Jump to content

Talk:Soka Gakkai/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Deleting facts can be regarded as Vandalism

Wikipedia articles should portray the truth and factual matters about the subject. I see no reason why the fact of SGI being registered within the United Nations in various committees - why this fact should be deleted, hidden or avoided. Openmindedness and academic honesty would require to record how the SGI as an organisation is regarded world wide and how the UN works with, perceives and considers SGI is a fact that should be part of the whole picture.

I request editors who bulk-delete what they do not "like" to first bring the subject of their "dislike' of facts - on this Talk page. If there is something to change or further ask Wiki-editors for opinion, then this page can deal with such subjects and we can exchange information and come together to a reasonable outcome. Let 'Reason' and wise approach win rather than deleting without reason, without giving a reason or sound argument for the deletion.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, please read up on WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH. I didn't edit out any "facts." May I ask if you are associated with the Soka Gakkai, considering it's clear from your talk page that you have been involved with conflicts regarding this article since 2012? If so, could you please read up on WP:COI.　Thanks, Kiruning (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Judging by his edits to Criticism of Buddhism it seems there is a COI involved. Shii (tock) 16:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Kiruning and Shii: let's please take reason, commonsense and wisdom as our judge - and Wiki rules as our ground for editing. Wikipedia does not ask you about your associations or religion - so your question whether I am Soka or not is irrelevant. Secondly, the scope is open for anyone to do reserach and edit. I do lot of research in philosophy of religion, followed courses at Continuing Education/Oxford University and published two articles on philosophy of Mind and other subjects - and subsequently I bring the results of research to enrich and improve various articles. Your view about myself or editing is biased and I am offering a wider picture than you so far think with unreasonable accusations. The reason why my name appears frequently on this Talk page - my friends - is that Wikipedia introduced this Talk instrument for the proper explanation of conducted editing, so unlike many others who just edit without any explanation - I am committed to openness and dialogue. I accept what is reasonable, and in many occassions I learnt many things from others.
As for your claim of Conflict of Interest, I believe you are mistaken, and I'll prove it to you. The WP:COI is about: “COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers”. None of these apply to my editing. I am not employed or have family relations with the SGI nor it is my “business”. I want to remind you here that the Section of Perception and Criticism of SGI was initiated by myself. It contains serious criticism of SGI which I myself included because I am committed to honesty in my academic research, and I bring facts supported by RS in an impartial way. Just recently I added criticism of SGI by Buddhist schools. Two days ago!
It is just unreasonable for anyone to scatter false accusation of any kind (and here of COI). If you dispute that UN part is a fact - then please follow Wiki rules and apply to the Dispute Board about my research about SGI & United Nations – as being to “promote my business”, and whether your understanding of COI applies. And, BTW: Why does it bother you - in particular - that the United Nations acknowledges SGI as an NGO? I mean: What's the big deal? Can we have dialogue? The section in dispute is a fact. It is supported by RS. Deleting a fact supported by RS is vandalism. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Removing "a fact supported by an RS" is not vandalism. It doesn't bother me that SGI is acknowledged as an NGO - but it's not interesting or relevant to the article. It seems to me like a far-fetched attempt to lend credibility to Soka Gakkai through this tenuous connection with the UN - a poor attempt at balancing out the criticism of the "perceptions" section. It's as if the fact that Wikipedia includes this article in "Religious faiths, traditions, and movements" is enough to start a section called "Perception of the Soka Gakkai at Wikipedia." It's complete humbug. Kiruning (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kiruning : First we have to acknowledge here the fact that we are on a neutral – secular – impartial – environment of an Encyclopedia. You’d agree then that our contribution (by editing) should not disregard or violate Wikipedia rules or policies.
If you’d kindly readVandalism on Wikipedia you would clearly find the statement that “Sometimes editors commit vandalism by removing information”. And this mentioned statement here is put in a quotation form. If you delete a quotation from a RS – because you do not like the quotation – then such a deletion of information is against Wiki rules. Please also accept the following statements regarding NPOV: “Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic”. Again: "ALL" the significant views...on the topic at hand.
Your personal point of view that perception and consideration of the UN of an organisation as an NGO - is not important or “irrelevant” is simply incorrect. The UN is an impartial and non-biased institution, exactly as other impartial and non-biased institutions such as universities, peace and cultural establishments. If SGI is perceived by such institutions as supportive to their goals and sharing in their activities, then this is a fact, and our broadmindedness encourages us to accept facts as facts, not as ‘far-fetched’ attempt to lend credibility. SGI credibility does not come from the UN, and this talk about ‘credibility’ and ‘humbug’ and ‘poor attempt’ – describes only your own analysis and personal opinion, perhaps with a little of negative emotions. But you would kindly agree that in any intelligent and non-biased presentation we have to employ the 'academic honesty approach' (of citing diverse perspectives) - what we call in dialogue: ”On the other hand…”. And this "on the other hand" necessitates inclusion of established and recognised facts of diverse positions. The content policies in English Wikipedia, informs us that “Wikipedia intends to convey only knowledge that is already established and recognized”. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, if you read Vandalism on Wikipedia you would clearly find the statement that "Sometimes editors commit vandalism by removing information" but that doesn't mean that removing information is vandalism. Your further assertion that removing information is against "Wiki rules" is absolutely untrue and you are wikilawyering to push your own pro-SGI agenda. Laughably you then lecture about NPOV as if you don't have a horse in this race and constantly push a pro-SGI agenda. Helpsome (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Helpsome, for the explanation (that removing statements can be regarded as vandalism - but not always). I understand that I could be more accurate in my statement about that, as there is a difference between "is" and "can be". Accordingly, I have changed the title of this section of Talk.
Learning more about Wiki rules may come through making mistakes as well, so it is not the matter of wiki-lawyering. I am appreciative for this environment of editing Wikipedia is offering, it is a remarkable source of both editing and learning - as it helps me in my research (and further study in Philosophy of Mind).
Now I must here clarify more about the expression NPOV: I meant by NPOV the neutral nature of the RS I use in my editing. What I introduce in my editing is not my POV. I may agree or disagree with the quotations I use, but they are not generated by me. You see, none of the RS or quotations I mentioned are SGI generated. The basis of my editing comes from either acknowledged institutions, universities or independent researchers' book-published articles - and in this sense I used the word neutral and NPOV. I do not work for SGI. But if we are speaking about SGI agenda then from neutral publications this agenda is World Peace and individual's development. Some may not agree and freedom of expression is granted for all. Please also take into account that in my editing of this or other articles I used also anti-SGI sources. I appreciate any indication which corrects my editing and my approach, and in this perspective I am thankful to you, to Kiruning, Shii and others although I do not have to agree with everything in our exchange of comments.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Safwan, long paragraphs of incoherent babbling isn't going to cut it. Whether or not removal of a source "could be" "can be" "might be" vandalism, it's obviously not the case here. 3 editors (myself included) have expressed concerns about your edits. I'm removing the "perceptions at the UN" paragraph - that's a first step towards improving this article which currently is little but joke full of WP:OR and sources that are not WP:RS and don't actually support the text of the article.Kiruning (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

