Talk:Nichiren Shōshū/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Image

Pursuant to an email to OTRS I have removed File:150dpi.jpg from this article because the email claimed it was not relevant to Nichiren Shōshū.--ukexpat (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The person who e-mailed you is wrong, the gohonzon is very much relevant to all articles on Nichiren Buddhism. The fact that this particular gohonzon is the one used by the Soka Gakkai is irrelevant (the image is a replica of a gohonzon previously owned by a Shoshu temple).Kiruning (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Kiruning is correct. The Gohonzon is very relevant to Nichiren Shoshu. What is incorrect, misleading and misinformation is posting an image of a gohonzon that is not a Nichiren Shoshu Gohonzon on the Nichiren Shoshu Wikipedia page. Using an analogy of money, Wikipedia has a page for Italian lira and a page for Turkish lira. Both use the same word "lira" to define money but Wikipedia would not allow an image of a Turkish lira to be posted on the Italian lira page claiming it is a truthful photo. The same holds true here. This photo is not a photo of a Nichiren Shoshu Gohonzon and is false representation and needs to be removed.Daileyn (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure it's a Soka Gakkai gohonzon btw - wrote this before I actually checked the picture, I had merely assumed it was the same as the one used in the Soka Gakkai article, but that turned out to be wrong. How is the gohonzon depicted different from the gohonzon used by the Nichiren Shoshu? Kiruning (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That’s the reason why I once changed the image’s title to „A“ Gohonzon. I am not sure, but I think the one shown is a Kempon Hokke. Maybe one could specify that in the picture by saying that it is an example of “a” Gohonzon. On a first glance Gohonzons in various Nichiren Schools look similar. They vary in dedication/signature and deities represented on it. The one used by SGI has been altered quite a bit … omitting original dedication and enlarging certain parts. The Nichiren Shoshu to my knowledge use the Nikken Gohonzon … not sure if the new high priest made a new printer’s copy. The Nichiren Shu usually use the copy of a Nichiren Gohonzon.--Catflap08 (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk) 16:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The photo you have posted is an altered copy of 26th High Priest Nichikan Shonin's Gohonzon. I have included an official Nichiren Shoshu web site article with the specifics. Note the section explaining how the Gohonzon has been altered so as to not be Nichiren Shoshu, specifically the characters missing on the left side. I would really appreciate you removing the photo from the article which is, on the whole, fairly accurate. Thank you. Nancy Dailey, Ph.D. Daileyn (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I am not familiar with Wikipedia Talk formatting so the link did not appear in my statement above. Here is is <a>http://myokan-ko.net/english/sgi1.html</a> Daileyn (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh I did not originally include the picture just reinserted it. A Nichikan Gohonzon? Thought the boundary is green on that one. Well either one explains that the Gohonzon shown is not a Nichiren Shoshu one or one includes a diagram. Having said that it won’t be long until somebody will reinsert a picture, so I thinks it’s best to explain in the title that this is just an example of a Gohonzon as used by another Nichiren School/Group. --Catflap08 (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

On this page, the photo is placed right next the section on the Dai-Gohonzon implying that the photo is a picture of the DaiGohonzon. It is visually deceptive. From a content perspective, I'm not sure why there is a need for a photo, especially a photo that is incorrect or referencing another Buddhist sect. The link to the Wikipedia Gohonzon page is included for those interested in learning more. The photo just needs to be removed and deleted if uninformed people post it again. If you are saying that this photo appears on all Nichiren related Wikipedia pages and so it must be included here, that photo does not appear on the Nichiren Shu page. There is no need for an image of a gohonzon on this page. Please remove it. Thank you.

Daileyn (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I just compared the Gohonzons this one is not a Nichikan Gohonzon it actually a Shutei Gohonzon in that case its a Nichiren Gohonzon – the only part that is missing in the text is a reference that believers of Nichiren Shoshu have a Gohonzon in their home. I believe the picture to be relevant even more so now. Just as I said reference should be made that the Gohonzon showed is not the one bestowed on believers of Nichiren Shoshu. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I clearly disagree. This needs to be taken to a higher level at Wikipedia. Are you the Administrator of this page?Daileyn (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Before you take it to any higher level. The issue if a sects tabus prohibit Wikicommons material to be used has already been discussed in the SGI article. The answer is NO. Rules and regulations that apply to SGI or Nichiren Shoshu do not apply to Wikipedia as long as Copyrights are not affected. The displayed image gives the reader an idea what a Gohonzon looks like nothing more nothing less. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you the Administrator of this page? I think the intention of Wikipedia is to not present false or misleading information. I again go back to my original analogy of the Turkish lira vs. Italian lira. Both are pieces of paper that symbolize the concept of money. Saying the Turkish lira sort of looks like the Italian lira is a very poor standard of practice that I don't think Wikipedia would endorse. If I posted the Italian lira picture on the Turkish lira page on Wikipedia, and said "This lira is similar but not identical to the ones used in Turkey" I guarantee Wikipedia would pull the photo down. This is the exact scenario on this page. If you cannot accept this thinking, then we need to go to the next level because what you are doing is harming the integrity of Wikipedia. Nancy Dailey, Ph.D. Daileyn (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I am an editor. There are to my knowledge no administrators dedicated to specific articles. If your faith prohibits the reprodution of a Nichiren Shoshu Gohonzon thats one thing. If the image of “A” Gohonzon is available in Commons and no Copyrights affected then that is just tough for you. Wikipedia is there to inform people not to propagate sects teachings or even advertise them. There have been lengthy discussions about that in the SGI article. So if you have problems with the image as such you have to legally prove a Copyright on the image.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure why you keep bringing up SGI and copyright. I am not contesting any copyright issues. What I am contesting is the truth and integrity of the photo on the Nichiren Shoshu page. It is misleading and bad editorial decision making to post something that adds no value to the content. What is the compelling reason to include a photo of a "sort of" like piece of information or photo from an editor's perspective? Are you an SGI member? Daileyn (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW including your PhD won't help matters I have a Masters degree amongst others --- hmmm so what. Nope not an SGI member. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the reason NOT to include an image that gives the reader an idea what a Gohonzon looks like ??? Its even a Nichiren Gohonzon so how much more Nichiren can you get apart from a sects by-laws???--Catflap08 (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I've come to this article from the ANI posting that Catflap did. From the looks of it this is a content dispute, and I'm here more to move it along. My understanding from the article, and this talk is that the Daileyn believes the image should not be in the article, and that Catflap believes it should be in the article. My understanding of Daileyn's argument is that the image is not correct, and should be removed. Catflap, for what reason should we have this image in the article? --Kyohyi (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a sensitive issue to Daileyn, assumedly because of the Shoshu/SGI split..? If the only difference between the gohonzon in the article and the one used by the Shoshu is that some lines in some characters are somewhat longer and that a signature is missing on the left hand side (see [1] posted by daileyn), I really don't see the problem. If we could locate the exact gohonzon used by the Shoshu, that'd be better, but I don't see any issue with the current picture and the current text accompanying it, pointing out that it's not identical to the one used by the Shoshu. It's obviously helpful as most people will have no idea what a gohonzon is.Kiruning (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree to Kirunning. The relevance of the picture as part of the article has already been explained. Even though not being a Nichiren Shohu Gohonzon as indicated the difference are minor to the average reader. I even offered to insert a diagrammatic version as used in the article on Nam(u) Myōhō Renge Kyō. --Catflap08 (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you are obfuscating and not answering [User:Kyohyi|Kyohyi]'s question. This is the Nichiren Shoshu page. It is not the general Nichiren Buddhism page. There is no need to post an incorrect image on this page. Attributing intent to my disagreement with you is also wrong. I am an expert in the sociology of knowledge and this is an encyclopedia, not a forum of opinion or a place to further individual agendas. This page should accurately share information about Nichiren Shoshu, not insert "sort of" "kind of" "similar to" references or images when there are links embedded for readers to search more information on more relevant pages. Wikipedia's mission is to strive for information that is trust-worthy and true AND will be changed if data arises to demonstrate a mistake has been made or information is inaccurate.

