Talk:Daisaku Ikeda/Archive topic

Why was the stuff about Noriega clipped?

What about the disappeared money that was connected to SG (though no hard evidence)? What about the fact that Soka Gakkai named a garden outside of Tokyo after Noriega? This was supported by reliable sources and in the article a couple of months ago.126.59.94.184 (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Your questions refer to Soka Gakkai, but this isn't a talk page for that article which is here: Soka Gakkai. You answered your own first question about allegations with no evidence. Your second question should be asked of Soka Gakkai editors, who I'm guessing would view a garden from 30 years ago as unworthy of space in a tediously long article.TokyoSunrise (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@talk It was clipped because some use this platform as an extended marketing platform and are allowed to do so.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

TokyoSunrise, it was one sentence (speaking of the garden) that clearly shows how close Noriega and Ikeda were. Removing it because of "tediously long article", where each of his honorary doctorates is included in painstaking detail? That won't pass muster and you know it.126.59.94.184 (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I said the Soka Gakkai article, which I clearly highlighted, is tediously long. As I recall from the last mention I saw of this inane subject, the only reference anyone could find of such a garden was at a Nichiren Shoshu temple in Japan.TokyoSunrise (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Why do call the subject inane? How is it not revealing and interesting that Ikeda was best buddies with a Latin American dictator? How do you think any public figure in the States would fare, if something like this was revealed about them? You think the public would be completely disinterested and think the whole affair "inane"?126.59.94.184 (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, what you say is factually incorrect. The garden is mentioned in loads of Japanese sources. For example "Karuto to shite no soka gakkai" (penned by Toshiaki Furukawa, a former Mainichi Shimbun journalist) says the garden was "at a Soka Gakkai training center in Shiraito, close to Taisekiji" (p100, "大石寺に近い創価学会白糸研修道場内に") - so please don't just make stuff up like that. A friendship pillar put in the park read "for the friendship between Panama and Japan" and also had Daisaku Ikeda's name on it. In addition, there are many legit articles and books in Japanese who detail how Noriega and Ikeda were. Odd how most of it has been edited out. 126.59.94.184 (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed your Japanese-language sources and they are non-academic, biased works written by critics of the Soka Gakkai and Daisaku Ikeda, so their allegations violate NPOV and WP:SOURCE and WP:VERIFY. The absence of reliable, English-language sources for such contentious material is also a violation of WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY. If you had bothered to read the books referenced in this section, you'd find that the English-language source states the garden was in a Nichiren Shoshu temple. Also, most of the language of the Noriega section is not found in any of the sources cited, so it should either be removed or heavily edited based on the content of reliable sources, and it appears none of those listed are.TokyoSunrise (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The fact that it's not available in English has nothing to do with either NPOV, SOURCE, or VERIFY. The source that says it was based in a Soka Gakkai training facility might not be "academic", but again - it's written by an accredited journalist. There is no requirement in RS that says sources have to be academic rather than journalistic. In fact, academic material often uses journalistic sources to back up statements. The source is definitely an RS. 126.59.94.184 (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Educator and BLP violations

Per User:Ubikwit: where is he described in the article as an "educator"? WP:SUMMARYSTYLE What BLP violations? [1]

• The Goulah and Ito article clearly talks about's Ikeda's development of his "curriculum of Soka, or value-creating, education" and founding of several schools.

GOULAH, J. and ITO, T. (2012), Daisaku Ikeda's Curriculum of Soka Education: Creating Value Through Dialogue, Global Citizenship, and “Human Education” in the Mentor–Disciple Relationship. Curriculum Inquiry, 42: 56–79. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-873X.2011.00572.x

• And the sentence "Ikeda and Soka Gakkai have been the frequent targets of criticism for fostering a cult of personality centered on Ikeda" is a BLP violation, because it concludes that Ikeda and Soka Gakkai foster a cult of personality centered on Ikdea. That is a clearly a violation of neutrality. The neutral way to present this information is: "Ikeda and Soka Gakkai have been the frequent targets of allegations that the group fosters a cult of personality centered on Ikeda." Which the article does. In the criticism section, with all the other criticism. Just like the pages of other religious leaders, such as Pope John Paul II. AbuRuud (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no conclusion stated, only that there has been criticism.

