Talk:Daisaku Ikeda

/Archive topic

Reception

I suggest creating a "Reception" section to consolidate the various adjective-filled commentary about Ikeda. A reading of the LA Times Watanabe piece, for example, shows that the wide range of colorful labels she noted are not her own descriptions but the labels others use for Ikeda, all personal opinion, some from supporters and some from detractors, but virtually all from admittedly non-neutral observers. Those kinds of opinions don't belong in a BLP lead paragraph. Whether negative or positive, personal views are better suited in a "Reception" section, which is more along the lines of MOS for a BLP article. Looking around I find most other Wikipedia articles on religious leaders have a "Reception" section for that purpose. Thoughts? Zimdolf (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree a Reception section would be an improvement. Having reviewed Watanabe's article, the opinions quoted from it in the Ikeda lead text are misleading, as most weren't Watanabe's words but the views of others. The text currently reads "Watanabe described Ikeda as..." but then lists views that are not her own. Watanabe characterized many of those views as biased, and biased views aren't reliable material. Interesting to note that after she interviewed Ikeda in person, Watanabe concluded that despite the varying opinions about him, "there is no question that Ikeda spreads goodwill, and transforms stereotypes." Basicallyyes (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, creating a reception section for material like Watanabe is a good idea. LovLove (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I also think this would be a good idea. Bubuwon (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree -- who wants to create that and edit/compile the appropriate material into the new section?Elemential1 (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a Reception section would be better for that type of commentary as long as it has accurate and proper references to support (see my findings below regarding Reference Checking). CalIsraeli (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that a "Reception" section is probably a good step to improve this article. TokyoSunrise (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps "Public Image" is a more appropriate title for that section than Reception. Looking at the articles on other religious leaders, the term most often used on Wikipedia is "Public Image." Thoughts?Elemential1 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference Checking

For the past several weeks I've been checking the references given for various content, including the "cult of personality" language in the Criticism section. First, apparently that criticism is of the Soka Gakkai, not Ikeda, so I suggest it be deleted from this article as it violates BLP standards. Particularly since it is without any accurate or reliable references from neutral POV sources and is libelous. I bought all the books that are referenced for this criticism, and here's what I found:

In "British Buddhism Teachings, Practice and Development," the author refers to the criticism of Soka Gakkai as being "often without supporting evidence." The one and only reference to a cult of personality is on page 98 (which also states it did not come from the author's own research but from a third party, without any explanation): "Critics may see the publicity surrounding Ikeda as a personality cult, and British members may be reluctant to accept him as a living master on par with Nichiren or the Buddha, but his role as spiritual leader in both SGI and SGI-UK remains a central and highly influential one." There is no neutral POV or reliable source given in reference to whose opinion it is that "critics may see the publicity surrounding Ikeda as a personality cult." It is also focused only on a critical POV. This reference is therefore a violation of the BLP standards and I suggest it be deleted.

In "Globalizing Japan," the only reference to cult of personality states that SGI members in Germany actively avoid such impressions. On page 100: "The German members are concerned with maintaining their national and personal identity, avoiding a personality cult around the figure of the president, Daisaku Ikeda, and gaining access to the higher levels of leadership, while maintaining an effective grassroots approach." This reference doesn't support the criticism, and I suggest it therefore be deleted.

In "Wild Geese," the only mention of this criticism has no source or supporting evidence, stating on page 93: "In 1991, after a long period of conflict, the Nichiren Shoshu officially excommunicated Soka Gakkai. As an independent organization, the SGI continues to grow, although its present leader, Daisaku Ikeda, and his organization have been criticized as a personality cult." Without a neutral POV and a reliable source, with no mention of any source for such criticism, this reference is a violation of BLP standards and I suggest it be deleted.

In "The Soka Gakkai Revolution," the author actually argues against this criticism, stating on page 151: "It is not empirically obvious that Ikeda exerts cult-like authority over followers. Rather, it appears that many individual members respond to him with the kind of devotion a student might evince for a revered teacher or mentor who has unselfishly worked to improve or change the student's life." Since this reference refutes the criticism, it should be deleted.

In "The New Social Face of Buddhism," the author only refers to objections that a different editor of a different book received from unnamed sources, and neither of the editors/authors offer any criticism of Ikeda themselves. The only reference in this book to criticism is on page 125: "Editor Christopher Queen noted that the inclusion of a chapter on the Nichiren offshoot Soka Gakkai in his book 'Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia' had raised objections. These included 'its intolerance of other Buddhist sects, its personality cult of its leader Daisaku Ikeda, and its grandiose, publicity-grabbing projects.'" Without a neutral POV or any reliable source offered for this criticism, such second-hand and third-hand unfounded references to libelous characterizations is a violation of BLP standards and I suggest it therefore should be deleted. CalIsraeli (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes indeed all citations/references/sources that are found to be false or inaccurately listed should be removed. TokyoSunrise (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree -- should be removed. Also, I have searched everywhere for the publication cited as the source of the following sentence under the Accomplishments section: "Ikeda has guided Soka Gakkai's support of, and involvement in, the Komeito,[2] a Japanese political party ..." First of all, this is an opinion not a fact, and an opinion that has been refuted. The cited source "Dayle Bethel 'The Political Ideology of Ikeda Daisaku, President of Soka Gakkai' (1974) International Education 3 (2)" is apparently not a real publication. I searched all Dayle Bethel books and published works and no such work exists. Dayle Bethel writes about Soka Education, not Komeito. So that sentence either must be edited to state a fact rather than opinion, and must have a reliable/real source, or this sentence should also be deleted. Koralimi (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)