Please answer my question with no obfuscations or changing the topic: If I was to replace the current polar bear picture with a picture of an American black bear in Wikipedia's polar bear article and say "an American black bear, similar, but not identical to the polar bear" would that be acceptable to the editors of Wikipedia? If your answer is yes, then I think you need to run an experiment and demonstrate that this type of scholarship is acceptable on the largest encyclopedia in the world. This is about best practice editing and good scholarship. Daileyn (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Your example is quite dishonest - you talk about replacing a picture but that is obviously not the issue here as it seems we don't actually have a picture of the current Nichiren Shoshu gohonzon to replace. A better hypothetical example would be an article on food poisoning, where the text mentions E. coli strain K-12 - but the only picture available would be of E. coli strain B. Would that be ideal? Maybe not. But it'd be better than nothing. Besides, I haven't seen any definite evidence that the gohonzon depicted has no direct connection to the Shoshu. Kiruning (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The image is at issue here. This is a specific page for a specific sect of Buddhism. The picture you post is not the object of worship for this sect. You yourself in comments above confirmed it was not a Nichiren Shoshu Gohonzon. Why are you obsessed with posting an incorrect image? It is bad editing and scholarship. Posting no image is a better editing practice and more truthful than posting an incorrect picture. Run an experiment. If you don't like the polar bear example, use my Italian-Turkish lira example which is the same situation we are talking about. Go post a picture of Turkish lira on the Italian lira page and caption it "Lira similar, but not identical, to the Italian lira" and see if that is acceptable to Wikipedia editors standards. My bet is the picture would be removed by the page's editors immediately. That scenario is exactly the same as this situation.Daileyn (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Kiruning, I believe a better rephrasement on you're example would be we have an article on E. coli strain b. and we put in a picture of E. coli strain k-12. The comparison would be food poisoning is to Nichiren Buddhism as E.coli Strain B is to Nichiren Shoshu, where one is a subsection of the other. In this case if we had a article on E. coli strain b, it would not be appropriate to put in images for E. coli strain k-12 in that article as it would not be related to the subject of the article. I think Daileyn is making a pretty good argument that falls in line with WP:OR. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree at all. The picture shows a Nichiren Gohonzon. Even in Nichiren Shoshu there are Gohonzons in use which look slightly different and at some older temples belonging to Nichiren Shoshu one would find a Nichiren Gohonzon which means a Gohonzon inscribed by Nichiren himself. Even in Nichiren Shoshu there is no standard Gohonzon. We can talk about different Liras but the point is they are currencies. Bacteria example no good if the reader does not have faintest clue what a bacteria looks like. Fact is it’s not a Nichiren Shohsu Gohonzon – that sect forbids to make pictures of its Gohonzons … at least I would understand in some ways Daileyn’s concerns then. The Gohonzon shown is very very very similar and gives the reader an idea what a Gohonzon looks like. Not showing the picture in my books comes down to censorship. If a sect decides what pictures are to be shown in Wikipedia … sad state of affairs. Here a link to Gohonzons “in use” by various sects --Catflap08 (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC) here the link again http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/GohonzonShu/ --Catflap08

Kyohyi, the other two editors in this conversation continue to obfuscate and emphasize their personal opinion rather than follow good editing practices and scholarship. What is the next step in content dispute resolution?Daileyn (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Since when is it good scholarship to withhold information? The text in the picture clearly states that it is an example of a Gohonzon. And when looking at the link I included which even has a picture of the Dai-Gohonzon in it differences are minuscule. I can guarantee you that some editor will reinsert the picture some time and if this continues it won't be long until somebody will take a picture of a Nichiren Shoshu Gohonzon and in include it in the text. That person will then hold the copyrights on the picture. Not much is gained then. So what are the options here? Leaving the picture in or wait until somebody includes a picture of Nichiren Shoshu Gohonzon? --Catflap08 (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem with the editing of this page. There is game playing going on rather than credible, accurate editing of the content. The image is incorrect and needs to be removed. If incorrect data or images are inserted in the future then editors need to do the right thing and remove them. This is Wikipedia not someone's personal sandbox. Please remove the image.Daileyn (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)Good scholarship means that we only have material relevant to the subject. If we were dealing with the general article on Nichiren Buddhism, any Gohonzon of it's sub-sect's would be good for an image. However we are only dealing with a sub-sect in this article, thusly we need to only deal with a Gohonzon that is relevant to this sect. The image that is being used may be similar, however to use it is a violation of WP: OR. It isn't this sect's Gohonzon, and it isn't our job as wikipedians to find something that is "close enough". --Kyohyi (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I take it you would rather see a picture of a real Nichiren Shoshu Gohonzon then? The question if the picture is removed or not is answered when consensus is reached. I have been editing for years on Nichiren Buddhism related matters not limited to the English wikipedia. Comparing the work of others to a sandbox is simply arrogant. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Kyohyi, for succinctly clarifying the situation. What is the process for removing the image? If it is in violation of WP:OR, may I remove the image and Catflap08 must abide by this and not keep posting it?Daileyn (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well if its removed time to take a picture of a Nichiren Shoshu Gohonzon then or not? --Catflap08 (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Wikipedia does not allow threats, bullying behavior and otherwise problematic communications with another editor.Daileyn (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Why would that be bullying behaviour? Your objection was that its not the sects Gohonzon so if a picture is found of a lets say Nikken Gohonzon it would be suitable or not? --Catflap08 (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Please remove the photo. There is no need for further discussion. Daileyn (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well all I would like to know if to your mind a proper Nichiren Shoshu Gohonzon I.e picture of it would be okay then? One could always request for a picture on Commons. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As Daileyn has decided to delte the image yet again I included a link to a Gohonzon by Nittatsu Shonin a Nichiren Shoshu high priest. In due time we will find a propper picture--Catflap08 (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The two types of Gohonzons are not radically different, and the image is a useful illustration for the article. There is no reason to try to censor it by deleting it from the article. Wikipedia is not censored. Tengu800 06:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Tenguu, I will point you to the comment I left above [2], the image wasn't removed to censor, it was removed as WP: OR. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to make this picture available in commons? http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Gohonzon2/NittatsuGohonzon-color.gif --Catflap08 (talk) 06:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have no experience loading images, though the WP: Teahouse might be able to help. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