My recent edits to the article

I've made a plethora of edits to the article - which I personally think have made it 1) more readable 2) more balanced 3) more adherent to WP:MOS, among other things. Here's a diff link showing the results of my 38 edits: [1]. The intro might read overly negative - I'd like to weigh this up with a reliable source mentioning how Soka Gakkai is acclaimed for its work for peace (and perhaps something else), but I had a hard time finding such a source (I went through some of the sources given in the "Perceptions" (now "Critique") section in hope of finding something but the poor standard led me instead of removing several of them from the article altogether). If anybody has a snappy adjective that could be added up there, please go ahead.

The article is still plagued by poor formatting, unreliable and POV sources, but I think my edits amount to at least a start. Kiruning (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I've made some additional edits. Full diff: [2] Kiruning (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I support all of your edits. By the way, the article once looked like this fixed link. All of the editing since then has been done by Safwan. Shii (tock) 18:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree to Shii. Still a lot of work ahead. I had my own share of edit wars in this article (and others). Good to see that some effort is being done to make the article at least a bit more unbiased.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Safwan really did a number on this article. As, it turns out, he did to the Nichiren Shoshu article... Safwan, when you read this: we need to talk. Your edits are extremely problematic. Excuse my language, but you've truly butchered at least two different articles. If the problem was limited to your command of the English language - where we have several issues like poor sentence structure, Coelho-like capitalizations, throw-away-all-rules punctuation, a dismal sense for structure, etc. - we could help each other improving the article. Even though you clearly have a vested interest (I see you admit to once having belonged to the Nichiren Shoshu on the talk page), you obviously do have some amount of knowledge on the subject. The larger problem is however that you are completely uncooperative and won't listen to criticism, deflecting with a supposed education at Oxford, etc. It is actually hard to even communicate with you because your responses are unfailingly long litanies that only occasionally keep to the topic at hand. If you want to be helpful to the project, please: 1) learn to express yourself concisely 2) realize your own shortcomings (some of which I've listed for you) and learn some humility 3) read up, THOROUGHLY, on WP:MOS and WP:MOSQUOTE. Thank you. (btw I'm Kiruning, had problems logging in) 126.25.72.25 (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Kiruning: As you have stated, you “personally think” that you made plethora of right editing. This does not make your editing correct. For a helpful editing please read the following: “Be helpful: explain your changes. When you edit an article, the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it. Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Be_helpful:_explain. You did not follow this helpful guideline when – among other things – deleted The Perception.
The SGI is a highly controversial. As such, there are differing perceptions about SGI. There are varying perspectives. A non-biased article should include both perceptions and perspectives taken from RS. To just delete some Perceptions about SGI (because you do not like them?), and insert what you “personally think” is needed – this is not an impartial or academic approach.
Wikipedia articles are not a finished product and would evolve in time. There is a lot to add to SGI page because SGI is also evolving. No hurries. I’ll have plenty of time and it is my pleasure to be helpful in making the article neutral. You can share as well by looking into RS and introducing their perspectives.
While I am willing for exchanging comments on the article, I’ll refrain from commenting on irrelevant nonsense such as including Shoshu or making statement against my person. What we introduce on this Talk page is a mirror for our attitude towards each other and the motivations behind our editing, so let’s keep that on the highest level possible.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Safwan, I've read through your comments on this talk page and there's this bizarre mantra you keep repeating to all other editors: "you think this was right - but that doesn't make it right". This is a truism and not at all helpful, and it's obviously an example of the very thing you're accusing me of, as you never actually substantiate why something is wrong. I haven't included any personal opinions in the article. Everything is properly sourced, unlike most of the the stuff you've inserted. I've explained several, if not all, of the edits I've made - if you have an issue with them, please state what the exact problem is (and please, no more truisms and no more "removing an RS is vandalism") and I'll defend the edit. But again, I beg you: be concise.
