From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Nichiren Shū)
Jump to: navigation, search


The (not so) "short overview" section, added by an anonymous contributor, does not appear to be a copyvio but needs some fairly heaving editing and wikifying. Jpatokal 07:40, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gave it a shot, but I'm not sure how well it works. Something is awry. I suspect is that the section feels like a rebuttal of some sort--like it's author has a specific "discussion partner" in mind whose allegations and such he's trying to refute.
One sentence (see below) does not make sense; but I'm not familiar enough with how things are done in Nichiren Shu to know what he's driving at. I have seen the mandalas that he refers to, and the biggest difference in appearance between them and those of the Nichiren Shoshu school is the way they are signed by whoever inscribed them. I hope someone knowledgable will fill this out.
"The Mandalas used by Nichiren Shu believers are often inscribed or based on Nichiren's own works, not by the high priest as is the case in Nichiren Shoshu." Jim_Lockhart 07:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That passage means that the Gohonzons [or the majority of them at least] are copies of Nichiren's own, rather than Gohonzons inscribed by a High Priest as in Nichiren Shoshu. - Steve Milburn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Milburn (talkcontribs) 19:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


I'm going to re-write a lot of this article, as at the moment it seems like just a comparison between Nichiren Shu and Nichiren Shoshu, rather than focusing on Nichiren Shu. Although, a comparison may be a good section. Steve (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've made a few changes, and broken the article down into sections. But, it still needs more work, parts need to be worded better, and citations need adding. But I believe it's better now than it was. Steve (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the proper reference?[edit]

I can't agree more with the previous section regarding this article about Nichiren Shu, written as if being defensive, or under the pressure of competition and dominance of Nichiren ShoShu, a fading temple in itself. It weakens the article to define Nichiren Shu as what Nichiren ShoShu is or is not. I agree that - on the other hand - a Nichiren's school identity cannot be separate from other schools. But this interconnectedness should be based on the ground of the "Origin", the source of Nichiren's own statements and not just what that temple or another - thinks or does or does not!. Nichiren ShoShu was a minor insignificant temple and not a competitor to Nichiren Shu in the past, and both have almost common pre-war/and war history. It is the emergence of the SGI that is making many Q under light, and an honest and sincere researcher would ask these Q and look for mature answers. I have sincerely presented few issues for consideration, and dialogue is welcome to improve/correct the article. Contoversial and Critical perception of other schools of Buddhism such as the SGI is not a one sided ticket, and in terms of doctrines Nichiren Shu is also controversial and differences of teachings should also be presented openly. Regards.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits made by SafwanZabalawi[edit]

Sorry you did not outline differences to other schools but you are trying to find proofs for your views or rather for your schools views, again you are writing a thesis. I shall delete the whole section. Apart from mistakes in terms of content your changes are full of spelling mistakes and wrong use of wiki tools. Just a minor example is the issue on the Gohonzon. The calligraphic Gohonzon is also the main object of veneration in Nichiren Shu, therefore copies of a Nichiren Gohonzon are used. There is however a fine difference between a supreme object and sole object of veneration. The statues used in various temples are the same which one would find presented as a calligraphy in a Gohonzon. The issue on the historic Buddha is one of the fundamental differences yet again this discussion has been going on for centuries – also already mentioned. Never did Nichiren say that he IS THE Buddha. Four noble truths – never did Nichiren say to disregard them though. What a school teaches is one thing and best to do it in the respective article, but an article is no doctrinal debate either. Before an edit war starts see what will happen in the talk section, as this is the best place to announce major changes. As you may have noticed I did not touch the major changes you made in some other articles.--Catflap08 (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

