Talk:Daisaku Ikeda/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Succeeded by Hiroshi Hōjō (北条浩)

This is correct re: Soka Gakkai, but not Soka Gakkai International (SGI). I think it could be misleading. This info appears in the infobox. - Steve (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not misleading because the heading directly above it says: "President of Soka Gakkai" not Soka Gakkai International. Mollari08 (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, but is it correct to say "Honourary president of Soka Gakkai"? I'm not asking because I think it's wrong, I just don't know the history of when SGI, are SG and SGI basically one organisation? - Steve (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The SG article says, on the pic of Ikeda, that Ikeda is current president of Soka Gakkai, which seems to contradict this article. Does something need to be corrected? - Steve (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

When Ikeda stood down as the president of the Sōka Gakkai, he remained as the Honorary President and remained the President of the SGI. They're not one individual organisation, the Sōka Gakkai is the Japanese organisation (the original organisation) whereas Sōka Gakkai International is the collection of all the Sōka Gakkai's organisations in other countries around the rest of the world, SGI is the global organisation. Yes the picture other article was incorrect and I've corrected it now. Mollari08 (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed recently that Mr. Ikeda has been classified as a Japanese of Korean descent. I haven't come across this information anywhere else. Could this information be cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.102.153 (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

3justice.info

One reference was to 3justice.info/asaki/. There's no indication of authorship, but a whois search for the domain name shows that it's "Soka-Spirit". Meanwhile, sokaspirit.com/ advertises Links to recommended websites, including San Jose SGI Youth Division's website "Allegations without Substance".

Not good enough. Independent sourcing is needed. -- Hoary (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the article

Should we consider to delete this page permanently? There are several uncompromising points that make this page the questionable article for general readers. added in these edits by an IP

You're not giving any recognized rationale for deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the "Article" is so irredeemably biased that it would be best for it to be removed and a full redraft occur. Ikeda Daisaku is a controversial figure, and the repeated removal of criticism by certain people is simply part of that controversy. The Portrait painted is similar to the Hagiographies he has written "The Human Revolution" and "The New Human Revolution". The repeated claims of awards from multiple agencies are also highly suspect given that any person can buy them, and there is no distinction in holding them. Criticism of Ikeda by such people as Polly Toynbee and the presentation of the relationship between her Grandfather, Arnold Toynbee, and Ikeda Daisaku is well known, as is the concern from the Toynbee Literary Executors that there will be no further connections created, yet someone connected with Ikeda Daisaku has had recordings of certain dialogues released via Youtube.

There are so many reasons to have this "Article" cleaned up, and for some rigour in factual accuracy to be applied to the history of and criticism of the subject. The false representation and presentation only reduces any value Wikipedia may have as resource to consider facts and reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.137.227 (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if what you're saying about the article and criticism of Ikeda were entirely true, this would not be a reason to delete the article and start afresh; it would instead be a reason to improve it.

If you notice that significant criticism of Ikeda from a reliable source is removed from the article, please point this out on this talk page. If you point it out straightforwardly, this notice of yours may not be deleted, and it will help unbiased editors restore the material and make sure that it stays.

However, just saying that this or that criticism "is well known" is not enough. You have to specify the criticism and specify where it is published. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I invite anyone offering criticism of the validity of this article and of the controversy of Ikeda Daisaku to research his life and achievements directly and not base their criticisms on word of mouth. In reference to the comments that "The repeated claims of awards from multiple agencies are also highly suspect given that any person can buy them, and there is no distinction in holding them." I would like to point out that one can purchase any degree but one can not have that degree conferred upon by the president and chancellors of those universities. Here is a link to the list of honorary doctorates and professorships conferred upon Ikeda, Honorary Doctorates. Here's a link cited on the page to conferral of Southern Illinois University Honorary Doctorate of Lettersand justification given by Chancellor, Dr. Walter V. Wendler, also University of Sydney Honorary Doctorate of Letters and justification given by Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Judith Kinnear. However, these are just the effects of Ikeda's greater contributions to world peace through efforts such as annual papers written to the United Nations on methods to achieve nuclear disarmament. Ikeda is a very unique individual in the number of accomplishments he has made and I can understand why there would be a lot of skepticism regarding him. I would ask that those with criticism use that as an opportunity to seek the truth rather than just offer more criticisms without any basis of fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.41.38 (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You ask that people research [Ikeda's] life and achievements directly. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but note Wikipedia's requirement for independent, secondary sources. (However, the claim that a university has conferred a degree can be sourced to that university.)

A stunningly long list of honorary doctorates, etc, is given for Ikeda. The huge majority of those listed in this article are unsourced. Sourcing to Ikeda's own website is inadequate for this kind of claim. If you can add (for example) a Southern Illinois Uni Carbondale source for the (currently unsourced) claim that SIUC awarded him an honorary doctorate, please do so.

As it is, I'm very puzzled by these honorary doctorates. I thought that universities typically made a big song and dance about the conferral of such degrees on the great and the good (or anyway the celeb). But my own largely unsuccessful searches for evidence have suggested that they tend to keep mum about degrees for Ikeda. -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It depends on each personal judgement. The website "http://www.daisakuikeda.org/sub/resources/records/degree/by-date-order.html" already provides the list. The same website has many pictures and details. If you google more, you can find names and photos of presidents from universities that award his honor degrees.

Look at Pope John Paul II in Wiki, it has references from bible, Vatican, etc.

The readers come to this page and think that this page is untrustworthy. Or is it better for you to open another page for criticism for him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.11.192 (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ikeda's website is not what Wikipedia regards as a reliable source for Ikeda's achievements. (See this.) I have already spent quite some time googling for disinterested confirmation of the many degrees that Ikeda is said to have been granted, and put in what I found; if you can find independent sources for more of the degrees, please add these sources.