"You can share as well by looking into RS and introducing their perspectives" - this is another LARGE problem with your edits. You don't seem to understand what an RS is, and you obviously don't understand that each source has to be an RS. Please, read through WP:RS. I will continue to remove each non-RS you have included in the article.126.25.72.25 (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Since you complained specifically about the removal of some "perceptions", I'll defend those edits. Just letting you know, I'm not finished editing there. More of the poorly sourced stuff will be removed. There's 3 problems with the things I've removed: 1) several of the statements were not supported by reliable sources, 2) those statements that were based on something resembling an RS were WP:OR, or inference. Just because you have a source showing that there has been a joint exhibition between the SGI, MLI and the SWC, doesn't mean that it's fair game to say that "MLI and SWC perceive SGI as an organization working for peace". This is a textbook example of WP:OR. 3) the stuff I removed was poorly formatted, incoherent, hard to read, AND had very little to do with either "perceptions", or "critiques" (as I've renamed the section, per WP:CRIT) of the organization.126.25.72.25 (talk)
The latest changes show a tendency for defaming SGI. This amounts to using Wikipedia to defame and enforce aggressive views. Steps will be taken to remove aggressive and defamatory remarks, and also the deletion of neutral and non-biased sources. Honesty in editing requires that opposing views should have opportunities to present their perspectives, but the latest editing shows fear from the truth and deletion of facts (such as the fact that upsets many: the recognition of SGI as a NGO at UN!) and other items related to history. Looking forward to do many corrections and also to engage a Wikipedia Editor in the disputed editing. Thank you.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This article is being cleaned up now and you have no consensus to revert it. Shii (tock) 08:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Safwan, as I've already said, the fact that SGI is "perceived" (!!) as an NGO by the UN is not a fact that upsets me (or indeed anybody else). It's just a fact that's not very notable. If you find a good third-party source detailing this, proving it indeed is not trivial, I'm perfectly prepared to include it somewhere though (though certainly not under "critique"!). Also, remember, as you said yourself - be bold, but not reckless - it's a controversial article. Respect the consensus as I have, and please be prepared for the fact that it might very well be at odds with what you think is best.126.25.72.25 (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
In addition, understand that while we will certainly weigh on your input, as a member of the SGI, you might not be the best person to judge what's neutral or balanced concerning the organization. This should be fairly obvious.126.25.72.25 (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The article will be reverted to the quality of an Encyclopedia. And the defaming and inflamatory approach will be subject to an action on Resolution Board. Thank you for this opportunity as it shows and mirrors the quality of dealing with the article and the truth. Every single statement of nonsense will be challenged, or mirrored by other perspectives. This will lengthen the article and will make it rich. Controvercy can be also good for thoughtful readers to understand deeper. The statements of world leaders about SGI including Noble Prize laurates will be also put in the intro together with the aggressive and misleading statements which were inserted. As I said: in every intelligent presentation there should be the "On the other hand" and freedom of expression of neutral sources will prevail on Wikipedia.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'd welcome positive comments made about the Gakkai in the intro, as I've already mentioned. So do go ahead. Just make sure you use reliable sources and don't fall into the trap of inferring stuff (again, see WP:OR). That Rosa Parks has appeared at an SGI-sponsored event is of course not the same as ascribing to her the view that "SGI is a wonderful organization." 126.25.72.25 (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Separation from the priesthood