We will need to know the copyright status of the image - we cannot assume that any old image found on the internet is either public domain or available under a license appropriate for Commons.--ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the photo of the Nichiren Shoshu Dai-Gohonzon has been inserted into the article and the example of a similar Gohonzon was removed by Daileyn (not really needed anymore), this dispute seems to be resolved. Any opposing views? JimRenge (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess one could say the matter is settled. I still think though it would be nice to a have an image of a Nittatsu or a Nikken Gogonzon as used within Nichiren Shoshu. --Catflap08 (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Page protection

Fortunately administrators have agreed to protect the page for the forthcoming five days. I hope that the dispute on the image will also be settled within Commons by then. As user:Tengu800 has pointed out other more recent images that also fall into the public domain could/should be uploaded and he also added references on where the image in question was originally publicised in the past (see files’s details on Commons). I do work on Nichiren related matters quite a bit here and its astonishing that one always has to remind adherents of Nichiren Shoshu (and also those of SGI) that Wikipedia is neither an extension of their propagation campaigns nor does it have to adhere to their respective bylaws. I suspect that the continuous image debate will in the end produce even more image files of more recent Nichiren Shoshu Gohonzons. If that was the intention behind it so be bit. Please note that originally previous editors included an image that was similar to the Gohonzon used by Nichiren Shoshu (presumably aware of the sects view on its own Gohonzons), then some editors (user:Daileyn )complained the image was not the real McCoy, there after the Dai-Gohonzon image was uploaded. Here you have the result of hat discussion now. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Catflap08 wrote, "I do work on Nichiren related matters quite a bit here and its astonishing that one always has to remind adherents of Nichiren Shoshu (and also those of SGI) that Wikipedia is neither an extension of their propagation campaigns nor does it have to adhere to their respective bylaws."

Of course it doesn't. It should, however, conform to Wikipedia's guidelines, which has often not been the case here. Proper citation and correct, verifiable information from reliable sources are among those guidelines. Warnings of potential vandalism, which in themselves are not against WP policy and are encouraged *if applicable*, should adhere to WP guidelines. Editors' boldly editing in good faith, which I was doing, does not necessarily constitute vandalism. Uploading material from potentially unreliable sources or without proper citation does not meet WP standards. I don't think that the photo in question is the Dai-Gohonzon, but regardless of what I think, it should have been reliably sourced. According to WP:PROVEIT, "Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of identifying a reliable source lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing any reliable source that directly supports the material." It should not have been continuously re-uploaded as "Early photo of Dai-Gohonzon", omitting any reliable source to support the claim. Additionally, Tengu800 has recently deleted some information about Nichiren Shōshū teachings. An encyclopedic article about a religion should explain the beliefs of that school, of course, to produce an accurate article. For example, Tengu800 deleted, "The difference between a Nichiren Shōshū Gohonzon, granted to lay believers by the Priesthood, and all others is that they are the only ones specifically sanctioned and issued by Nichiren Shōshū, as the sole authorized successor in the Heritage of the Law originally established by Nichiren Daishōnin". Instead, s/he could have easily left it but rephrased as, "Nichiren Shōshū believes that...". Scandiescot (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

As Tengu800 has pointed out earlier the Wikipedia guidelines refer mostly to the written text information – referencing the work, entering quotes, third party information if possible, no private opinions, no advertising etc. The image issue is dealt at Wikimedia Commons and Tengu800 has already expanded the files data sheet. By the way – it suffices to submit a file once for deletion doing so twice won’t speed up the decision making process. Good faith in edits is always assumed. The notion of good faith is somewhat stretched however if somebody decides to again and again and again delete material (in this case a picture) while a discussion about the issue is still going on, no consensus has been found and Commons has not made a decision yet. Editing and disputes on Wikipedia do take some time as most of us do this work voluntarily. Any other issues you have with Tengu800 you should be dealing with him on a case to case basis – best open up a new section concerning textural edits. In general the text does read a tiny wee bit like an advertisement. The beliefs should by all means be described – they are what they are though beliefs and not facts. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, sorry if I intervene again, but user Scandiescot have a good point about rephrasing rather then deleting. However, he also needs to know that no matter if its rephrased or not, if it doesn't have a reference, it will be considered as private opinion or as he quote, OR. I should also mention that I don't defend Scandiescot nor am I against his religion or his opinions, all that I am doing here is that I neutrally trying to solve the issue which from what I can read above is quite common.--Mishae (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Mishae. I appreciate your help. I know where to look for proper references on many details of Nichiren Shōshū doctrines. Furthermore, I agree with Catflap08 that within the context of Wikipedia, "beliefs should by all means be described – they are what they are though beliefs and not facts." Scandiescot (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally I am more interested in the historic development of Nichiren Buddhism since I have myself BEEN a member of Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai I have learned to stay clear to edit both articles in any MAJOR way. I also made that clear on the SGI talk page. I found it easier to deal with articles on other Nichiren schools and their respective temples. Especially Nichiren Shu due to the fact that this school unifies quite a number of schools (including Nikko temples) than the former mentioned. So by nature they are less dogmatic on certain issues I am well aware form where editors of a Nichiren Shoshu or SGI background are coming from – both claim orthodoxy - and I do not doubt their firm beliefs. It takes some 'training' to step back from ones own beliefs in order to describe them in a neutral academic non proselytising way. I am not saying that this is easy – it is not. On a general note I would advise editors no matter which school of Nichiren Buddhism they belong to refer to Nichiren as Nichiren and omit any title – that is the way its been done in literature. One reference on why Nichiren Shoshu refer to Nichiren as such and such based on such as such is enough. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Scandiescot's attempt to delete / censor the image from Wikimedia Commons has failed. The deletion request has been denied and closed by administrators:

Kept: Image is described as the "Dai-Gohonzon" on both the source website and several others. The book from which it came was published three years after the photo was taken in 1910. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Scandiescot should start a Nichiren Shoshu wiki where he can censor whatever he likes? Tengu800 01:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Tengu800 should start a wiki where s/he can use unreliable sources and logical fallacies whenever s/he likes? "Nichiren's Coffeehouse" is a self-published webpage, whose now-deceased founder was not a scholar. Per Wikipedia guidelines at self-published sources, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, ***personal websites***, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Regarding the Kumada Ijō citation, I have not found any corroborating English sources. By searching with the kanji, I did find the book title from a different year on Google Books, which only shows the cover. The contents are not visible. Other Japanese sources appear to be self-published personal blogs. I'd be interested to know exactly where Tengu800 got the citation. Not only that, but this image appears to have been heavily altered digitally. Scandiescot (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Scandiescot, your deletion request was rejectly -- and rightly so -- by administrators. The issue has been decided. Tengu800 02:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It might have been decided, but I disagree with the decision, even though I believe that Ellen acted in good faith. I've clearly stated my reasons and provided links to the appropriate guidelines. I have yet to see any persuasive evidence meeting the burden of proof, and I'd still like to know your source for the Kumada citation. Again, would you please provide that information? Thank you. Scandiescot (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

As you state yourself, the matter has been decided by the administration. You are not familiar with the guidelines and have little experience editing Wikipedia. The citation is in the file information on the Commons -- the book Nichiren Shonin. You can also find this image in many other books published in Japanese throughout the 20th century. It hasn't been censored for over a hundred years, and your attempts to do so now -- in 2014 -- seem absurd and quaintly anachronistic. Tengu800 01:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Tengu800 wrote, "You are not familiar with the guidelines and have little experience editing Wikipedia." Please note at the top of this page the links to, "Be polite", "welcoming to new users", "Assume good faith", and "Avoid personal attacks". Regarding the alleged photo of the Dai-Gohonzon, I've asked a few times for your source of the citation to verify the information. I have not yet seen that source; maybe you posted it and I missed it in this long talk page. Please note that I'm not asking for the citation itself, which you provided, but rather where you got the information. As I've mentioned, I haven't been able to independently verify the citation's accuracy, i.e., is the image actually identified in a reliable source as the Dai-Gohonzon, or is this an unsubstantiated claim? On Google Books I've seen the cover of a later edition of the Kumada book, but not the content. I've found a few Japanese blogs which refer to the book. Blogs may be but are not necessarily considered reliable sources. A few webpages I've seen show some very degraded, indistinct images of the photo, which leads me to believe that the version here has been heavily altered digitally. Finally, of course, I've seen the "Nichiren's Coffeehouse" website, which is self-published and therefore likely not a reliable source. I look forward to your response. Scandiescot (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Scandiescot, I assume good faith -- but when evidence is demonstrated to the contrary (constantly attempting to censor Wikipedia for religious purposes), then it's hard to pretend that the intention is "good faith." As for the fact that you have little experience editing Wikipedia and following WP guidelines, that's a basic fact, not a personal attack. The citation is the source, otherwise known as a reference, which is the book itself. Wikipedia does not require references for references (a concept which would be ridiculous). Tengu800 07:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"...constantly attempting to censor Wikipedia for religious purposes..." I've explained repeatedly my notation for the initial edits: Because photography of all Gohonzon is prohibited in Nichiren Shōshū, why would they have permitted it once in 1910? Claims of alleged censorship attempts are a straw man logical fallacy. "It's hard to pretend that the intention is 'good faith'" -- Second-guessing someone's motivation negates the good-faith principle. I'm still wondering what the source of your citation is, as I'm sure you didn't pull it out of thin air. Did you see the Kumada book in person, or did you get the information off the Internet? If the latter, what is the URL? Has a very old, degraded image been digitally altered, and if so, to what extent? So many questions. Scandiescot (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know you have repeatedly attempted to explain away your suspicious amount of interest in this one image -- an image which you have previously attempted to censor for religious purposes ("violating the sanctity of Nichiren Shoshu", as you put it). The reference has already been provided on Wikimedia Commons, and no other reference-for-a-reference, or source-for-a-source is needed (there are also no references-for-references-for-references in case you were wondering). This goes back to the basic fact that you are unfamiliar with the Wikipedia editing process. The administration has already denied your request for deletion. Tengu800 05:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The claim of censorship for religious purposes is still a straw man logical fallacy. Providing your source of the citation should be very easy and could help substantiate the claim that the image is authentic. Scandiescot (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a fallacy because you clearly expressed your religiously-motivated sentiments earlier: "Image violates the sanctity of the Dai Gohonzon according to Nichiren Shōshū teachings." Since then, your attempts to delete the image have not changed even one bit. As for the source of the image, that has been provided already in the file description, and the administration agrees that the image is properly cited. Beyond that, I am not obligated to fulfill any extraneous requirements invented by you. Wikipedia is not censored. Tengu800 03:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Just for the historic context. In 1910 Nichiren Shoshu did not exist neither as a separate school nor as a religious body. It was simply Taiseki-ji with its subordinate temples. The the other major “Competitor” was Ikegami Honmon-ji were Nikko spent the rest of his life and which became part of Nichiren Shu. Even within the lineage of Nikko temples Taiseki-ji played a subordinate role. I doubt that photography was a great concern at Taiseki-ji in 1910 being a back water temple within Nichiren Buddhism it was fighting for survival in those days. Nichiren Shoshu was founded in 1913 as a religious body. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back, Catflap08! I see that you've come out of retirement. "I doubt that photography was a great concern at Taiseki-ji in 1910..." Maybe, maybe not, but this is speculation. Scandiescot (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So are your claims about guidelines against photography during this time, as well as the "impossibility" that photographs would be taken -- speculation. Tengu800 03:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Page Protection

I asked for the page to be protected.--Catflap08 (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Image deletion and censorship

I don't think that image is reliable or verified. The source is a non-authoritative website claiming, "This is the only published photo of it, taken with their permission in 1910," with no proof of authenticity. Refer to WP:RS, WP:PROVEIT. I inlcuded that information when I removed the image, but other editors have been re-adding it without explanation. I see that editors Daileyn and Kyohyi have discussed similar issues of accuracy on this page, including WP:OR. Scandiescot (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Scandiescot

The only one who says that the image is not authentic is you. Your repetitive deletion of the image could be regarded as vandalism. Secondly the picture is available in Commons, due to its age there are also no copyright issues. Any religious “taboos” on showing this object are irrelevant to Wikipedia since Wikipedia is no member of any religious group. --Catflap08 (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I've already noted in my edits and above comment Wikipedia's standards for verifiability | burden of proof, original research, and identifying reliable sources. Scandiescot (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Guess the burden of proof that the image is not authentic lies with you. I have seen this image also printed in literature. I suspect the bylaws of your religious organisation to be the true motivation – better be honest on that one. The image is in the public domain. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Catflap wrote, "Guess the burden of proof that the image is not authentic lies with you."