* Please do not take things that personal putting my name in red colour, this is not a Wikipedia attitude. I will report this and ask whether this is proper from your side to do this. I have the right to freedom of expression and I have supported every single sentence I entered about Nichiren Shu/ SGI teachings with quotes and refrences. If you delet it then this is an act of vandalism in Wikipedia and it will be reported. You have participated in sections about controversy, criticism, perception, reception, etc.... about SGI. This should be mirrored by the same here. Resentment or shy avoidance if not hatred from revealing the truth of these doctrinal issues - is a way to be biased. This is biased attitude and I have the right to ask: do you have the right to participate in criticism of SGI and do not agree of presenting similar issues about Nichiren Shu? This amounts to fearing the truth. Please let other respectful Nichiren Shu ministers edit or answer these issues and I am willing to cooperate. No vandalism and no personal naming in titles, this is not acceptable. You are not entitled to use my name as you wish.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Its in red beacuse you do not have bothered to complete your users page --- its a wiki tool. You can report if you like I have nothing to add and at this point third opinion might be a good idea. You seem to mistaken crticism of an organistaion with doctrine--Catflap08 (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Never mind the colour, name pointing is not within Wikipedia culture. I never stated that what I presented was perfect, but it was definitely strongly supported by refrences and impartial statements, and you cannot deny that nor you have the right to delete it. I will report your deletion of my editing to Wikipedia editors as an act of vandalism, and of course this is a process which takes time. For your knowledge: in each intelligent pesentation you hear the words: ON THE OTHER HAND. The article on Nichiren Shu lacks this perspective and is just a superficial self-praise article, which fears any criticism. Your deletion proved this. Unless one accepts that there are two sides of a coin, one will be ignorant. My edit you erased is still present in the files, which means that readers will have access to the raised points and will understand why you feared even answering them or cooperating in editing them. This sitation here reminds me of a historical fact when Nichiren invited for dialogue (debate) with other groups but they ran away, knowing that they could be defeated. I am happy with the outcome, and I am sure many readers will find benefit or matters to ponder from the material you want to prevent them see.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, I am a bit of an uninvolved editor here, I think. A few things come to mind. One, I really do question whether it is a good idea to remove referenced material, unless the sources clearly do not meet WP:RS. I am not absolutely sure in this instance that they do, having not reviewed the material. Can someone provide me with the diff regarding removal? Two, can anyone provide me with a clear indication as to what the essence of the dispute is about? I am a bit of a lazy pig, and always seem to ensure I have a "to do" list longer than several books, so I would definitely appreciate a bit of a summary to date of the basic plot here. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well its a bit difficult to explain. I did have a lengthy discussion with user SafwanZabalawi in several talk page and especially after I reinserted critical views on SGI as such. Maybe he believes I am a member of Nichiren Shu – but at any rate his latest edit in this article was rather about why he believes Nichiren Shu's doctrine and teachings are wrong to his mind. Its okay for him to think that, but wikipedia is not a debate club why one regards a religious group to be wrong. It would be just as strange to add any references in the article on Soka Gakkai why some regard their teachings wrong. In most articles on schools of Nichiren Buddhism one reads a short overview of the respective belief-system AND as in this article a note about basic differences to other Nichiren-Buddhist schools. In the Soka Gakkai article to what I can see the section that deals with the groups teachings has not really been changed that much. Its quite remarkable though that the paragraph that deals with critics of Soka Gakkai as an organisation has been in the centre of debate for a very long time – even before any of us appeared on the surface. Its not my (or any other editors) fault that Soka Gakkai is by some regarded as having issues. To bring it to a level that a Non-Nichiren-Buddhist would understand … it would be strange to attack the Roman Catholic Church for its belief in Jesus Christ, God or the Virgin Mary --- its their belief-system that defines them. Critics however would maybe mention the Vatican Bank, its policy on birth-control, gay-marriage etc. The criticism of SGI as an organisation is well referenced within and outside of Wikipedia and should be mentioned. What should not happen is a debate on doctrine and religious beliefs they are what they are and simply described. As I already stated in the talk section in articles on Nichiren and Nichiren-Buddhism it would suit the articles best to stripped of views that may only refer to a certain Nichiren-Buddhist school … its best to mention that in the article of the respective school. --Catflap08 (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you, John, for your reply. I'll answer your 2 queries: /1/ The removed material meets Wikipedia standards and requirements, is referenced by reliable and acknowledged sources (including the official materials of the school involved), and contains quotes and citations from impartial scholars regarding the raised points. There is absolutely no support for scrapping the material out. I invited for co-editing, for improving the section and this was ignored. /2/ What is the essence of dispute? The article on Nichiren Shu is a one-way advertisment. No critical points "allowed". It contains comparison between two schools: Shu and ShoShu,and has a symbolically short section on the "Similarities and Differences with other Schools", and there I entered few points about a third school: SGI Buddhism -(and as mentioned above : fully complied with Wiki rules) - but was heavyhandedly removed. This is why i requested your views on this occurrence. May I add another thing? As you would notice, the Editor involved had answered you above, mentioning the following: "It is difficult to explain,it is not my fault that SGI has issues, the Roman Catholic Church, Birth Control, Jesus, Gay Marriage..." all irrelevant and unrelated - even as "explanatory examples". I suggest returning the removed material back and possible cooperation in editing according to the acknowledged rules.Regards,SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry where is this article an advertisement of the school in question? It outlines its basic beliefs including what position is given to Shakaymuni and Nichiren … what its objects of worship are and a brief description of its practice. Also a brief description where the school can be situated within Nichiren-Buddhism. What you, Safwan, have done is to insert why you believe its doctrine and practice is wrong and inserted what you believe to be SGI's beliefs… this is not criticism but a debate on dogma and philosophy. I guess Nichiren Shu is not primarily concerned with what differentiates it to SGI, ONE of the groups in Nichiren Buddhism. If one where to outline and compare the various schools within Nichiren-Buddhism, this should be done, if one were to undertake this tedious task, given by the number of schools we are talking about, in the article about Nichiren-Buddhism. When one looks at the article on SGI the issues raised concerning the criticism it faces have nothing to do with what SGI believes in or what object of worship it uses nor who SGI regards to be a Buddha. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Again and again: in any intelligent presentation one finds the concept of : "ON THE OTHER HAND...". Your deletion of a text - containing valid perspectives and criticism of Nichiren Shu is a violation to Wikipedia rules and hijacking it, setting your own rules to suppress correct information.