I added a little paragraph on Shoshinkai. Before the article read as if it always was a question of right or wrong between Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakai. Truth is that long before the split some priests and lay believers detested both sides. --Catflap08 (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Phasing out the perceptions/criticism/critiques section?

I've been reading through WP:CRIT and thinking a little on the topic, I've come to the conclusion that the section now titled "Critiques" (previously "Perceptions") would perhaps best be phased out. I don't mean to delete anything that's noteworthy, but perhaps it should best be included in other parts of the article. Personally, I have something of a pendant for criticism sections and it's usually the first thing I look for in a wiki article because they allow me to cut straight through the bullshit and see just what the fuzz is, but I think the lead section, as it is now, doesn't shy away from the criticism, in a good way. What does everybody else think? 126.25.72.25 (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

One could agrue both solutions. I believe the criticism section was once introduced as the main body of the article read like an advert for SGI. The criticism of SGI related issues covers a vast field of topics such as finances, proselytising, cult, religious intolerance and so forth. Any effort however to change the current article into a balanced one is a long term commitment though as the history of the article itself shows.--Catflap08 (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there's so much we could add to it that I think it would be hard to contain it in just one section, and it would be quite hard to make it appear balanced. I think that individual items, like finance, political influence, etc. should instead have their own sections. By not constraining us to describing these things within the artificial framework of "criticism" or "perceptions", I think we could go into more depth.126.25.72.25 (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Exact origins of the Soka Kyoiku Gakkai