See WP:RS, WP:PROVEIT, and WP:OR. The *claim* of authenticity does not meet the burden of proof. "I have seen this image also printed in literature." Source? Scandiescot (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Scandiescot

There is no need to wonder about the motivations of User:Scandiescot, as we can see in his first attempts to delete this image. His real motivations can be seen in the edit history comments for several articles (Special:Contributions/Scandiescot):

As I said in my edit The Dai Gohonzon has the inscription at the bottom "With great respect for the petitioner of the High Sanctuary of the Essential Teaching, Yashiro Kunishige and the people of the Hokkeko." at the bottom of Nam Myoho Renge Kyo Nichiren. Unfortunately catflap has not written anything to disprove that assertion, the image is inaccurate so it should be removed. This is a photo of a Joju temple Gohonzon but it's missing the inscription that the Dai Gohonzon has. See reference: http://nstmyohoji.org/NSTMyohoji.aspx?PI=BOP.5130 Noisemonkey (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Image violates the sanctity of the Dai Gohonzon according to Nichiren Shōshū teachings."
• "Nichiren Shōshū doctrine prohibits photography of all valid Gohonzon."

When it becomes clear to him that this image is not violating any Wikipedia standards and that Wikipedia does not follow religious regulations, the editor continued deleting this image from articles without consensus, and attempts to use WP standards to justify what is religiously-motivated censorship. Tengu800 11:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Nichiren Shōshū does not allow photography of its Gohonzon is relevant if an alleged image of the Dai-Gohonzon, which is in the stewardship of Nichiren Shōshū, appears on Wikipedia. The alleged source is a vague, unreliably sourced claim that the photo was taken with permission, which as noted, is not allowed in Nichiren Shōshū. If permission *was* granted one time, then a reliable source / citation needs to be included. One website created by a (now deceased) lay Buddhist, who described the image in a caption without proper citation, does not meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability | burden of proof, original research, and identifying reliable sources. I've tried to assume good faith on the part of editors who have uploaded the image, but I strongly disagree that it's authentic or that the source is in line with Wikipedia's standards. I've provided the relevant pages to support my claim. Scandiescot (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Scandiescot

This article continues to be problematic per Wikipedia standards and good scholarship practices. According to Wikipedia's definition of verifiability, the source needs to be the publisher or creator or document. The dominant/controlling editors of this page continue to rely only on unsubstantiated third party sources who do not have a reputation of fact-checking and accuracy. WP:Sources The only institution or source which can accurately verify this image is Nichiren Shoshu, the creator, publisher and owner of the document. If verification can't be claimed, the image should be removed. This has nothing to do with any policy of Nichiren Shoshu. It has to do with bad scholarship and abuse of Wikipedia policies. The poor editing and obvious bias by current editors of this page shows the dark side of Wikipedia (and I'm a big fan of Wikipedia). Daileyn (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Who says, apart from you and another editor that this photo taken is not authentic? On which grounds is its authenticity questioned? Again that is a Commons issue not Wikipedia. What is rather disturbing is the somewhat disturbing style of editing i.e. simply deleting information. This goes for this article as well as for the article of an organisation formerly affiliated with Nichiren Shoshu. Same pattern of disturbing behaviour. If this continues it might be a good idea to protect this page too. --Catflap08 (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Catflap08 wrote to Daileyn, "Who says, apart from you and another editor that this photo taken is not authentic?" Many Nichiren Shōshū members have expressed doubts on Internet fora about the image's authenticity. They have seen the Dai-Gohonzon, some of them many times, and had looked at the image right after returning from seeing it at head temple Taiseki-ji. WP:RS, WP:PROVEIT, and WP:OR are clear about the standards for accuracy and proper citation. The image in question does not meet those standards. Scandiescot (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Scandiescot

Those sources you mention are more unreliable than the factual picture. It is within the bylaws within you religious group not to take pictures of a gohonzon .- this is irrelevant to Wikipedia. The picture was taken in 1910 for gods sake, which means in a completely different setting as today. The Dai-Gohonzon is small so I even doubt that your so called 'eye witnesses' ever got be beyond the notion that there is a gohonzon out there. Please note that some editors did get a glimpse of that object as well in the past. It is minuscule as an object. I am slowly getting more and more annoyed at those shoshu and gakkai people believing Wikipedia should confirm to their somewhat irrational byways. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Catflap08 wrote, "Those sources you mention are more unreliable than the factual picture." What is your proof that the picture is factual? "The picture was taken in 1910 for gods sake". Source? Scandiescot (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Scandiescot

The purpose of Wikipedia is to convey information. Previous editors even took your organisation's by-laws serious in including an image that would give the reader an idea what that object of devotion was. Some Nichiren Shoshu believers objected even to that as the image did not show a Nichiren Shohsu Gohonzon – now as the Nichiren Shohsu obeject of devotion is on display you question the images authenticity – please give us a break.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Catflap08 wrote, "now as the Nichiren Shohsu obeject of devotion is on display..." Your proof of the photo's authenticity is _____? Scandiescot (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Scandiescot

Tengu's most recent edit, "Flagging this article for COI as editors have expressed religious motivations aimed at censorship of the article", is disingenuous at best. I've been very clear on this page and others that censorship is not the reason, but rather that the photo alleged to be the Dai-Gohonzon comes from an unreliable source with no corroborating evidence. I have not only mentioned the reasons why I think so, but have also included references several times to the relevant WP: pages. I have also repeatedly invited those who disagree, such as Catflap08 and Tengu800, to post any sources which align with Wikipedia's standards (WP:RS, WP:PROVEIT, WP:OR) to validate their claim of the photo's authenticity, but no such evidence has been provided. The flagging by Tengu does not come across as good faith. Scandiescot (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

First, please sign all your posts. You have explicitly shown religious motivations aimed at censorship in your past edits: "Image violates the sanctity of the Dai Gohonzon according to Nichiren Shōshū teachings," and "Nichiren Shōshū doctrine prohibits photography of all valid Gohonzon," while attempting to delete the image repeatedly -- against WP policies. Your religious motivations and conflict of interest (COI) are very apparent. You then continued to delete the image before a consensus among editors had been reached. Your attempts since then have been to warp Wikipedia policies in order to enforce religious censorship of Wikipedia content. By the way, if you read the Wikipedia guidelines you are citing, you would see that they are about claims made in article text, not about thumbnail image selection. Tengu800 09:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes sure … since religious taboos or bylaws that forbid the photographic display of a gohonzon in your religious organisation have no effect in Wikipedia it is best to question the authenticity of an over 100 year old image. 1910 is two years before Nichiren Shoshu even became a autonomous legal religious body hence separate Buddhist school (Shū).--Catflap08 (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Tengu800 wrote, >>You have explicitly shown religious motivations aimed at censorship... "Image violates the sanctity of the Dai Gohonzon according to Nichiren Shōshū teachings," and "Nichiren Shōshū doctrine prohibits photography of all valid Gohonzon," while attempting to delete the image repeatedly -- against WP policies... Your religious motivations and conflict of interest (COI) are very apparent.<<