In what way does the article seem untrustworthy (where not already so flagged)?

Wikipedia does not have articles devoted to criticism of individual people. -- Hoary (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Abraham_Lincoln << is this counted for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.98.147 (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The answer is in the wind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.98.147 (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Asaki again

Before this edit, the article read:

However, the case of Akiyo Asaki mentioned in the first paragraph of this same article was later revealed that it is not true.

I can't parse this. All I can do is guess what it might mean. Anyway, the article now says:

However, the case of Akiyo Asaki mentioned in the first paragraph of this same article was later revealed that it is not true. Actually, she is a politician and civil court ruled defamation cases won by Soka.

And it cites this Forbes piece for saying this. So whatever else the article says about Asaki (and I really don't understand this), it now says that:

1. She is a politician.
2. She had some relation (which I don't understand) to defamation cases won by Soka Gakkai.
3. This information appears within this article at forbes.com.

This is very odd. First, she's dead, so she isn't a politician or anything else. The Forbes article says she was a politician. So what -- why "Actually, she is a politician"? As it is, the Wikipedia article seems to imply that the Forbes article refutes allegations that SG had Asaki pushed off a roof, or that it hindered medical attention. But the Forbes article does neither. -- Hoary (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, she was a politician according to Forbes which does matters than just a assemblywoman according to Time which claiming vicious accusation as appeared in current version of this article:

"according to a member who was present" that Ikeda, as "honorary president and unquestioned commander" of Sōka Gakkai, had said of Kōmeitō: "This time, not the next time, [the election] is going to be about winning or losing. We cannot hesitate. We must conquer the country with one stroke."

Yes, you are correct. Forbes does neither. Just only mentioned "defamation cases, several won by Soka". So please feel free to edit that part.

Now I have another curiosity. If we should not self-refer to the Soka related sources, should we consider about the reliability from the critique sources? For example, I just found that the author of Forbes has the same name website contribute to defame Soka Gakkai. People can type anything they like. For example, in a blog that posted the Forbes author's criticism, there are controversial like

"FK says:

2011/09/27 at 06:04

Today’s Sokka Gakkai is made by a North Korean (Chongryon) guy in Japan.

Ikeda is like an “eternal leader” according to a South Korean Sokka Gakkai member I had met.

Amy says:

2011/09/27 at 12:44

Yes, the top leaders are korean, not Japanese. They are screwing up Japan with FAKE religion. SGI Soka Gakkai is the part of CIA Operation."

Actually, it will be very nice if we can have more and more reliable information about accusations and cases. We should incorporate them here to make this page neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by จิตร (talk • contribs) 03:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You say: Yes, she was a politician according to Forbes which does matters than just a assemblywoman according to Time which claiming vicious accusation as appeared in current version of this article. Possibly so. But the Forbes article merely mentions in passing that she was a politician, and does not seem to use this to debunk, deny, or say anything whatever about what was written in Time.

Forbes is a magazine/website that I rarely look at. But I believe that it's normally thought of as a business-friendly, conservative US magazine. I'd worry about it as a neutral source for labor issues, but I haven't heard it described as a magazine/website that's eager to debunk any religious organization. Are you saying that the article in Forbes shouldn't be trusted because it was written by somebody who years later ran a website on which he wrote material that (i) defamed SG and (ii) was then reposted on somebody else's blog, on which that second person allowed nutty comments? If so, I don't follow the logic. The name Benjamin Fulford never registered with me until today, but Wikipedia (not a reliable source) says he's "former Asian Bureau chief for Forbes magazine". His current website, benjaminfulford.net, seems to be full of apocalyptic conspiracy talk. I don't immediately notice anything about SG or Ikeda, but I haven't looked. On what's currently the top page he refers to the current pope as "serial child rapist pope maledict", which is within character of the rest of that article, and so I wouldn't be surprised if he has extraordinary language for SG as well. This seems to be how he is, now in 2013. However, the Forbes article was written years before. Scientists don't dismiss the work of Richard Alpert merely because its author later became Ram Dass. -- Hoary (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

World Poet Laureate Award

I have been trying to find reliable information about this award and the awarding organisation. Plenty of material on Ikeda and SGI sites, but not much anywhere else. From this page on Ikeda's site, (for the award of World Peace Poet Award - which we don't yet have in the article) the organisation seems to be World Poetry Society Intercontinental which shares a founder with World Congress of Poets, a certain Dr.Krishna Srinivas, for whom we once had an article, deleted in January 2010. Now from this interview with Andreas Schroeder (Q4), the society is alleged to be or have been a scam. I am not sure what to do with all this, but it seems clear that whatever Mr Ikeda's other merits, it is likely the award was paid-for and that he does not have any real notability in the Wikipedia sense for his poetry. Mcewan (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear. I started looking for more about this but got sidetracked and ended up at this Macanese page, which is mostly about Ikeda though it suddenly changes its mind for the last paragraph and writes about Kissinger instead. It doesn't mention this poetry award, but it does add Knight Grand Cross of the Most Noble Order of the Crown (Thailand), the Order of Merit “Grand Officer” (Italy) [. . .] and the Hwa-Gwan Order of Cultural Merit (South Korea) -- all with my linking, of course. I'll discreetly remove the poetry thing and give him these instead. -- Hoary (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Macao poly thing looks like a sloppy copy from here]. Mcewan (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if he also has any of these. -- Hoary (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well there are several hundred Honorary citizenships of towns across the world that are not yet mentioned. And of course the Daisaku Ikeda Tip-Top Park Mcewan (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Controversies

Ikeda is a controversial figure. Mainly known as a collector of international awards, titles and medals. --Seibun (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. What are you asking for, or suggesting? -- Hoary (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree he is a controversial figure. Please allow me to post here a nice quote which explains about this point. It will be much more effective to communicate my point on this.