From what I gather, Soka Kyoiku Gakkai was more secular than the organization Toda created after the war. But to what degree was the Kyoiku Gakkai associated with Nichiren Shoshu from the very start (when he wrote that book of his) and how much happened afterwards? The Japanese Wikipedia suggests the Nichiren teachings were in focus from the beginning, but there's no source given: "1930年11月18日、小学校の校長だった牧口常三郎と、戸田城聖ら当時の教育者などが集い、日蓮の仏法精神に基づく教育の実践（教育者の育成）を目的とする団体「創価教育学会」を創立。" If there's any source on the exact involvements with the Shoshu, that'd be great. 126.25.72.25 (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this in a while but it might be helpful. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.bby6925.0001.001
The view being imposed that SGI has nothing to do with Shoshu is cuckoo for cocoa puffs. It seems like WP:SYNTH has been introduced to make it look like SGI and Shoshu were separate from 1952 when in fact they were the same denomination until 1991. This article has been cleansed of references to the Shōhondō, which SGI members spent $339 million to build. Shii (tock) 08:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I need to look further into the Shoshu thing, but the fact that Soka Gakkai was first known as "Nichiren Shoshu America" when the Californian chapter was founded in 1960 (per one of the sources I've recently included in the text), proves, at the very least, that Safwan is in the wrong here.126.25.72.25 (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This is correct, until 1991/1997 one could basically not be a member of SG without being a member of Nichiren Shoshu as Soka Gakkai was one of its lay organizations. On the other hand one did not have to be a member of SG to be a member of Nichiren Shoshu. SG was the largest but not sole lay organization within Nichiren Shoshu. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The concept of a "lay organization" might be described in the History or Organization sections of a revised layout for this article (as described below). Shii (tock) 16:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Article structure

New Age Jehova's Witnesses Scientology Druidry Mormonism Unitarian Universalism
History ｜

Spirituality ｜ Lifestyle ｜ Reception ｜ Social and political movement

History ｜ Organization ｜ Beliefs ｜ Practices ｜ Demographics ｜ Sociological analysis ｜ Opposition ｜ Criticism

Etymology and earlier usage ｜ History ｜ Membership statistics ｜ Beliefs and practices ｜ Organization ｜ Dispute of religion status ｜ Controversies ｜ Celebrities

Beliefs ｜ Practices ｜ History ｜ Demographics

Brief history ｜ Theology ｜ Relations to other faiths ｜ Theological divisions

History ｜ Beliefs ｜ Worship and ritual ｜ Politics ｜ Controversies ｜ Organizations ｜ Number of members ｜ Notable members ｜ Notable congregations

(comparison of how some other articles on religions/religious groups are structured. New Age is rated a "good article", the others aren't)

What's the ideal structure of the article? How many main sections do we want? I think that there's far too many at the moment. "Sources of beliefs and world view", "practice and activites", "Teachings and philosophy", "Mentor-Disciple Relationship in SGI" - these should at the very most be two different sections, to my mind (and be seriously trimmed and made actually readable as well).

Here's a suggestion, just to get the debate started:

  • History
  • Beliefs
  • Practices
  • Organization (with sub-sections like Politics on the Komeito and Shin-komeito and their relation to Soka Gakkai, and Wealth on their enormous wealth (and alleged power, perhaps), and Schools or whatever.)
  • List of presidents (the list we have now is fine, I think)