The statements cited do not support "educator" per se. All of his activity has been conducted as a member of Soka Gakkai.

Goulah:

Ikeda is perhaps best known as leader of Soka Gakkai International (SGI), a lay Buddhist nongovernmental organization...
Unlike other Buddhist scholar-practitioners working in these areas...
this article breaks new ground by excerpting and reviewing Ikeda‟s UN peace proposals...

I'm not going to read any more of that at the moment, but it would seem that your assertions are based on taking quotes out of context.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@ User:Ubikwit The only ones who see the guy as an educator are SGIists themselves. No Worries. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Ubikwit

A Buddhist leader, peacebuilder, and prolific writer, Ikeda is also founder of the K-university Soka schools network across seven countries.1 Our respective scholarship and experiences at Soka schools2 suggest that Ikeda's curriculum of Soka education is comprised of three key principles that also serve as its processes and goals—dialogue, global citizenship, and “human education” in the mentor–disciple relationship.

So he founded multiple schools and has his own theory on education, but he is somehow not an educator? Let's take a step back and assume that hypothetically you are correct about him not being an "educator." Can you say the same about Buddhist philosopher, author, or anti-nuclear activist? What is your rational for deleting that sourced material? AbuRuud (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@ AbuRuud Yea and he invented sliced bread too. Good grief you ARE SAD.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I predict that any person with a neutral POV would find the description of "educator" appropriate for an individual who has, since 1969, founded kindergarten through PhD-level university school systems with campuses in 7 nations, and written volumes on pedagogy and humanistic education, as the references cited note. I see that since I was last here a few months ago, Catflap08 is up to the same antics, spewing irrational and malicious antagonism, obsessing over the Ikeda and Gakkai-related articles 24 hours per day. Now THAT is truly sad.TokyoSunrise (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries I will no longer at this point contribute to Wikipedia. Sick of it. It, Wikipedia, has disqualified itself. Hey guys like you have full access now.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@TokyoSunrise: Read WP:SYNTH.

Whether or not he qualifies for the title "teacher" is not really relevant. The very first thing mentioned should obviously be what he's most famous for. I have no objection to "educator", etc. appearing later in the intro but it has no place in the first sentence - all those things he did has been within his role as a leader/president of Soka Gakkai. I'm sure anybody with knowledge of SG/SGI/Ikeda (who isn't a member of the organization) would agree with this. 126.59.94.184 (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Including the fact that he has been criticized (relatively far more than the pope, I'd reckon) is not a BLP issue - it is well-sourced, and very notable. It definitely belongs in the intro. I don't mind throwing in the word "allegations" there, though I don't think it's necessary - "target of criticism" obviously implies these are allegations, we don't really gain anything from including the word.126.59.94.184 (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I mean, frankly speaking it would be ridiculous not to include a mention of the cult of personality surrounding him in the intro, when it's so well-established in so many reliable sources. 126.59.94.184 (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

How do other sources present him? jpwiki: "Religionist, author. Honorary chairman of Soka Gakkai. Chairman of SGI" (my translation). Encyclopedia Nipponica: "Religionist (buddhist). Honorary chairman of SG, chairman of SGI. " (then it moves onto his life) (my translation). Dictionaries Daijisen and Daijirin (very short entries): "Religionist active during the Showa/Heisei periods. Born in (bla bla)" (my translation). Any serious introduction of him not written by SG members will mention his role in SG/SGI before anything else. And how does the Pope Francis article introduce the pope? "Pope Francis (Latin: Franciscus; Italian: Francesco; born Jorge Mario Bergoglio,[b] 17 December 1936) is Pope of the Catholic Church, a title he holds ex officio for being the Bishop of Rome, in which capacity he is also the absolute sovereign of the Vatican City State." any fluff on him being an educator, author, Christian philosopher, is left out. 126.59.94.184 (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