Dr. Lawrence Carter, dean of the Martin Luther King Jr. Chapel at Morehouse College in Atlanta and an ordained Baptist minister, has worked with the SGI-USA and Daisaku Ikeda for many years. Morehouse College bestowed an honorary doctorate on Ikeda, and Dean Carter has initiated an annual award called the "Gandhi, King, Ikeda: A Legacy of Building Peace." The award is cosponsored by the Martin Luther King Jr. Chapel at Morehouse College and the SGI-USA. According to Carter, he came up with the idea for the award, not to compare the three men for whom it is named, but as a way of extolling those whose actions for peace have cut across cultural and religious boundaries. Recipients to date include Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan, president of the Club of Rome; Dr. Michael Nobel, board chair of the Nobel Family Society and the Nonviolence Project; and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Betty Williams. When the Gandhi, King, Ikeda Community Builders Prize became the subject of a critical 2003 Shukan Shincho article, Carter wrote a lengthy letter of protest to the magazine. In it, he states:

"Controversy" is an inevitable partner of greatness. No one who challenges the established order is free of it. Gandhi had his detractors, as did Dr. King. Dr. Ikeda is no exception. Controversy camouflages the intense resistance of entrenched authority to conceding their special status and privilege. "Insults" are the weapons of the morally weak; "slander" is the tool of the spiritually bereft. Controversy is testament to the noble work of these three individuals in their respective societies.

— Adam Gamble and Takesato Watanabe, A Public Betrayed: An Inside Look at Japanese Media Atrocities and Their Warnings to the West, p. 239

(จิตร (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

Quotations

I cannot think of any other article which has as many long quotations as this one has. And the number of such long quotations here is actually increasing. Nobody is working to trim them, either. Consider this article on another notable Buddhist: a much lower percentage of quotations.

Consider WP:Quotations. True, it is only an essay, not a guideline or policy. But it's well established (started in 2006) and is much referred to, from which we can infer that it has broad support. It rules against the mass of quotations that's in this article. -- Hoary (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it is ok. Just put them to the appropriate format. Here is one example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI

As we are virtually allowing any critiques here, for example:

"Ikeda has often been the subject of controversy. The British journalist and political commentator Polly Toynbee was invited to meet Ikeda in 1984, as Ikeda "was hoping to tighten the public connection between himself and Polly Toynbee's famous grandfather, Arnold Toynbee, the prophet of the rise of the East."[11] She described him as "a short, round man with slicked down hair, wearing a sharp Western suit"; they talked from "throne-like" chairs in "an enormous room" reached via "corridors of bowing girls dressed in white".[12] Toynbee wrote "I have met many powerful men — prime ministers, leaders of all kinds — but I have never in my life met anyone who exudes such an aura of absolute power as Mr. Ikeda."[13][14]

A 1995 San Francisco Chronicle article titled "Japan Fears Another Religious Sect" outlined charges in Japan that Sōka Gakkai was "heavy-handed fund raising and proselytizing, as well as intimidating its foes and trying to grab political power".[15] It quotes a professor at Meisei University as describing Ikeda as "a power-hungry individual who intends to take control of the government and make Soka Gakkai the national religion"; the article describes evidence videotaped in 1993 of "Ikeda yelling and pounding on tables in anger and later railing against President Clinton for having refused to meet with him".[15]

A 1995 Time article criticized Daisaku Ikeda and Sōka Gakkai, claiming "according to a member who was present" that Ikeda, as "honorary president and unquestioned commander" of Sōka Gakkai, had said of Kōmeitō: "This time, not the next time, [the election] is going to be about winning or losing. We cannot hesitate. We must conquer the country with one stroke."[16] However, the case of Akiyo Asaki mentioned in the first paragraph of this same article was later revealed that it is not true.[vague] Actually, she is a politician and civil court ruled defamation cases won by Soka.[dubious – discuss][17]",

should we allow those reliable-sourced quotations from him or anywhere else to reveal about his identity? Of course, the negative quotations are allowed too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by จิตร (talk • contribs) 02:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

In addition, I read carefully about WP:Quotations on Recommended use of quotations "when dealing with a controversial subject" and Overusing quotations when "its relevance is not explained anywhere", I think we should not just delete those quotations without previous discussion in this active Talk page. Please provide your justification. (จิตร (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

Yes, the article on the current pope has a fair number of block quotations -- more than it should, and more than are necessary. But the percentage of the article that they constitute is far less than the percentage of this article that block quotations constituted 24 hours ago. Moreover, some of the block quotations in that article are clearly important (for example, the exact words of what was widely understood as a slur on Islam).

Forgive me if I misinterpret you, but the thrust of what you are saying seems to be: This article has many cleverly used quotations that are individually and cumulatively negative. The addition of positive quotations may not have been so clever, but it was, and is, only fair.

It's true that the former group of quotations are not flattering. But the quotations are concise and are used in order to help express information presented in reliable sources. I think that an examination of the history of this article will show you that the work of abridging and condensing them and putting them inside prose written especially for this article was done before or at the time when they were inserted. Editors didn't simply dump kilobytes of quotation into the article, hoping either that nobody would mind or that others would do the hard work of working out what their content was and reexpressing it as concisely as possible.