What does everybody else think? If there's a consensus on doing something with the 4 paragraphs I mentioned above, I'd like to get cracking as soon as possible.126.25.72.25 (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. A layout like that will be better at introducing the subject of the article to readers unfamiliar with SGI. Shii (tock) 16:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The proposed structure seems sound. I myself will certainly add bits an pieces here and there. As an ex-member I stay clear on SGI issues and focus rather on Nichiren Buddhism in general and related articles. There was enough humbug I was told on issues regarding Buddhism and Nichiren Buddhism. Utmost care has to be taken with third party sources some of them were basically supported by SGI. A good source is the “Japanese Journal of Religious Studies” and the book “Fire in the Lotus”. Even though out of print the former is the only one that gives a sound and neutral overview of Nichiren Buddhism in a concise and readable manner.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the disclosure. For the record, I have never been involved in SGI or Nichiren Buddhism and have only fleetingly met people who were involved, so if you'd like to propose any changes that might sound controversial, you can just run them by this talk page. Shii (tock) 20:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the input of non- affiliated editors! Safwan even though he might have had good intentions made the article as a source of information unreliable as possible. Being one of the most controversial groups within Nichiren Buddhism it just comes natural that SGI is being criticised. An almost relentless tactic has been to defame critics rather than facing criticism. For obvious reasons I will have an eye on the article never the less. I am not affiliated with any Nichiren group/sect/cult at this time. Due to the fact that SGI is the largest Nichiren based group at the same time it does not reflect Nichiren Buddhism as a whole.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've started to restructure the article. I ended up cutting out quite a lot more than I added back in - mostly because I found a lot of it irrelevant, poorly written and/or poorly sourced. If anybody thinks I missed something important, here's a link to the last version before the cut: [3]Kiruning (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I also want to make it clear that it's obviously WIP, and I of course welcome all other editors to have a go at it too. Currently we have something approaching a first draft. Kiruning (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Mentorship

I can't find any secondary sources outlining the mentorship practices of SG/SGI, leading me to think it's not actually all that notable. Though I guess we should have a short section outlining the basic principles with a "See more" link to Buddhism#Mentorship (just made that up, but you get my drift) with the occasional primary source to show how Soka Gakkai differs from the traditional Buddhist mentorship, I don't think we should reinstate the entirety of the now removed "Mentor-Disciple Relationship in SGI" section. Thoughts? Kiruning (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever content was there should be integrated into an "Organization" section where it will make more sense to non-members, although relying on primary sources alone is questionable. Shii (tock) 05:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Well the mentor-disciple issue is a special issue. In traditional Buddhism it is called master-disciple relationship. Its simply the relationship between a student and teacher, in a monastic environment it would be the one between an novice and a monk and so forth. In an old versions of the article I included some links on how that relationship is defined in traditional forms of Buddhism i.e. Zen. The links have since been deleted. The most striking difference is that its a personal relationship between two people, this can be a lifetime bond or temporarily. SGI teaches the Gohonzon and SGI's three presidents as a “Mentor”. At a closer look it boils down to Ikead as Mentor to SGI Members. I know for a fact that this remodelling of the master(Mentor, teacher, Guru)-disciple concept caused quite a number of then long-standing SGI-members to quit the “Peace movement”. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
This brings up another reason why primary sources are insufficient: SGI doctrine has changed over the decades. Shii (tock) 21:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
That sounds interesting, relevant and notable, but we do of course need third-party sources for this. I didn't notice any in the parts that I removed?126.25.72.25 (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

SGI "buying respect for Ikeda"

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Buddhist-Group-Wants-to-Brand-City-Park-89706857.html http://buddhism.about.com/b/2010/04/02/buying-respect-for-ikeda.htm "SGI has offered to give $180,000 to the city of San Francisco in exchange for naming a gate to Franklin Square Park after SGI President Daisaku Ikeda. The gate would include a plaque to Ikeda's mentors. According to the city's Recreation and Park's Department, $80,000 would be used for construction and landscaping of the gate, and $100,000 would go to the Recreation and Park Department for "general operating support." ... What little local reaction I have seen has been negative, however. President Ikeda has no connection to the park, which makes the proposed dedication of the gate an act of transparent vanity. ... SGI's practice of lavishing large amounts of money to buy honors for Daisaku Ikeda does not speak well for Ikeda, or SGI. And it doesn't make Buddhism look good, either."