How does his official website describe him? "Daisaku Ikeda is a Buddhist leader, peacebuilder, a prolific writer, poet, educator and founder of a number of cultural, educational and peace research institutions around the world." Now it's bizarre that anybodu should suggest Wikipedia's intro should differ from all other neutral sources and instead read like a carbon copy of his own website.126.59.94.184 (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

IP user 126.59.94.184: Please don't delete well-referenced material and replace it with your personal interpretations and assumptions. Quoting lines from other Wikipedia articles is not a suitable replacement for the external, academic sources you are ignoring and deleting. Also, claiming that an international organization with millions of members fosters a "cult of personality" is a contentious opinion, unlike Bill Clinton's impeachment that you noted above, which is a fact. To state contentious allegations in the lead of a BLP article is a violation. This is why you'll find separate criticism and controversy sections in BLPs that contain such contentious allegations, especially in the case of religious leaders and religious topics, which are inherently controversial.TokyoSunrise (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I was reinstating well-referenced material, not the other way around. What little I removed is justified per what I wrote above (which you didn't bother responding to) - the current intro is more in line with all other neutral non-SG sources start out with.

The article doesn't (and never did) claim that the organization fosters a cult of personality - it references that it has received a lot of criticism over this, which is, just like Clinton's impeachment, a fact, and not contentious. Religious scholars have used this language too, to describe them, so even if we dropped the "allegations" etc. I'd say it'd be fairly factual. Even if it were contentious though, would it really be a BLP violation? I might have missed something but I didn't see anything mentioned on the intro in WP:BLP.126.59.94.184 (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I find it intellectually dishonest to suggest anything I added was "personal interpretations" or "quoting lines from other Wikipedia articles" - it's perfectly sourced in the Soka Gakkai article. Unless you suggest that Tricycle Magazine performed an audit on SG/SGI for the interview with Ikeda, "12 million according to their own numbers" is perfectly factual.126.59.94.184 (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@126.59.94.184: There are a few points worth mentioning in this context regarding "educator". First, Ikeda is primarily associated with a NRM, and his followers refer to him as "Sensei" (Teacher). He is not, however, a teacher per se, but he is a proponent of an educational theory and could also be considered an administrator, and thus an educator. Here's how one favorable source introduces him[2]

I agree that it is not an point that merits contesting assuming that other characterizations are presented first, in accordance with WEIGHT. The lead was drafted in a manner such as to be loaded with promotional flattery instead of encyclopedic content.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Worth noting that the author of the favorable source is seemingly a Soka Gakkai member - at the very least heavily involved in the group that renders him patently partial. [3][4][5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.59.94.184 (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that is intersting indeed, as the work is far to flattering, like much of the work by Western scholars associated with SG.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Here an anonymous IP editor (who should read WP:DISRUPTSIGNS), makes the assertion, apparently supported by Ubikwit, that an academic who is "seemingly involved" in a religion upon which he has published research therefore "renders him patently partial." The implication being that one's religious affiliation should preclude one's writings on that religion from reference material. By this logic, Wikipedia should remove references written by Catholics about Catholicism and the Pope, remove references by Jews on Israel and Judaism, remove references by Mormons on the LDS Church, etc. Or perhaps just remove references any editor who is prejudiced against those religions deems "favorable," as anonymous IP editor notes above. This kind of absurd assertion indicates a level of bigotry that should disqualify such negative advocates from editing the BLP of any religious leader or religious article.TokyoSunrise (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