Let's look at the longest version. Here's one block quotation:

In spite of the difference between the authors' religious and cultural backgrounds, a remarkable degree of agreement in their outlooks and aims has been brought to light in their dialogue. Their agreement is far-reaching; their points of disagreement are relative [sic] slight. They agree in believing that religion is the mainspring of human life. They agree that a human being ought to be perpetually striving to overcome his innate propensity to try to exploit the rest of the universe and that he ought to be trying, instead, to put himself at the service of the universe so unreservedly that his ego will become identical with an ultimate reality, which for a Buddhist is the Buddha state. They agree in believing that this ultimate reality is not a human-like divine personality. They also agree in believing in the reality of karma, a Sanskrit word that literally means "action" but that, in the vocabulary of Buddhism, has acquired the special meaning of an ethical "bank-account" in which the balance is constantly being changed by fresh credit or fresh debit entries during a human being's psychosomatic life on earth. The balance of a human being's karma, at any particular moment, is determined by the plus or minus sum of the previous credit or debit entries; but the karma-bearer can, and will, change the balance, for better or for worse, by his further acts. In fact, he makes his karma for himself and is thus, at least partially, a free agent. As the authors see it, a human being's perennial spiritual task is to overcome his egoism by expanding his ego until it becomes coextensive with the ultimate reality, from which it is, in truth, is inseparable.

As far as I understand it (see below), this is good prose, for its original purpose. But for an encyclopedia, it is far too windy. If its content were thought to be needed here, then it could be cut to something like:

The authors wrote that they agreed on a number of points: that "religion is the mainspring of human life", that a person should "[unreservedly] put himself at the service of the universe", and that karma exists, as "an ethical 'bank-account'".

That's just a first stab; I'm sure that others can do better. (I confess to being unable to understand the part expanding his ego until it becomes coextensive with the ultimate reality and for this reason being unable to summarize it.)

If material was cut wrongly, then decide how its content can be restated in the lowest number of bytes. -- Hoary (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping on making the progress. I second

This article has many cleverly used quotations that are individually and cumulatively negative. The addition of positive quotations may not have been so clever, but it was, and is, only fair.

Prof. Toynbee wrote expanding his ego until it becomes coextensive with the ultimate reality has meaning in Buddhism that human can overcome all delusions (suffering, hatred, anger, animality, etc.) and become enlightened by the inherited Buddha nature within all individuals, which are all interconnected, and this supreme state of life is the same as the life of the universe.

This book that has published for more than twenty languages since 1976 is the strongly recommended to read on several topics which they are still true for the current world situations.

You have incredibly wisdom to understand the occurring matter of facts here clearly, given my poor damn English writing. I apologize for communication barrier without face to face dialogue. I have majorly studied English by myself and finally took a grammar course in 2008 to learn how to use English language more properly. At this poor level nowadays, I already have improved a lot from before I took that course.

Your condensing example is concise. I have no ability to do so as English is not my native language.

I do not mind if anyone would like to help improving this page to finally become the reliable source of information. Thus, we can remove the neutrality POV which was labeled from an anonymous contributor since 2010.

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

But for the comment of 24.128.49.84, as I mentioned earlier and copied some back to 2005 on the above, those deletions occurred from different registered Wiki users. I also challenge to investigate if they are the same person or there exists any systematic revising pattern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by จิตร (talk • contribs) 09:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've put my attempt above at condensing Ikeda+Toynbee into the article.

Only a tiny number of people (called "checkusers", if I remember correctly) have the technical ability to see whether different Wikipedia usernames represent the same IP number. (And these people are not normally authorized to exercise this ability: they need a good reason. Cf the need in most democracies for police to present clear reasons for entering and searching a house.) Nobody can check whether different IP numbers were actually used by the same person (though anybody may amass and present compelling evidence that they were). -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Flag icons

This article is a slug to load. Wondering whether this was a matter of a huge table (of honorary degrees), a huge number of little graphics (for the nations of the universities that conferred those degrees), or the combination, I asked. One reply came in just five minutes. A day later, nobody has added to it. The reply: The use of flags in this situation fails WP:MOSFLAG. They should be removed.

Here's what I think is the key part of WP:MOSFLAG:

Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.

Although a significant number of the universities (etc) are national and might be said to represent the particular nation, a much greater number are provincial, municipal, private, etc.

I propose to remove all the flag icons, because they don't belong in the table. If (as I'd guess) the removal speeds up loading of the page, so much the better; but even if it doesn't, the flag icons should go. -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think I agree with your suggestion further up that the whole table could go, to be replaced with a mention of the fact that he has over 300 of these awards, including ... <list of the more notable and verifiable>... Perhaps he is a world-record-holder. Stephen Hawking only has about 6 honorary doctorates and they don't get a table in his article. Also it is probable that many will turn out to be unverifiable, because of the passage of time. Quite a few are from rather obscure institutions and I'm just not sure that the table adds value to the article except perhaps as testament to the avidity with which he collects them and the efficiency of SGI in acquiring them. Mcewan (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm fascinated by the list. It tells me something remarkable about honorary degrees, though I'm not entirely sure what. ¶ I'm about to start the job of removing the icons, but this will take me some time. Help welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Icons removed. This was easier than I'd expected. -- Hoary (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Reordering

Now that the icons have been removed, the page does indeed display faster. This makes radical editing a lot easier. And radical editing is what this article needs.

Its main sections are now:

1. Life and establishment of SGI
2. Controversy
3. Accomplishments
   1. Honorary doctorates and professorships
   2. Other awards
4. Personal life
5. Books

So his "life" and his "personal life" are separate, the establishment of SGI is not an accomplishment, and there is one unidentified controversy. Ugh.