The article’s last section "Similarities and Differences" comprises of two sentences about essential doctrinal differences with ShoShu school: The Object of Devotion -DaiGohonzon- disputing it, and the doctrinal documents - Gosho - disputing some of it. But this is only how N. Shu chooses and judges doctrinal matters at hand. A one way view. I entered 2 or 3 more points on Similarities and Differences with other schools – SGI has similar view about the DaiGohonzon as N. Shu (but you deleted that), and then I entered other points & supported these points by N.Shu official statements, by impartial (nonBuddhist) scholar and by Gosho statements. Again you deleted that.

  • My first entry was general, I did not mention SGI. Even so, you deleted the text. You make your own arbitrary rules, accepting and putting the name N. ShoShu several times in the article about N.Shu. But there is more than ShoShu, there is an SGI view or even others, what’s wrong with that diversity? Views can be more encompassing and different than what you want to allow readers to see, ONLY your POV. Then, the second time deletion of my text was a proof that you do not want the name SGI to appear, not because the entry is irrelevant as you claim. If there are inconsistencies in N.Shu’s teachings or practice then Wikipedia allows these points – if supported by references- to appear. You are in conflict not with SGi or myself, but with Wikipedia, treating it as if your private property.
  • Differently from N.Shu page, criticism of SGi is allowed on its page, and it does target doctrinal issues: “SGI is criticized for its doctrinal teachings…, SGI is criticized for its teaching on Master Disciple…” – and not only that: on SGI page there was a description about doctrines of Traditional Buddhism as opposed to SGI’s. This is a double standard and a damage to Wikipedia’s impartiality and rules. Just who gave you the authority to declare one subject allowable to be seen and another not? Whether philosophical, historical, doctrinal, practical…whatever, all points of Similarities and Differences should be plainly put supported by refrences. I am going to rephrase my entry when I have time and put it again, and I will follow up the matter with Wikipedia if you are going to put your own rules on what to allow and what not.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) OK, hold on, both of you. Some of the statements above are far less than useful for anyone else to come to a conclusion. From what I can gather of the above, the argument is about whether this article should contain material critical of Nichiren Shu which comes specifically from one other outside group. Is that correct? If it is, then I would say that the material in question possibly/probably should be removed or at least given no more weight than other criticisms from any other outside group. This is first and primarily and article on the subject itself. Statements of opinion by other groups which disagree with it are not necessarily so important to meet WP:WEIGHT for this particular article. This is not to say that some material which is critical of the subject should not be included. However, I believe that at present we include any such critical statements in the same sections with the internal statements being discussed, not in a separate section. There may well be similar content of a dubious nature in other pages, as per one of the comments above. However, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the structure of material in other pages is not necessarily to be taken as a guideline for this page. That other page may be seriously flawed - many pages of wikipedia are. So far as I can see, there is a separate extant article on Nichiren Buddhism. That article is probably the "primary" article on that general topic, and it would seem to me that any descriptions of disagreements between various Nichiren groups would probably best be placed primarily there, with perhaps a short section in this page summarizing the main points of disagreement with other Nichiren groups with "see also" link at the top of the section, more or less as per WP:SS. However, in general, I do believe that this question would probably best be resolved by having the disagreement presented to as many neutral, uninvolved individuals as possible. On that basis, I do think that maybe the best way to go is to file an RfC as per WP:RFC and make as concise and clear a statement of the main points of difference between the two positions as possible. Alerting the various Japanese and religious WikiProjects, including WikiProject Buddhism, would also be a good idea. John Carter (talk)

