullying, threats, defamation and so forth – having their personal agenda." Threats of legal actuion does not constitute bullying? ["The concept of supporting WP’s neutrality has in fact another aspect in addition to the above. The other aspect pertains to legal matters, but this will be presented later because of the currently limited time." -- Safwan] Mark Rogow 08/06/2014

One other thing. I don't really mind that every last one of my comments has been edited out from this article. I am having a conversation with Safwan, Daveler, and Margin1522. Conversations are ephemeral in one sense. In another, it can not help but touch their lives to know the truth about the Soka Gakkai "religion" whether now or in the future. MR 08/06/2014

The Psychology of Words: Catchy Tabloid Titles

A successful WP article should have appropriate sequence, proportion of events and proper titles. But for now I want to point to the immature choice of some titles, with the example of the Raccoon Dog’s one. This is rather tabloid and not encyclopedic way of choosing titles. Cheap advertising depends on unexpected flashes and a sudden strange title: a Raccoon? And a Dog? Wow! And add to that a Monk! Wow wow! And what was the intent of this attractive title? It is at the end of the text: that since then the Gakkai was sealed as a violent organization: “this incident helped establish the organization's reputation as a violent cult.[48]:705–711(A violent cult – just remember these words at the end of this post).

Editing which aims at stigmatizing and establishing identities for people and organisations - must be driven by personal agenda. WP should not come to this level. Lets ask a scholar on what she/he thinks about this Raccoon issue. They would perhaps say that the incident is just one of many events in the history of Soka under Toda. Being so, a meaningful title perhaps would be: “Toda and the Priesthood”, or something like that. Raccoon and Dog and a Monk and a Festival - and angry mob…such psychologically oriented words makes WP article go from sappboxing to a sensational sale advertising. This is not an attitude of an encyclopedic article.

There was also a justification of this Raccoon Section that the Gakkai wants to forget or avoid that incident - as for example the Catholic Church may want to avoid mention of the Inquisition. First, this is not true, members are proud of refuting supporters to war crimes within the priesthood. This should also be added to the text. But there is a serious matter here: Editors who make comparison - or even bring the name of the Inquisition – to associate in any implication whatsoever, with this Soka incident - are reminded here to understand that torture, and mass murder of thousands of people, even burning some alive by the Catholic Church, does not amount to Soka peaceful protest by youth to correct a monk who cooperated with the fascist authorities (and who was even happy in a latter stage with what happened). Again the personal religious or political beliefs of some editors– can affect the writing of this article and which makes its essence rather a farce.

Still on the titles: The title Pacifism comes a far way down and way far from the Intro which starts by defining the SGI by tabloid POVs: militaristic fascist quasi militaristic … The Intro was written to prime the mind of WP reader by repeated negative wording, and after that bombardment - then writers put Pacifism as a minor subtitle at the middle of the article (if the reader survives reading further). This is but a psychology trick to manipulate the mind of reader. Again, I may be mistaken but an independent scholar can give an opinion on priorities in article writing, because – speaking of Pacifism - Peace and Nonviolence are the very cause of SGI - which was intentionally designed to start in Guam, the island which suffered severe casualties during the World War.

SGI official birth in Guam was a statement of the start of “World Peace” instead of “World War”. The Section 'Pacifism' should proportionally to the facts - be prominent and at the start, and should also mention about SGI-USA movement VOV (Victory Over Violence) a factual activity of young people to stop violence in society (which was supported by independent local councils). These are facts that deserve also a presence and a title such as perhaps “Pacifism, NonViolence and World Peace”.

Returning here to the Raccon’s section ending with giving SG an Identity card: “ A Violent Cult” – there is Question here, directed to the intellect of reader, to wisdom and reason, and not emotions : Question: How would an implied militaristic fascist violent cult work for Peace, nonviolence and humanism? SGI is described in the INTRO as as a “militaristic organization” – then at the Raccoon area as a “Violent Cult” but in a later portion of the same article SGI works for peace and Nonviolence”. How can a “fascist manipulist militaristic quasi militarist Violent cult advocate Pacifism and humanism! Which of these 2 extremes had the priority in the Intro. The whole structure of the article is slowly falling apart. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)