There should be no section titled "Controversies" (or even "Controversy"). Just what did he do, what is he notable for, what else should be said about him, and how can this be classified most coherently? Even if the content of all of this could be divided into plusses and minuses, it shouldn't be. Instead, if some nugget is significant and reliably sourced, it goes in, regardless of its polarity; whether it's a plus or a minus is for the reader to decide (or, conceivably, for cited reliable sources to say).

So, any suggestions for a good classification? -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The section under controversy not only lacks neutrality, its downright petty and generally disparaging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueinfo (talk • contribs) 18:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your efforts, Hoary. I agree with you for reorder and reorganizing this page. According to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., the content organizations are started by Early Life and Background/Education. Then, they move to the itemized accomplishments/movements. They also contain Literary Works, legacy, and Awards. Mahatma Gandhi also contain good structured reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi#References. Note that I would further suggest of having Dialogues with Other Religions and Spiritual Traditions similar to Pope Francis, as Daisaku Ikeda and SGI has exchanged and dialogue with many thinkers, philosophers, and religious leaders. จิตร (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Quotations

I have "been bold" and gutted the article of most of its quotations. I've also deleted paragraphs that I felt were repetitive (I believe the article mentioned his honorary degrees 3 or 4 times) or irrelevant (about SG/SGI or Nichiren rather than Ikeda). The article still needs a lot of work, though. Cckerberos (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I truly appreciate your efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by จิตร (talk • contribs) 02:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I added a quote (without adding much, bit-wise), straightened out another, and clarified a concept/added a reference + several typo corrections, etc. Hope it helps! Siryendor (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The use of Spiritual Violence as a means to keep the SGI and its members in line.

An un-spoken and un-known crime rampant within the organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.51.202.2 (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Opposition to Soka Gakkai and additional ideas for contributors

Perhaps the editors of this Wiki page should look at the site: www.toride.org/eindex.html just to get some more ideas. Founder Ikeda is even accused of rape, not too much different than Clinton whom he clearly looked up to at one time. Soka Gakkai has opposition which needs to be constantly covered in . The full Toynbee letter is shown on their page and much of the content is in Japanese naturally enough. To find Benjamin Fulford's article, you need to check benjaminfulford.com not dot-net. Go to the English side of his site. And interestingly, SGI's own sites are blocked by certain flagship internet providers in Indonesia - especially SGI in Indonesian - where I am posting this from. Thanks, Marko — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.252.106.103 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the website, and the first and strongest idea that I got was "What a crap website!"

Above, you talk vaguely of "some more ideas". Please choose one among them. Now, related to this one idea, precisely which facts do you want added, and what reliable evidence can you present for their veracity? -- Hoary (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

So the idea is to fill an encyclopaedic reference of a living individual with a list of rumours. Wiki isn't a gossip column, you know. There are plenty of sites out there for that purpose, I wouldn't like to see it replicated here. 109.154.113.250 (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point to show this website of "Soka Gakkai Victims Association". An article which has been cited on Ikeda's controversial section (Edward W. Desmond, "The Power of Sōka Gakkai: Growing revelations about the complicated and sinister nexus of politics and religion", Time, 20 November 1995.) stated clearly that

"According to ex-followers, Soka Gakkai spies on its own ranks, trailing and intimidating those who are unsure of their commitment. Shuichi Sanuki, editor of a biweekly newspaper for the 10,000 members of the "Soka Gakkai Victims Association", claims to have overseen, among other activities, the sect's alleged spying apparatus in Tokyo. He quit, along with many other disenchanted members, in 1991 when the Nichiren Shoshu, which provided the sect's priesthood, grew angry over Ikeda's attempts to take over the religious wing and excommunicated him. Sanuki says he received death threats over the phone, and members of the Soka Gakkai Housewives' Association even contacted his wife and urged her to divorce him."

I second Hoary's first and strongest idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.12.241 (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Garbling and deletion of "Controversy" section

In this edit (10 March 2013), user Trueinfo deleted much of a rarity about Ikeda: a first-hand account of meeting him by somebody (Polly Toynbee, a writer for the the British newspaper The Guardian) who's unrelated to him. Trueinfo did this in a strange way, so what's left of the comment is from an unspecified "Toynbee", and she and the newspaper's readers seem to be described as members of the "Nicherin Shoshu priesthood" (meaning the Nichiren Shōshū priesthood, I suppose). (I tentatively infer that I too am a priest in Trueinfo's eyes. Quite a surprise.)

In this edit (14 September 2013), user Naveen Reddy deleted the entire "Controversy" section (including the somewhat garbled remains of Polly Toynbee's description), with the edit summary:

Deleted this paragraph because It makes personal attack on a living person, causes considerable damage to the public image and perception of living person. It's a clear disregard for Wikipedia rules of conduct WP:Live, WP:NOR

Although "this paragraph" is referred to in the edit summary, there were several paragraphs. And although WP:NOR is invoked, these paragraphs seem well sourced to me (though I don't claim that the sourcing is flawless).

One possible objection that goes unmentioned in Naveen Reddy's edit summary is that the deleted "paragraph" (multiparagraph section) is titled "Controversy". A BLP normally shouldn't have a section so titled. Well, at least some of the material deleted didn't start off as "Controversy"; for example, I first added (1 June 2010) the material by Polly Toynbee so that it would come immediately after other personal material. One could perhaps make other objections. What I don't think is permissible is the garbling of sourced material and its wholesale deletion. And all this within an article that has still has quite a pile of very different unsourced or sourced-from-biographee material (e.g. the bulk of the honorary degrees). -- Hoary (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the edit immediately before that by Naveen Reddy was this one, by Catflap08. It's another crude edit, resulting in: When a Shūkan Shinchō article criticized these aspects of the award, Carter wrote a protest to the magazine. In it, he states: nothing at all, but instead a paragraph not stated by Carter. I start to wonder if the botched edits by Trueinfo and Catflap8 (and perhaps more besides) just made the resulting "Controversy" section so messy that Naveen Reddy was inclined to delete it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Naveen Reddy has responded elsewhere that:

Wikipedia is not a international court of justice, we are not some one to judge others credibility. In Wikipedia there is a clear rule that if any thing written maligning the dignity of a person it should be deleted immediately with out contest Wikipedia:Live And I'll do that again if some one tries to sabotage the page ! The argument ends

I don't know what the first sentence refers to. As for the second, I suppose that Wikipedia:Live is a slip for WP:Live. The latter page of course says says no such thing. What it does say is (after markup-stripping):

Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

-- Hoary (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

In this set of edits, I've resuscitated the "controversy" section, rearranged its content, updated a link within it, clarified it here and there, and also made minor changes elsewhere in this article. A lot more work needs to be done on the article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Lay association

A request was made on the BLP board to have this article reviewed. It's the second time I've attempted to read this, and each time I ask myself, "what is a lay association?" It's kind of nagging at me.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's an association of "lay people", and that the latter are those without formal qualifications (in a context such as this, people who aren't priests, nuns, monks, etc). -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Odd sourcing?

Sources are being added to replace "Citation needed] flags, which is good; but I wonder about some of the sources. One is this within a site called "Hosshaku kempon". Unable to guess what this might be, I went to the top page, where we're told:

This website is dedicated to a group of true practitioners in Singapore Soka Association (SSA), who are being falsely maligned and persecuted, based on groundless accusation by certain members of the top leadership. It is also dedicated towards the advancement of kosen-rufu based on the spirit of the three founding presidents and the SGI.

Well, OK -- but I wonder why biographical details are sourced to the website of a group within the Singaporean branch of SGI. I'd guess that the content of the page derives from elsewhere; it would be better to cite that. -- Hoary (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit requests

Just jotting down some notes here. Feel free to answer them here or in the article.

• What was the name of the University Ikeda attended? Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

  Good catch! The article says In 1948, Ikeda left university to work for Toda's publishing business [...]. Here in his own website, we read that Ikeda attended "Toda University" (quotes in the original) after entering the business, and that this was a matter of being tutored by Toda outside any institution. This page in the same website says that in April '48 Enrolls in night school extension of Taisei Gakuin (present-day Tokyo Fuji University College); majors in political science. (April is the normal time for enrollment in Japan.) There doesn't seem to be anything else within the large amount of biographical stuff there about this experience. It seems that he was only there for a few months at most. This is what is now Tokyo Fuji University: the en:WP article on it is a mere stub, but the Japanese one is fuller, and says that the name of the place was then 大世学院 (yes, Taisei Gakuin), that it became a tanki daigaku (usually englished as "junior college") in 1951, and that it only became a full-blown university in 2002. Lower in the same article comes the (unsourced) claim that Ikeda's graduation was acknowledged in 1968.) This page (in Japanese) says very briefly that Taisei Gakuin was primarily a school of economics and business. ¶ So how about: In April 1948, Ikeda entered the night school of Taisei Gakuin (which would much later become Tokyo Fuji University); he left it in the same year to work for Toda's publishing business [...]? -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. What about the death of his mentor in 58? Should that be mentioned?Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, good idea, please go ahead. (I've just now done my best with the Taisei Gakuin info.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that Toda is listed as being president of Soka Gakkai from 51-60, making his term last 2 years after his death. I suppose the organization was president-less during that period? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 20:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Offhand, I dunno, sorry. But I note that mere death isn't necessarily an impediment to leadership. -- Hoary (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Forced to resign? Excommunicated? These are statements just begging for more detail.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

  The normal schism business, no? Religious group X claims to be implementing the beliefs of religious group Y but manages to irritate Y, which mutters about heresy or whatever. X tries to placate Y (here, by having its head resign). Y is not placated. Y tells X to get lost ("excommunicates" it). And does the same for its (ex-) head. Well, that's what I hazily infer. If I'm right, then I think it's far less about the one man than about the two religious groups. For more, see this part of the article on Sōka Gakkai (one of the better parts of that article). -- Hoary (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Toynbee