Well first of all both Nichiren Shoshu and Nichiren Shu are the two major traditional schools of Nichiren Buddhism … SGI is an offspring of Nichiren Shohsu and is generally regarded as a Shinshūkyō this differentiation is not my invention though, the syllable ‘shu’ is, appart from age, an indication that one talks of a traditional school  … it would then mean to also enter differences to Risshō Kōsei Kai, Reiyūkai ?? Anyone familiar with Nichiren Buddhism according to SGI/NST can already see that its beliefs are considerably different compared to Nichiren Shu; anyone who is not can see what it is about. The last major difference is the Dai-Gohonzon, as far as I know SGI regards it different too, but since its not in its possession why should one bring in SGI on that??
In your comments I read that you saw the similarities and differences section as a way to criticise Nichiren Shu’s beliefs. Subsequently you’d have to do that in all articles on schools of Nichiren-Buddhism. Sure Nichiren Shu is choosing and judging on doctrinal matters who else would define what it believes in?
If you believe the mentor-disciple relationship to be a core part of SGI’s teaching then it should be mentioned there – my understanding is that amongst SGI members this point is a bit controversial, but if its indeed now part of its official teaching it is a valuable point of information and should be mentioned. Also yet again on the mentor disciple issue, I simply entered how the rest of the Buddhist world in general defines it and before I did that there was even no word as on how SGI defines it. If you regard it a criticism to underline that SGI interprets this issue completely different than anyone else in Buddhism, fine. If its not make it part of the section where it belongs to.  Same goes for the ‘four noble truths’ another issue – that when you read carefully- are, as the taking refuge, being regarded as SUPPORTING practices. Same goes for silent meditation some in Nichiren Shu practise it some do not. Most in Nichiren Shu practise the Odaimoku but some the Daimoku.
Yet again you brought up issues in this article that can not be identified in the SGI article … its not saying that your views on the four noble truth for instance are not important, but why are those issues not mentioned there? Compared to any other article on religious groups what SGI believes in i.e. practice and teachings are extremely short, but huge sections on history, flags, logo and presidents and now an attack on Nichiren-Buddhism is imminent ?? If there would be one could easily link to the section of the respective article as I just now have done in case of Nichiren Shoshu. The internal link now leads to the ‘doctrine and practice’ section. You seem to be quite happy to define what you believe in within any article but not within the SGI article. Finally what Ms. Stone has to say about the issue is not in criticism of Nichiren Shu, its her opinion in a theological/philosophical debate and there are issue in her work that most in SGI would not subscribe to … there are some interesting sections what Nichiren Shu is said to believe in contrast to Tendai. (