So any source, including a book by a former Mainichi Shimbun journalist, is suddenly partial, not an RS, and breaking one hundred different policies, according to you, as soon as they express any opinion critical of the Soka Gakkai, while somebody who pockets money from the organization itself is as innocent as a peace dove? You can't expect to be taken seriously here.126.59.94.184 (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There is, I regret to say, an extremely obvious logical fallacy in the above comment. It has been, repeatedly, established in wikipedia that while those sources which do meet the standards of being published in academic journals or textbooks or the like do qualify as highly reliable, not everything published by that individual necessarily meets the same criteria. In fact, I think that point has been so broadly established in so many areas that it is almost amazing that I am apparently obligated to point out WP:BIASED here. As for the seriously flawed and dubiously logically supported "implication" made above, that is completely irrelevant to this discussion and really has no place in it. One might perhaps say that such absurd assertions indicate a level of bias that might disqualify people who make such dubiously logical assertions as fact, and raise questions whether they might perhaps be well advised to read WP:POV and WP:COI, specifically the sentence there "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest," which I believe may be perhaps very relevant in this particular case regarding individuals who engage in such logically fallacious reasoning. John Carter (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you John Carter, your rude and ominously threatening private messages to me for simply standing up to your buddy Catflap after he used malicious language toward me and others makes it hard for me to lend much credibility to your arguments here. I also find it odd that you state on various message boards how "uninvolved" you are in the SGI and Ikeda-related articles, because at the same time you request the article be lock protected due to "edit warring". In any case, your cut and paste sentence that religious affiliation "can trigger a conflict of interest" is unhelpful. Every association has a potential to trigger conflict of interest. This doesn't mean we find every book written about Catholicism and the Pope and determine the religion of the author before we use it as reference material on Wikipedia.TokyoSunrise (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

break

User @126.59.94.184, who has curiously arrived to chop up the Ikeda article on the same day Catflap08 "retired" after a TBAN seemed imminent: Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP Also see here: WP:NOCRIT which concludes most religious organizations have as many critics as supporters, so adding criticism to the article can be endless and isn't what the article is about. For religions and religious figures, adding criticism or controversies into a "Criticism" section is the preferred style. As we see in articles of other religious groups, Mormons, Catholics, etc, although these religious groups and their leaders are saddled with controversies, Wikipedia articles avoid criticisms or controversies in the lead, instead adding them to a distinct section, as MOS suggests.

The Wikipedia MOS has specific guidelines for new religious movements WP:NRMMOS and specifically states all sources must be NPOV (which most of the ones you list are not, they are known critics of the Gakkai and Ikeda in Japan) as well as WP:VERIFY verifiable to the readers and editors, which your list of Japanese-language sources is most definitely not.

Also see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion/Manual_of_style#Criticism which is a long discussion by editors concluding that criticism of religious topics is inherent, so it is the preferable style to put criticisms in a separate section, or even a separate article entirely.

Further, your addition of unsourced statements, and your opinions, such as the Human Revolution has "canonical status" within the Gakkai, and your changing the name of Soka Gakkai to "Nichiren Buddhist Soka Gakkai", and adding modifying phrases that don't appear in the sources, such as "also one of the most controversial" and "according to it the Gakkai" and "the Gakkai has been characterized as" are not valid edits. Please read sources before you change the content. For example, your edit to the lead that "The Soka Gakkai movement has been characterized as being centered on a cult of personality around Ikeda" is not what most of the sources cited state. Since that statement is also a violation of BLP, and is also guilt by association since the allegation is about the Soka Gakkai, but this article is not about the Soka Gakkai. This brings up the question of whether this contentious criticism, a criticism of the Soka Gakkai, should remain in this article at all, since it's about the organization, not Ikeda.TokyoSunrise (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

TokyoSunrise The IP is in Tokyo, Catflap is in Germany, so you should be more careful about laying unsubstantiated allegations of sockpuppetry.

Editorializing is indeed something that needs to be corrected, but your allegations go beyond that, and see WP:CSECTION.:And lastly, it seems that you may be misrepresenting the NRMMOS guidline. I suggest that you also check this section of that guideline [6].
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe working together to revert legitimate, well-referenced edits, then inserting unreliable, unverifiable, biased content and having a cohort request a page lock is called tag team WP:TAGTEAM and/or meatpuppetry WP:MTPPT, not sockpuppetry.TokyoSunrise (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems that you've doubled down, so to speak, on the first set of allegations by introducing new allegations.