This is incorrect. I included those reasons because if Nichiren Shōshū prohibits photography of its Gohonzon, then logically it follows that an alleged photo of one of its Gohonzon is highly improbable. If a claim is made that permission to photograph the Dai-Gohonzon was granted once in 1910, then the "burden of identifying a reliable source lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing any reliable source that directly supports the material." The only source provided for the image in question is a personal website which does not cite a reliable source for the image. Like the editors who have uploaded the image to Wikimedia Commons and various Wikipedia articles, that website makes an unsupported claim that the alleged photo of the Dai-Gohonzon was taken once with permission in 1910.

Additionally, according to Wikipedia guidelines, "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." Scandiescot (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would wait until a consensus is found on the picture … this will be up to wiki commons. By repeatedly deleting the image you simply vandalise the article. I have also asked for the page to be semi-protected until issue is solved. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I came here as a third party per his notification on my talkpage. Lets say that user @Scandiescot: is right about everything but the image licensing and the last paragraph. First of all, yes, you are right edit warring is not vandalism but even that rule is important because if a user will do it over 3 times, he can be blocked. Now for the image: Commons and Wikipedia are separate organizations but are tied. For example, you can use a free Wikipedia image (which some people believe is a lot better), or you can use Commons image where you need to go through hoops of licensing. Now, for the folks here, this to me is not uncommon issue. Correct me if I am wrong anywhere... In Russian Wikipedia we had the same argument with a user there too who believed that the number of patents were not cited properly. We too, told him numerous times that Wikipedia doesn't cite patents and yet it continued.--Mishae (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

To me the case is quite clear, odd religious bylaws are of no importance to Wikipedia. Copyright issues are also not an issue in this case – so we go down the authenticity lane. Reminds me of the same discussion that took place on the Soka Gakkai talk page.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

On a separate note, I need to tell user Scandiescot that Wikipedia is first of all an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place for religious texts unless they are encyclopedic. For example an article on bible, torah, quran or Buddha teachings are not prohibited and are considered to be encyclopedic first of all.--Mishae (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The insertion of the picture was a result of discussion that took place earlier. To give the reader of the article an idea what a gohonzon looks like the picture of A gohonzon of a different school was included – to what to me appears a Shoshu believer protested as it was not an image of a Nichiren Shoshu gohonzon. Now a over 100 year old image of the dai-gohonzon is included we are faced with authenticity. Both users first mentioned their sects bylaws that have no effect to wikipedia.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I started to get the point. What user Scandiescot is saying is that since his religion doesn't allow photography it is unlikely that Nichiren Shōshū have been photographed. What he is not willing to understand is that this photo is an archaeological relic. Sometimes, even native Americans were photographed against their will throughout time, so I wont deny that the same is with this article. In North Korea they prohibit taking pictures of Kim Jong Il while in Burma it is illegal to take coins out of country. But sometimes, somebody does it, and risking their life and honour and put it in Commons which transports to Wikipedia. Plus, the image is used on this, Taiseki-ji, Dai Gohonzon, and Gohonzon article, making me wonder if there is an alternative image? Like, an understanding is appreciated and picture can worth a thousand words, but the same picture, I think, shouldn't be used on every Gohonzon related article, a bit of variation would have been appreciated. :)--Mishae (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Mishae, you're correctly representing my view, and you're correct about the general possibility of photos being taken even if prohibited. For me, the issue relevant to Wikipedia guidelines (and perhaps Wikimedia) is whether the image is authentic and correctly labelled. I and other people doubt that it actually is a photo of the Dai-Gohonzon. If not, then uploading it as "the Dai-Gohonzon" is inaccurate. For clarification, Taiseki-ji is the head temple of Nichiren Shōshū. According to that sect, there is only one Dai-Gohonzon, which is stored at Taiseki-ji. All Nichiren Shōshū Gohonzon are transcribed from the Dai-Gohonzon, but not all Gohonzon come from Nichiren Shōshū. For example, other Nichiren Sects issue their own. You're also right that multiple uploads of the alleged 1910 photo of the Dai-Gohonzon are unnecessary. Some people such as Catflap08 claim that the photo appeared in a book. If this is true *and* the book is a reliable source, then they should properly cite that book rather than using an image from a self-published website. The burden of identifying a reliable source lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Scandiescot (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If you actually looked around Japanese publications and websites, you would see that this and other images of this gohonzon have been published for many years throughout the 20th century. I've added publication information to the image. If you would like me to look deeper into the matter, I can perhaps add more images of Nichiren Shoshu gohonzons that are also now in the public domain. Best regards. Tengu800 05:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Well if a Nikken -Gohonzo or Nittatsu-Gohonzon image would be uploaded we would see the same behaviour. It boils down to the bylaws of the sect. If wikipedia bows to that … end of wikipedia. Other Nichiren sects are far more liberal on that issue as its an image nothing more. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There is always a chance of that, but then again, we can't prevent every what if situation. Hmm, so other sects of Nichiren are not concerned about it? Makes me wonder if Scandiescot should just follow the other Nichiren sect members advice and just leave the images alone. Just because there are Amishes in the world who's religion prohibits anything above 19 century, doesn't mean that the US government should shut down the Internet. :)--Mishae (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Well actually the text about the Dai-Gohomzon is in some incomplete anyway as the majority of other traditional Nichiren schools regard the object as forgery anyway i.e. not inscribed by Nichiren. They do however not say that its not a valid Mandala.--Catflap08 (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Mishae: As I've written repeatedly, my issue is with whether the image actually is the Dai-Gohonzon and meets Wikipedia standards for burden of identifying a reliable source and WP:NOR. I don't know why some participants on this talk page are ignoring that. In any case, although I still question the authenticity of the image, Tengu800 has added a citation, which is better than a self-published website. Scandiescot (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