Certainly you could delete any information that is critical of SGI as an organisation and at this point I could not care less what is or isn’t part of the SGI article --- what you will surely end up with yet again is an edit war about SGI, which then underlines yet again that it is controversial. I would totally agree with what Mollari08 said about the issue in the talk section.
To what John Carter suggested I partly already have done that yesterday and listed this article and the articles on Nichiren and Nichiren Buddhism within the Buddhism project as 'articles needing expert attention'.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Listing it as needing expert attention is good, but, unfortunately, as one of the editors who might be inclined to respond to an RfC, and who thinks himself at least a little informed on religious articles, or at least as someone who has ready access to a huge variety of sources on religion, I myself very rarely, if ever, respond to "expert attention" requests. From my own experience, such requests can take years to get responses, particularly if the subjects are such as these where the number of real experts is small. RfC is far from perfect, but it does get a few more responses, and the results tend to be within a month or so. On that basis, I personally think filing the RfC, and notifying the relevant projects of it, might work better. The Religion, Japan, Buddhism, and New religious movement groups seem to me to maybe be the ones which are most likely to have individuals who might be able to address this. Also, of course, there are the various noticeboards, like WP:NPOVN and maybe WP:ECCN, which might get some informed, if not necessarily expert, input. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Took up your advice and got the articles in question also listed in WP:ECCN--Catflap08 (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This lengthy discussion (which branched into irrelevant topics) is an example of how a hasty deletion of edits can cause. All this could have been avoided by a responsible cooperation and impartial presentation of subjects. I am not about "criticising" Nichren Shu. The section I expanded on was already on the page, and its title is "Similarities and Differences". I have the right to add on the subject of similarities and differences in perspectives. That was not "Crtitcism".

I am going to shorten my (unfairly deleted) edit and post it again. Will take into consideration and respect the views expressed by both of you, presented above. Please consider that the differences in doctrinal matters between N.ShoShu and SGI are comparable with the differences between N.Shu and ShoShu. It is just not reasonable to consider SGI as a minor "product" of Nichiren ShoShu while it is an independant Buddhist organisation with profoundly different doctrines, acknowledged world wide, and which is of - at least - 100 times the volume and activities of ShoShu. The tendency to avoid mentioning SGI position is a form of bias and rejecting the right for expression of others, on presented matters.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Similarities and Differences[edit]

I have edited the section on Similarities and Differences providing 3 main points, supported by quotes and refrences from various sides. With respect to the views expressed before, i did not include some of the topics of differences, and on the contrary, I added one of the most important shared doctrines between all schools: that of the Three Great Laws. This section is not a criticism of N. Shu in any thing. It is just a record of impartial facts. I would like to know of John's opinion on my edit and I am willing to learn and cooperate.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for explanation[edit]