Note that article talk pages are not the proper forum for complaints about editor conduct. Please see WP:AN/i, for example.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@ TokyoSunrise I would be careful to accuse me of sock puppetry this could very well back fire. I have one old account kicking around here somewhere by the name catflap (never used for years) and this one – that’s it. In contrast to other individuals I find that there is no need to disguise my identity. On a further note it is a reoccurring pattern that those advocating a certain issue, person (dead or alive) or organisation are the first to question the reliability of certain (most likely) critical sources. Since I am fed up with all this it may be worth the thought if some sort of noticeboard could be installed (as an extension of the WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request) to check for such claims based on Wikipedia guidelines. In the long run the continuous efforts of those clearing articles of critical notes and thoughts are the ones who are to blame for Wikipedia`s continuous loss in credibility. If Wikipedia in the future would only mirror information already published by let us say SGI affiliated or owned sites then we could all just pack up and go and mourn the death of Wikipedia.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Catflap08: What does "living or dead" mean? You wouldn't be referring to that other article where you came up with your own original theory and tracked down some sources that didn't actually support you but cited them in support nonetheless, would you? Please just give it a break. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I very strongly urge the above editor to not continue to use this article talk page to engage in dubiously related disparagement of other editors, as is rather explicit in the above comment. I also very strongly urge him to read or perhaps re-read WP:TPG and adhere to what is said there. John Carter (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's everybody try and stick to the sources, and discuss those that are biased as such, when necessary, in context. These articles are trouble enough already.

Catflap08 I think that the "village pump" page is the place to look into ideas like that noticeboard suggestion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Hijiri 88 What does "living or dead" mean?. Are you kidding me?--Catflap08 (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Catflap 08 No, I'm not. You said "living or dead", even though the subject of this article most certainly is living, and not dead. Who is dead? Well, the subject of that other article you have been randomly posting OR on in the recent present, for one. You have been taking my perfectly reasonable, inoffensive comments and going out of your way to interpret them as racist personal attacks; but I literally can't think of any other reasonable way to take your above remark than the way I did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to interpret inoffensiveness in your own unique ways. It might also be a good idea idea if you concentrate on issues you have some sort of knowledge of. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: Your dodging of my question is noted. Also: same to you. I will admit that I'm not an "expert" on Ikeda Daisaku, but it also seems pretty clear to me that you're throwing stones at me from inside your glass house. What I know about him I mostly get from living in Japan and being interested in religion in general. But the things AbuDuur was accusing you of a few sections above are exactly what you have been doing on the Kenji and Kokuchukai articles, subjects on which I do know quite a bit. I checked the cited source on this article and found that, yes, you were pulling facts out of your nose and attaching sources that say something else. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@ 聖 Seek advice, As you admit on adding content on issues you have no knowledge of speaks for itself. --Catflap08 (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop pinging my talk page. If you want to get my attention it's not the right way to do it. Also, you yourself have admitted to knowing nothing about Miyazawa Kenji -- I know considerably more about this topic than you do about that one, and I don't even need to "know about" this topic to read through your sources and notice that they don't say what you claim them to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@ user:Hijiri88 For your attention. Where did I ever admit I know nothing about Kenji Miyaszawa? --Catflap08 (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: And where did I admit I know nothing about Ikeda Daisaku? I am saying that, based on your edits to the Kenji article, it is pretty damn obvious that you know less about that subject than I do about this one. For you to insist that I am not allowed edit this page or post on this talk page because I "don't know about the subject" is offensive and wrong. Drop it now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Very Poor Quality

Few years ago, no matter how I was trying at best of ability to improve this article with neutral views and academical aspects, someone will come up with hatred and unreasonable delete or make Daisaku Ikeda as an evil.

I was bored of endless war of information, so I haven't involved on this article for a while.

Now I came back to find some previous reference on his awards and found that the quality of this page now is very poor.

What is the point of having deletion and addition so many contents over last twelve years and go nowhere?

Sorry to say. This sucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by จิตร (talk • contribs) 09:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

deletion or consolidation of sources 123:130, with 131:138

@ user:DavidWestT Sorry but deleting referenced material always raises some suspicion. It might be a good idea to use the talk page prior to that and if an agreement fails next is RFC.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08-- you're right but I didn't delete sources-- I consolidated them. The sources at .[123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130] are identical to the sources at [131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138] and thus require consolidation with / ref.DavidWestT (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The consolidation by user:DavidWestT was proper, as those two sentences were duplicates, and all references were also duplicates. I've edited out the duplications. TokyoSunrise (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)