This unverified account (though it looks reasonable) from the younger Tonybee sheds more light on the subject then perhaps most of our article. Worth a read.Two kinds of pork (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If you look again at the WP article, you'll see that the (fascinating) article by Toynbee is already cited. Toynbee was and is a writer for The Guardian (whose title had been shorn of "Manchester" long before in 1984) and I presume that this article was syndicated to the Daily Yomiuri, where Peter Popham read it before quoting it in his very worthwhile book. If some editor in good standing has access to The Guardian (or indeed the Daily Yomiuri) of 1984 (microfiche? DVD?) then it would be good if the original were compared with what's on this rather shrill (and non-RS) website, so that the original could be cited directly. -- Hoary (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It is cited, but not very informative in how it is used. Perhaps the relationship between Ikeda and the elder should be explained, then the encounters and musings of the younger? Particularly the cult of personality she witnessed?Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Either you're missing something I've tried to get across, or I'm missing your response to this. So I'll spell it out again. Polly Toynbee (not "Tonybee") was then and is now a writer for The Guardian, then and now a respected British newspaper. It seems highly likely that in 1984 she wrote a remarkably interesting article for The Guardian about her grandfather's earlier and her later encounter with Ikeda. Certainly there are many references on the web, usually to an article by her published in The Manchester Guardian. Now, ascribing something to The Manchester Guardian in 1984 is about as bizarre as railing against the ethical lapses of "First National City Bank" in 2013; and the explanation seems to be that the article is cited from this page at toride.org, which perversely attributes it to the Manchester Guardian. Presumably the article (if genuine) is © either Polly Toynbee or Guardian News and Media Ltd; the web page says nothing. Copyright questions aside, the page is hosted by Jiyū no toride (自由の砦), which describes itself as an organization of victims of Sōka Gakkai. This is of course about as far from a dispassionate source as you can get. Now, it could be claimed that much of this WP article is sourced to websites hosted by this or that part of Sōka Gakkai, websites that seem as adulatory as this one is derisive. I think that too much is sourced to them, but most of it is pretty humdrum. Polly Toynbee's article (or what claims to be her article) is of course not humdrum, quite the contrary. ¶ I have read Popham's book and possess a copy; I can vouch for what's quoted there. I have not seen this 1984 issue of The Guardian. I'm not aware that any WP editor in good standing has claimed to have done so. Have you? If you haven't, do you think it's satisfactory to cite it on the say-so of some openly anti-SGI website that seems to have no regard for copyright and can't even get the title of the newspaper down correctly? If you do think it's satisfactory, are you ready to argue for this (carefully, persistently and successfully) in the face of the inevitable later attempts to defend Ikeda against "libel" in this WP article? -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against Toynbee's 84 article, quite the opposite. I found it fascinating and I felt like I understood Ikeda better for reading it. I just think it could be used here in clearer fashion.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I just think [Toynbee's 84 article] could be used here in clearer fashion. Where are you going to find this article? (Do you have access to The Guardian, 1984, in microform?) -- Hoary (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I must add that I'm somewhat confused as to the "libel" complaints that others have made, which prompted your request on the BLP board. I'm still trying to read the article and process it. It might take me some time, as this subject matter is foreign to me.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I was puzzled too. That's why I asked there. -- Hoary (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Another blog mentioning Polly's visit. Not sure what we can do with this, but it's worth a lookTwo kinds of pork (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how this can be called a blog. It's a collection of what purport to be reprints of articles published elsewhere, put together by Rick Ross. What one does is very straightforward (if time-consuming). One looks through this for something interesting, and if one finds it then one chases up the original and cites that. ¶ Incidentally, this subject matter is foreign to me too. (My only "connection", if it can be called that, is that I live in Japan and often have to ride local trains, and no train ride is complete without the sight of some advert by Sōka Gakkai for this or that magazine or book. I'm mildly interested by the seemingly prodigious productivity of Ikeda: books, honorary degrees, chats with people who I suppose are dignitaries, etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

More sources?

I found an internet archive of a now defunct site that collected a lot of articles about S.G. Also worth a look. Yes, I'm well aware that I should be looking into these, but I want to drop them here in case I lose interest, get hit by a truck, etc.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a collection of what purport to be reprints of articles published elsewhere, put together by Rick Ross. I've commented on this above. -- Hoary (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC) ......... PS it's now hosted here. -- Hoary (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Goethe Medal

Ikeda did not receive the Goethe Medal in 2009 nor did he do so in any other year. The medal is regarded as an official medal of the Federal Republic of Germany.  Including him in the article on the medal itself is quite presumptuous. (Goethe Insitute; http://www.goethe.de/uun/gme/pre/enindex.htm )--Catflap08 (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Then how do you explain the photos taken with Ikeda and the Dr. Manfred Osten together with the Goethe Medal photo.Kelvintjy (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Once and for all. The Goethe Institut should know best who received the Goethe Medal http://www.goethe.de/uun/gme/pre/enindex.htm). Mr Ikeda received a recognition of some sort by the Goethe-Gesellschaft which is less known and less prestigious than the Goethe Institut. The medal the Goethe Gesellschaft issues has nothing to do with THE Goethe Medal which is an official medal by the Federal Republic of Germany. --Catflap08 (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Conflict on revising

We had adjusted the balance of neutrality for this page until finally we could remove the NPOV for reliability as an encyclopedic information source.

However, now we have the frequent changes in content from contributors to different directions.

Any suggestion please?

"The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point of view, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability.[1] It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel)

I am unsure of what you are attempting to say. You seem to make it out as if the article was balanced and NPOV before recent edits (including my own, I suppose?), while no serious editor could ever understand this December 2 version of the article as anything but promotional material. If you think any of the amendments I or any other editor have made is libelous, feel free to take it up on the BLP noticeboard (WP:BLPN). Note however that everything I've added, however controversial, is fully sourced from reputable sources. Furthermore, Ikeda himself wrote the foreword to one of the books mentioning the assault on Ogasawara. Kiruning (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

For those you did deletion selectively on positive side are referable too. Their sources are from educational or governmental institutes from around the world.

I found this one, Slavoj Žižek. Is it another example for the introduction part? I think the point you mentioned about "promotional material" has been discussed and developed for several years into the previous version that last for about half a year until you started to edit into the current version that dishonor a person who has been praised from governments, institutes, and leaders from around the world. Should we think that he can pay for Harvard, UN, etc?

Now we are in the current situation like the quoted below in several parts of content as you can see from the revision history log. For example of this one, why can't we leave the opinion from Toynbee right there to meet with the claim from his family member that he was exploited from Ikeda in his old and "fragile" age. So you just simply deleted the positive part, and left only the negative claims.