Here's something similar in a park in Chicago, though there's no mention whether a large donation preceded the monument: [4]126.25.72.25 (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

More on Soka Gakkai's finances: [5] it's spooky how many reputable sources have commented on the shadowy nature of the group, yet very little seems to have made it into the Wikipedia article.126.25.72.25 (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It's precisely because the group is "shadowy" that it has discouraged investigative reporting into it. During the Toda period (I insist that the leaders of the group are extremely influential and probably deserve naming in the headers) there was so much going on that academics documented it, but in the 1970s Ikeda put a lot of effort into managing the group's public image and I do not see much being published since then. There is a lot of stuff by other Buddhist sects, such as Happy Science or post-1991 Shoshu, and shady, non-academic publishers. Maybe this book or this would be OK... Shii (tock) 17:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I bought the Hiromi Shimada book for my Kindle. Won't dive into it immediately, but I'll get to it eventually.Kiruning (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The lack of scholarly literature could be mentioned in the article. "In [Ehrhardt's] view, one of the difficulties in doing research on Soka Gakkai and Komeito lies in the lack of first-hand information and the scarcity of scholarly literature. Ehrhardt explains:
This lacuna may partly stem from the Gakkai’s well-known suspicion of outside investigators and its reluctance to allow access. For example, studying the LDP is a matter of building personal connections with individual politicians, but Gakkai members direct outside researchers to the organization’s central headquarters, reinforcing the idea of a single collective identity. (145)
It is true that there are several scholarly works on Soka Gakkai, but Ehrhardt adds:
While the edited volume Tonari no Soka Gakkai [The Soka Gakkai Next Door: 1995] is an exception, most of those researchers who do gain access to the Gakkai, like Metraux [The History and Theology of Soka Gakkai, Edwin Mellen Press, 1988] or Seager [Encountering the Dharma, University of California Press, 2006] rarely tackle controversial issues. This leads the Gakkai and its critics into a vicious cycle with no information to the contrary, observers assume the worst about the organization, and in turn, their critiques only confirm members' distrust. (146)
In other words, Ehrhardt thinks "it's time for scholars to address the Komeito-Soka Gakkai connection in more robust, synthetic, and theoretically sophisticated ways" (147)." [6] Kiruning (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Shimada also goes into how it's very hard to scrutinize the group because of it's closed nature, in the book ("Soka Gakkai").126.25.72.25 (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Three Important Matters

There is a mistaken understanding among some editors about Wikipedia "Consensus". Consensus is not an agreement between few editors to violate rules and guidelines about the article, about the contents, about the Intro section, about refraining from inflammatory and defaming indications, and so forth. At the moment please consider the 3 following matters:

1/ Perception and Criticism Section is important. The subject of the SGI is highly controversial. Controversy comes from opposing views, opposing perceptions and differing conclusions about the activities or nature of SGI. For this reason Perception and Criticism Section is essential. This will include the perception that SGI is a fascist organization, and will include that it is an NGO in the UN and is acknowledged for working for peace. Neutrality is an essential requirement of Wikipedia and "consensus" to delete some facts altogether - or putting "perception" of some newspapers in the Intro section (where it does not belong)- this is not consensus, but misunderstanding.

2/ While the efforts of editors who brought tables about the "Structure of the Article" - is appreciated, there is no rule that SGI page should follow Catholicism or New Age structured article. Articles do not have to be replicas in structure. The current structure is messy and confusing. If Catholicism includes Wealth and Power section, this does not mean that SGI should follow.

3/ The History section is a presentation of the phases which produced the current SGI, starting from Inception, Development, Expansion and also Independence of SGI from the Priesthood. According to various independent researchers the Separation from the Priesthood is the most important event in the history of SGI and the perspectives and study of such unbiased and impartial university researchers should be include.

