Talk:Daisaku Ikeda

A comment on sources and neutral POV

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

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

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

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

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

Here's just one example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear friends,

I am posting these comments on both the Daisaku Ikeda and SGI site. I feel that a lot of work needs to be done on both sites but I believe I can suggest a path out of the current deadlock.

Let me make my biases clear once again. I am a member of Hizmet, the organization founded by Turkish cleric Fethullah Gülen (Gulen) who for decades has been articulating a modern and peaceful vision of Islam. His work has resulted in economic, cultural and educational initiatives in Turkey and beyond. For example, Gulen-inspired schools in Pakistan are a countervailing force to madrasas.

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

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

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

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

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

Is this something you people can agree to? I know it might be more fun to keep yelling at each other. But it appears to me it would be more productive if you all try to work together for a short time until you can figure out something better. I am sure a few people could agree to be referees when needed.

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

This would be a win-win for Wikipedia users. Aren't we really all here to support our readers? You could arrive at a page that convinces readers that the SGI is not a perfect organization, yet it is not Public Enemy #1. This would serve a useful purpose. Interested readers would feel free to knock on the organization's door and see for themselves whether it is a good match--yet knock indeed with eyes wide open.

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

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

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

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

Remarkable deletions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popham on Toynbee on Ikeda

The article says:

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

Some strange phrasing in that. First:

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

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

According to Peter Popham, writing about Tokyo architecture and culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Relevance of Polly Toynbee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plot Thickens:December 2014 Page Protected (RFPP)

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

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

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

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

Please add a few notes

Happy New Year!

Please add some notes:

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

2) Under "Further reading" please add

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

3) Under External links please add

• Academic Honors

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

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

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

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

Can you please make another edit or two?

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

Can you please insert the sentence:

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

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

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

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

with

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

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

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

Tags

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

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

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