On the matter of self-published websites I have not a single clue what you are on about. The nichirenscoffe house site may be a bit all over the place and badly maintained (Since so many claim that they know what Nichiren wanted) , but it also contains and links to an ample amount of articles authored by ordained (therefore also academically trained) priests, lay adherents and references (including citations) of third party sources. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Catflap08 wrote, "On the matter of self-published websites, I have not a single clue what you are on about." From the link (excerpt): "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as... personal websites.. are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The founder of the website was an independent, non-academic lay Buddhist, Don Ross. At the bottom of the page showing the alleged image of Dai-Gohonzon, he thanked "Senchu Murano, Jackie Stone, Bruce Maltz, and Chris Holte for providing all this information" on that page. Senchu Murano and Jackie Stone are academics. The others are non-acedemic lay members. Don's site does not specify whether the academics were consulted about the alleged authenticity of the image or just the text on the page. Scandiescot (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said the site links ALSO to lay believers. I would not refer to Nichiren Shu priests as ‘self declared’ though including the usual training at Rissho University hence training in Buddhist studies. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)In a way I find it ab bit amusing that both adherents of Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai seem to be a chip off the old block at times. Same sort of discussion were held on the SGI talk page … if the information that one was presented with did not fit the perception of an editor the source of the information was being questioned i.e. references and resources. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Nichiren Shoshu and their adherents see unauthorized copies of Gohonzons as blasphemous counterfeits. This may explain why Scandiescot wrote in his/her edit summary: "Image violates the sanctity of the Dai Gohonzon according to Nichiren Shōshū teachings," when he deleted the picture for the first time. The request for a reliable source has already been answered by Tengu: The image is in Kumada Ijō's (熊田葦城) book Nichiren Shōnin (日蓮上人), 8th edition, page 375. Published in 1913 (大正2年). First edition published in 1911 (明治44年).

I am sorry that this image is offending Nichiren Shoshu believers but the community consensus is that Wikipedia is not censored. If you want to avoid seeing the image yourself, please see Help:Options to hide an image. JimRenge (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Additionally I hope that the next few days will be useful for all participants to cool their heads and come to a consensus on the talk page. In terms of text there is still a lot of room for improvement. Best to avoid any notion that would indicate supremacy etc.. In the long run though I guess a picture of a any kind that shows this schools object of devotion will remain to be part of this article. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I find it distressing that those outside of our religion seem to feel that anything goes when it comes to simple respect to the wishes of the religion. There are plenty of Wikipedia pages that have Gohonzon photo content and anyone that wants to can Google this image. Not a good thing. Mrsnak (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What some call "respect", others call censorship as per WP:CENSOR. There have been, I think, maybe one or two cases where images have been moved to separate pages, like images of Muhammad. It is, I think, perhaps possible for someone to start a request for comment as per WP:RfC to determine if such should be the case here. However, it is also very possible that if we were to accede to one such request on one issue, that a greater number of requests regarding an ever-greater number of images and text matters would arise as well, based on precedents elsewhere. Should individuals who feel the matter to be of sufficient importance to them that they would want to start an RfC, they would of course be free to do so. John Carter (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the image can't be verified beyond a Nichiren Shu biased website claiming it's in a certain book that nobody has access to can it just be removed? Not only that as stated in the Nichiren Shoshu Basics of practice p118 "There is a supplementary inscription on the Dai-Gohonzon which reads: “... with great respect for the petitioner of the High Sanctuary of the Essential Teachings, Yashiro Kunishige and the people of the Hokkeko-shu.”" as published by the Dai Nichiren Publishing Co which the depicted Gohonzon does not have. Book available here : http://www.dainichiren.com/index.php?id=28 Noisemonkey (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)noisemonkey

The image is published in a reliable source, so there is no reason to take it down other than censorship. The assertion that the image is not accurate is original research that doesn't have much place in the editorial process. Tengu800 00:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

you are still dodging my point. Where is the inscription mentioned in that article? This is from a published work by Nichiren Shoshu that this article is supposed to be about not original research on a page with a forward by a Nichiren shu priest who can found on the net disputing Nichiren Shoshu doctrine. I'm not disputing that this is a temple Gohonzon only that this is an image of the Dai Gohonzon with a specific image on it Noisemonkey (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)noisemonkey

The image was published at the beginning of the 20th century and merely used on the web as well. Having said that the picture was taken before a Nichiren Shoshu was even registered as a religious body. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Nichiren Shoshu did exist prior to it being legally registered as a religious body but as you may or may not know, the government of the time tried to force it to amalgamate with other Nichiren schools but they refused. Eventually they were allowed to register at the end of the Meiji Restoration. It wasn't called Nichiren Shoshu then, just the Fuji School. That's not really relevant to this discussion though. Noisemonkey (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)noisemonkey

No this is clearly not a discussion here but I would advise you to get back to the history books – non-primary source ones by the way. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

your sources are tertiary at best. Original unpublished research on a page written by a Nichiren Shu priest http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Gohonzon/DaiGohonzon.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noisemonkey (talk • contribs) 18:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope one could also refer to “Fire in the Lotus” by Montgomery when it comes to what date Nichiren Shoshu was founded. Keeping in mind that “the Nichiren Shu priest “ based his info on quite reliable secondary sources i.e. accepted with in Buddhist Studies such as authors like Dr. Jacqueline Stone. Having said that to some Nichiren Shoshu or Gakkai adherents with an evangelical like purpose in life this may be futile anyway. In this respect Nichiren Shoshu and Gakkai adherents active here are remarkably similar. So how on earth could have Nichiren Shoshu existed before it asked to be registered as such? Truth is that Taiseki-ji failed to uphold its supposed supremacy amongst Nikkō temples? Please get your FACTS right. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't accept unpublished original research from someone who has a clear POV on the matter very often, if at all. Please read WP:RS. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

In the whole discussion about the issue the user has made it clear where he is coming from - it hurts his/her religious feelings which is of no effect to wikipedia.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

in this whole lengthy discussion you have not responded as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROVEIT#Responsibility_for_providing_citations to what I and others in this discussion have posted before. Noisemonkey (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)noisemonkey

