Talk:Soka Gakkai/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

New description of Makiguchi's theories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right, "Shoshu"; fixed.

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

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

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

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

Claim of democratisation

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

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

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

Sock puppetry

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

Misunderstanding Primary Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's worth discussing, but I think it is RS. It's cited in a book published by Routledge: [1] And in a Japanese academic work: [2] (p. 64). The author is a former newspaper reporter and is still published in reputable newsweeklies like 新潮 45. Shii (tock) 18:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Seeking clarification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the book BTW: ISBN 0807854964. This is apparently part of a sizable literature on print media characterizations of new religions: [3] has another example. Shii (tock) 14:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~

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

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

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

The attempt to remove scholarly sources here is highly problematic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary Break!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disputes in the Cyberspace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Necessity to Help Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality

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

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

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

I struck my addition about my comments being edited out, not realizing the existence of the archives. 2602:306:CD27:DB49:3C69:E756:6DEC:DADF (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Mark Rogow 08/08/2014

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

I offer, for the most part, little commentary, preferring to let the reader come to his or her own conclusions from these mens' words alone [primary sources]. It is true, however, I juxtapose their words to make a point. My bad. I also highlighted several common knowledge facts, for example, Soka Gakkai's relationship to the Mitsubishi corporation. SGI's and Mitsubishi's relationship is important in light of the nature of Mitsubishi's products and activities and SGI's peace rhetoric. This topic requires further development, in my opinion. Mark Rogow 08/06/2014 [again, I deleted the first sentence of this paragraph, having lamented "removal of my contributions" when no removal occured].2602:306:CD27:DB49:3C69:E756:6DEC:DADF (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Mark Rogow 08/08/2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rather to quote the demon "shukanshi" were their article proven true than the New York Times were their article proven false. This is my assertion. An example is the "shukanshi" breaking the true story of Junya Yano https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren/XUt8n-CnUyY while professor Elkevizth of the Department of Religion of Duke University was all wrong in his thesis concerning SGI and Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution: http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/5430/Elkevizth_duke_0066N_11216.pdf?sequence=1 2602:306:CD27:DB49:845F:E6B2:FE26:FB17 (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Mark Rogow 08/07/2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm asking for suggestions on how to achieve balance. You seem mainly interested in keeping things negative. Again: something negatve may be covered by a 3rd party, but its resolution (unless somehow sensationalized, which this one wasn't) hardly ever is, and that's the case with the "Raccoon Dog". How do we address this? --Daveler16 (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)