" (cur | prev) 06:31, 3 January 2014‎ Kiruning (talk | contribs)‎ . . (73,089 bytes) (+1,861)‎ . . (RV (I'm the previous IP) - you have no rationale for your edit.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 04:54, 3 January 2014‎ Kelvintjy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,228 bytes) (-1,861)‎ . . (Undid revision 588921718 by 49.98.155.17 (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 04:28, 3 January 2014‎ 49.98.155.17 (talk)‎ . . (73,089 bytes) (+1,861)‎ . . (rv - the fact that the article isn't relevant to include in the Toynbee article is not a valid argument for removing it from the actual subject of said article) (undo)

(cur | prev) 02:40, 3 January 2014‎ Kelvintjy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,228 bytes) (-1,861)‎ . . (→‎Critical commentary: (Remove the article about what Polly Tonybee wrote as per what had being discuss in the Talk:Polly Tonybee by Philip Cross as its significance appears to be lacking.)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 10:16, 2 January 2014‎ Kiruning (talk | contribs)‎ . . (73,089 bytes) (-1,827)‎ . . (RV to 24 december version by Flatout. Edits by the IP didn't use reliable sources and seems promotional. If the revert is contested, I can provide a more detailed explanation) (undo) "

How can we end this childish wars of revision for the justice?

171.99.87.81 (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well maybe we could start to discuss the following:

• it may be debatable to call an article of one of the most renowned Brtish journalists on A director of A religious corporation the pillar stone of her life's work and career.
• It seems undebatable though to mention an article of one the most renowned British journalists on a director of a religious corporation in an article about former mentioned director. This is especially the case if the journalist in question is the grand daughter of a famous British historian that the director of a mentioned organisation prides himself to have met.
• Since the journalist herself is quite renowned (awarded due to her own work btw.) it seems that some editors would not like to see critical remarks of such renowned (in some circles even regarded as famous) personalities being included in the article. If that is the case please read this: Wikipedia is not censored--Catflap08 (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that we should have no censorship. The negative comments from Polly Toynbee's article are in Ikeda page for several years. Can't we leave the other side of coin quoted with her grandfather's writing in foreword as the third person in Choose Life? She claimed that he was too old and fragile and was exploited by Ikeda, so we can provide the readers what Arnold Toynbee said (wrote) about Ikeda?

จิตร (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Controversy

this section is a joke sorry folks --Catflap08 (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Controversy should be baout that and on "on the other hand" --Catflap08 (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I am following this discussion with great interest. My teacher is the Turkish Islamic preacher Fethullah Gülen who is currently living in Pennsylvania. Mr. Gülen is being vilified by Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan who has asked for his extradition. For those following the news, Mr. Erdogan has been purging his government of Gülen followers in the police and judiciary. Critics have not yet found their way to English site on Gülen but I am sure they are on their way.

I learned about Daisaku Ikeda in 1995 at a seminar on religious "Peace Heroes" sponsored by Gülen followers and was struck by many similarities between the two religious leaders. Both have made profound contributions to peace and education--and both have come under heated attack by detractors.

My larger question is how should Wikipedia handle this type of category? How can discussions transcend "he said/she said"? How do we avoid the prejudiced view that the truth lies somewhere in the center of the spectrum of controversy? How do we weigh the accomplishments of larger-than-life individuals against the words of critics? I think the cited quote of Lawrence Carter is very illuminating. FetullahFan (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)FethullahFan

What is the connection your are aiming at? Gülen, Erdogan and Ikeda ???--Catflap08 (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Not exactly. My comparison is between Gülen and Ikeda. Erdogan is one of Gülen's detractors. For your reference there is an article that attempts to be journalistically balanced about the Gülen movement . IMHO it understates the great accomplishments of Gülen and overestimates conspiracy theories. But it is constructed in a way that leaves readers worrying about Gülen even though there is no historical precedent for fears. This is symptomatic of the problems with the current Wikipedia Ikeda article.

FetullahFan (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)FetullahFan

Well honestly just because Erdogan is as you said a detractor of Gülen does not white wash Gülen at the same time. If I read articles on Gülen even in other Wikipedia languages he stands for a conservative interpretation of Islam and some sources label his movement being a cult. Keeping this in mind I have not the faintest clue what you are aiming at – except some sources see both men on the somewhat religious fringe and being labelled by some as cult leaders. Fethullah Gülen de:Fethullah Gülen. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I've been MIA. It's end-of-semester time with a thousand papers and tests to grade.

You nailed my point in my comment: "some sources see both men on the somewhat religious fringe and being labelled by some as cult leaders." "Yes they are fringe and cult leaders," claim detractors; "No they're not," respond the supporters. It is back to school yard "he said/she said."

What is the way out? The preferred Wikipedia solution is to weigh sources: "I have 10 against your 9, so there!" This still boils down IMO to who yells the loudest. I think a more productive way would be to refrain from value-laden terms such as "fringe" or "cult." These are both, if I am not mistaken, postmodern terms that should not be imposed onto religious structures that are 1000+ years old (Islam) or 2000+ years old (Buddhism).

Although you did not bring it up, I have a problem with "mainstream." My academic interest is on disruptive change. When does orange become the new black--or fringe the new mainstream? How would we deal with a Steve Jobs restricted to terms such as "fringe," "cult," or "mainstream"? Would we say the iPhone was a fringe product?

I'm sorry to be on such a roll, but the Civil Rights movement sprung up from the Black Baptist Church--a parish-led movement--and not the AME, a "mainstream" African American church.

And how do we deal with revivalist movements? Are they fringe or mainstream movements? Afterall, Gülen claims to be reviving the Sufi tradition which is 700+ years. Is this fringe or mainstream? Ikeda and Nichiren, from what I am reading, speak about reviving the Lotus Sutra teaching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FetullahFan (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Still difficult to see what you are trying to convey here. Silence any criticism? In Wikipedia issues are quite often described from different angles – its always the same organisations who will try to defame any alternative views. In the end how ever Wikipedia is no soapbox for religious beliefs.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

A comment on sources and neutral POV

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

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

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

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

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

Here's just one example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Relevance of Polly Toynbee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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