• "The Zen Of Magic Squares, Circles And Stars," by Clifford A. Pickover, Princeton UP, p. 30, identifies the design as a thirteenth century Nichiren gohonzon. Despite a quirky title, it's from Princeton, by a Yale graduate, and focuses on the history and mathematics of different religious and magical symbols. If anyone wishes to question the reliability of the source, please read this. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't disputing that it was a photo of a Gohonzon, simply that it's not the Dai-Gohonzon. P31 of that book is rather misleading though "Makiguchi Tsunesaburo, the founder of Nichiren-sho-shu Buddhism,," — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noisemonkey (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the most you could argue for is changing the subtitle, not removing the image (which is all you've been pushing for so far). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The image needs removing because it can't be proved that it's the Dai Gohonzon based on a neutral verifiable source. As I've said before the only source is from original research which is unpublished from a website I've already cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noisemonkey (talk • contribs) 20:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The book I cited discusses the Dai Gohonzon's design, and features a reproduction that matches the photo's design. At most, your argument only works for changing the picture's caption to "this photograph features the design originally found on the Dai Gohonzon." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I quote p29 of your book "The gohonzon mandala, an example of which is shown in Figure 10, is placed on an altar in Nichiren temples, as well as in the homes of Nichiren Buddhists. The original dai gohonzon—the supergohonzon for all humanity—resides in a temple in Kyoto. No photographs of the dai gohonzon are allowed, and no pictures have been published" Noisemonkey (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@ Scandiescot. I have no idea what you are getting at. The image as such and any quarrels on its authenticity, copyright an so forth has to be dealt with at Wikicommons. Now lets even imagine one would say its not the Dai-Gohonzon you would still contest the usage of ANY image of a Gohonzon used within Nichiren Shoshu. Right or wrong? Your religious reservations are of NO interest here. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Catflap08 -- I am not Noisemonkey. Scandiescot (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, the book (in isolation, not getting into what they've found on Wikicommons) still verifies that it is the correct design, though. The basis for the argument that the photo is not of the Dai Gohonzon is that authors can make mistakes, which is a double edged sword if not wielded hypocritically, and can mean that Pickover did not know about the photo in our article (that he had to get another author to give him the images indicates that). And again, if the image is the correct design (which no one is claiming it's not), it still has a place in the article -- attempting to only remove it instead of changing the caption shows that the editors doing so are only acting out of religiously motivated censorship, and have no right to edit the article at all, if not the encyclopedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

SGI Denies Dai-Gohonzon

In November 2014 the executive board of Soka Gakkai Intenational (SGI) decided that the Dai-Gohonzon has no meaning at all, which is completely absurd. This is one of the biggest slanders against the law. There version of the Dai-Gohonzon is a gohonzon inscribed by Nissho Shonin. We ask all SGI members, "Do you really want to follow Gakkai?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.97.110 (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

It appears that user Tokubarai is closely associated with the subject of Nichiren Shoshu, and is perhaps a paid employee of the Nichiren Shoshu temple organization. The vast majority of edits Tokubarai has posted on multiple subjects refer only to Nichiren Shoshu and appear to be aimed at propaganda for the Nichiren Shoshu organization. This includes photos he claimed are his "own creation" that are photographed from vantage points within the Nichiren Shoshu head temple that no one but employees could access (such as the balcony behind/above where the high priest sits). He also regularly takes the stance of the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood in his edits, and his edits regularly fail to include any third-party or neutral sources. Therefore, it appears that @Tokubarai has a major conflict of interest WP:CONFLICT and external relationship with the subject WP:EXTERNALREL as well as possibly being paid by the subject WP:PAY. Haroli43 (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Much of this article seems to be written by employees of the Nichiren Shoshu religious organization, with very little third-party references given to support facts. Many of the citations noted in this article actually link directly to official Nichiren Shoshu websites, and much of it seems to be written as an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic article. Nihonjimu (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Question: why are most of the references Nichiren Shoshu's own writings, when there are so many academic sources that could be used? Also, why is there no mention of the relationship with the Soka Gakkai before "the end of World War II"? Thanks. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Daveler16 Well to be honest it might be the case that what you have listed might not help much to describe Nichiren Shoshu. As an observer I do not get the impression that the issues you have listed are not much of a concern within Nichiren Shsohu let alone describing its dogma. In respect to it’s per World War II stance one is advised to look at Buddhism in general in Japan. To my knowledge no Japanese Buddhist School, nor organisation, seriously opposed the Japanese expansion policy per se. If any group or faith did at the time speak out in opposition to war crimes and atrocities this should indeed be mentioned in the respective article. SGI is just one of the groups, formerly affiliated with Nichiren Shoshu that have been expelled or distanced themselves as explained in the article. Reading material on and offline SG/SGI is not much of a subject within NST as we are talking of incidents having taken place more than 20 years ago. Please do get yourself familiar on how to edit talk pages as sources included by you seem to appear below my entry.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The difficulty of the relationship between NS and the Soka Gakkai takes up over a third of the very long SG entry. Either it merits less there, or more here. Or both. I think it's rather indisputable that the only reason anyone outside of Japan (and possibly few outside of Shizuoka) would ever have heard of Nichiren Shoshu were it not for that relationship. I think also that it's been established on other entries for religions that their history colors their current status and value. Aside from that, I think there are various sources that address the omission of any mention of the Dai Gohonzon from the time of Nichiren until about the 9th High Priest, the inscription of Gohonzon for the defeat of Russia in the Russo-apanese War, the machinations of various priests during WW2. Don't be concerned, though - I haven't edited this page, and so have no intention of doing so until participating here on the Talk page for a while. Also, it;s certainly not my main concern. I'm just kind of surprised that previous editors have let some things slide that are easy to discover.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Perosnally I believe the Dai-Gohonzon to be a fake in sense what NST makes of it – and to the extent what SGI made of it prior to the split – up until then SGI was quite willing to carry the faithful flock in bus loads to Taiseki-ji. The doubts about authenticity of the Dai-Gohonzon can be found though either via articles on the subject or sources. If it is however, the real mc coy or not, THE main object of worship to NST. If the issues of authenticity should be made part of the article please note that doubts about the authenticity of the Dai-Gohonzon predates the split between SGI and NST by decades … if not centuries. It is no news. Please note that serious Buddhist Studies may have touched one of the subjects long before any sectarian split paid attention to them. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems that a lot of the statements here, especially in the introductory section, need source references. Shouldn't these things be removed until the references can be cited? Or are they just things that are generally known and accepted? If that is the case, should the "citations needed" footnoted be removed? (New here, thanks for answering). --JackBnimble10 (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Photographing the Gohonzon

I removed the uncredited false statement that the Soka Gakkai allows photographing the Gohonzon.Stgrlee16 (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I had questions about some of the other “modern changes” listed in the Soka Gakkai section, but wanted to do some research before editing. As far as the format of gongyo, it has changed over the years even within Nichiren Shoshu. Nichiren did not specify what the format should be, but did state what the contents should be. I found the following quote:

“I have written out the prose section of the “Expedient Means” chapter for you. You should recite it together with the verse portion of the “Life Span” chapter, which I sent you earlier.” (The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, vol. 1, p. 486)

I don’t think anyone can prove that Gakkai members are not pious and have a casual and carefree attitude during gongyo so I took it out.Stgrlee16 (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

List of changes

I removed some items form the list of changes under Soka Gakkai. There were no citations. They may not have been very important changes.--JackBnimble10 (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed reference to Aum Shinrikyo. It has nothing to do with Soka Gakkai.Stgrlee16 (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)