An editor (Mogism?) has deleted the following semntence from Similarities and Differences section: "while SGI views Nichiren as simply an ordinary person who attained Buddhahood “I, Nichiren, vowed attain Buddhahood”. It is within Wikipedia guidelines to explain why this deletion was made. The sentence is valid and it belongs to a section obviously presenting similarities and differences with other Nichiren communities/schools. The deleted sentence was relevant to the subject. Please explain why the sentence was deleted. Thank you.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'm inviting for a meaningful dialogue on this TalkPage in regard to editing and improving the article: in particular here regarding the note above. Any truthful encyclopedia would include variety of sources - and here the subject of how various Nichiren communities view the Founder, Nichiren, is the focus of the section. Deleting sentences without valid reason is not looked at as respectful to Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well since the edit was done rather brutal (it left parts of the former editing behind) one just reverts the edit - simple as that. No need to open a barrel about vandalism, which takes a bit more. If the same user appears again you can then start a discussion (if the aother part will want to discuss) But not every edit needs a discussion lol. And no, I was not the one who made the edit.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Catflap, no one asked for your personal opinion on the subject. Since the person who deleted the sentence in focus must have had some reasons to do that, I was respectfully trying to understand her/his point of view. Besides, it was improper from your side to interfer in this subject bringing the word 'vandalsim' or 'barrel of vandalism' - words I did not use, nor accused the person involved of bad faith. It could be lack of proper knowledge about Wikipedia guidelines , not intentional vandalism, so you should not start with bad faith between two editors who did not ask you for opinion. A proper editing looks at improving the article and enhancing the text by reliable references, utilizing also a truly mature discussion on Talk page.01:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It is of no interets if you want to understand that person ... the edit left the text as a stub. Hence it did not match the quality criteria anymore. This has nothing to do with personal opinion. If the perosn appears again you can try and discuss to your hearts content. The text in that section was not readable anymore henece I set the changes back.--Catflap08 (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 10 August 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed after almost three weeks. Jenks24 (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Nichiren ShūNichiren-shū – English-language sources appear to be divided on this point, but hyphenating and lower-case s makes the most sense grammatically and in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Romanization, and fits with other pages like Jōdo-shū. Another option might have been Nichiren Buddhism (along the lines of the similar title for Shingon-shū), but for whatever reason that is a separate article whose Japanese title actually means "Lotus Buddhism" and so technically also includes the otherwise unrelated Tendai. I am not entirely sure why this is, and I would welcome further clarification on the matter, but in the meantime Nichiren-shū would appear to be the best compromise for this article. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, the current lead sentence looks ridiculous, since we are giving a romanized Japanese phrase, and then giving the "correct" romanization as being something else. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment The MoS section you provided, as well as the WP:EN page it links to, says that articles should be titled using the version of the name most common in English-language reliable sources. The sources used in this article almost all use 'Nichiren Shu' which means that the title probably should be that, considering it's the most common usage in English reliable sources (this would also suggest that Jōdo-shū be renamed Jodo Shu.
However, it seems to be common for Japanese titles to include macrons, regardless of most common usage, so I wouldn't want to suggest any controversial moves without hearing from someone with more experienced in the area. Alicia Florrick (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
If we went through the article and removed all the dubious, unreliable sources such as primary sources from Nichiren sects themselves (often written in questionable English, mind you), online group and personal webpages and the like, we certainly would not have enough sources left to say that "the sources used in this article almost all use 'Nichiren Shu'". Additionally, many of said sources don't actually use "Nichiren Shu", but "Nichiren Buddhism" (they often appear to use the two interchangeably, invariably preferring the latter). When we search university domain names (of 69 for, 51 for "Nichiren-shu", 15 for "Nichiren Shu", 2 for "Nichiren-Shu" and 1 for "Nichiren shu") and GBooks (of the top 50 results, 21 give "Nichiren Shu", 22 give "Nichiren-shu", one gives "Nichiren-Shu", and six are either not available or in Japanese and just giving a romanization in the GBooks preview, always in the form "Nichiren-shu") for more-likely reliable, mostly third-party, sources, we get far greater abundance of sources giving "Nichiren-shu" (hyphen, lower-case s) than we do in this article, and a slight majority over "Nichiren Shu". All the data together shows a pretty clear preference among these sources for both a hyphen a lower-case s.
The above analysis is obviously flawed in a couple of spots. Many if not most of the "Nichiren Shu" spots I found in the pages appeared to just be quoting the same source that said "Nichiren Shu Headquarters" -- even though said headquarters do not appear to give this as their "official English name". A few -- though not many -- of the "Nichiren-shu" results were just giving romanizations of Japanese words in the Japanese titles of Japanese books in library catalogues. The searches also neglected to note the odd instance where the translation actually given was "Nichiren Shu Buddhism" or "Nichiren-shu sect". Obviously there is a bit of mixing and matching required to establish which of these is the absolutely most common under the circumstances, but I think we can safely assume that per WP:NOTSOURCE among other things, we should not be saying that since the article currently cites a majority of sources that give one romanization over the other, that the article as it is now is without flaw and the (mostly unencyclopedic) sources should not be removed and replaced with other sources that seem, by and large to say "Nichiren-shū".
As for the macron -- scholarly, reputable sources almost always use it: sources that don't tend, in my experience and that of the majority of users editing Japanese topics on Wikipedia, to be one of the following:
  1. written by Japanese, for Japanese, and translated as an afterthought, not actually meant to reflect correct English usage and almost never read by people outside Japan;
  2. written by Japanese, often translated into English by those same Japanese, aiming for a western market but failing to accurately represent common English usage -- and equally failing to catch notice by mainstream media, scholarship or general population outside Japan;
  3. some guy's blog.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.