The horizon is open for change, but no hurries.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You bring up three different points, two of which are already discussed in other sections on this talk page. I'd appreciate if you could participate in each discussion where it is currently being held with other editors, instead of attempting to start everything anew in one big messy huddle - it makes it harder to follow the debate, as these are all separate issues. In order to maintain this structure, I will only respond to your 3rd point here (and I recommend other editors to do the same): I don't know if it's true that the "separation from the priesthood" is the single most important event in the Gakkai's history and from the papers and books I've been looking through, I don't think there's any broad agreement among "independent researchers" on this in the way you're trying to portray it - not that I'm sure that it matters, as the history section is presented mostly chronologically. The goal is of course to include unbiased and impartial sources, naturally. I don't know that this has been questioned by anyone? 126.25.72.25 (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus on the 3rd point either. Shii (tock) 03:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Independance of SGI from religious authority of priests has been studied widely among independant scholars. Quotations from their studies will be included. Please bring what you read as well and this will enrich the article. Again 'consensus' is not consensus to violate Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality and balanced perspectives. I think the article will be great because it will attract great interest in these controversies and readers will understand. Wisdom will always win over emotionalism and inflammation. And the UN acknowledgement of SGI contribution to peace, education, refugees and other activities will be included. Deleting this fact is avoiding the truth and will be discussed widely through, propbably next year. Thank you for the opportunity to enrich the article and bring contrasting views, so beneficial to the true aspect of reality (of SGI).SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
"And the UN acknowledgement of SGI contribution to peace, education, refugees and other activities will be included." - if there is such an acknowledgement, then it should most certainly be referenced to in the article. Accrediting SGI as an NGO is in itself does however not constitute such an acknowledgement - don't you think? Kiruning (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Mandela and SGI publications

When I will edit the article, I will mention on how SGI publications has found their way to Nelson Mandela in prison, when he read some presented to him. And after his release Mandela himself requested a meeting with SGI president Ikeda (1990). This is referrenced in an independant scholar’s book. Mandela's greatness was his maturity over religios hatred. With this in mind, here are Mandela’s words, which I sincerely present to all editors: “No one is born hating another because of...his religion. People learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can learn to love, which comes more naturally to the human heart than the opposite”. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to share the title of this independent scholar's book. Kiruning (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

To Wikipedia Administrative Editors

You’d agree that a Wiki article identifying Islam as ‘linked with terrorism’, or the Catholic Church as ‘based on child abuse’ - would have been described as attempt to discredit and incite hatred. The current article on SGI is an example of this approach: editing motivated by discrediting SGI, and inciting religious hatred.

While impartiality requires that Wikipedia should not be used as an “Advertisment” , it is also logical that articles should not be based on the opposite: namely should not be esited for the purpose of “Negative-Advertisment”. I di not find in Wikipedia policy a refrence to this situation, and please correct me if I am wrong. Editing to discredit is expressed by bringing inflamatory and false accusation - treating these name-calling as if they were facts (fascist militant organisation). Couplled with this defamatory approach is also deleting facts (SGI at the UN and other peace activities), and this is only a quick example, it is not everything that can be said here on this subject.

Using Wikipedia to promote a business creates a Conflict of Interest situation. Editors who are focused on discrediting and atttacking the integrity of an organisation - also create a Conflict of Interest situation, because it becomes evident that the pattern of their interest lies in promoting discrediting image - using Wikipedia article to promote aggressive and defematory text.

In case of SGI, its activities based on peace and harmonious coexistence in society are activities that are supported by universities and peace institiutes world wide. But it is in the interest of some political and religious authorities in Japan or elsewhere to discredit the Soka Gakkai for political gain, and for justifying religious wars. This is because SGI had deprived such authorities from millions of votes (in a constitution-approved democratic process of political voting) and deprived temples from millions of members through declaring spiritual independance from the authority of priests. These are facts behind the strong motivation to attack the integrity of SGI and the integrity of millions of honest and sincere members.

Last year, I have written to Wikipedia Founders on the bias and threats directed at my person, and which I encountered when editing: I wrote to Rick Gates, Richard Stallman and Jimmy Wales, and I received supportive communication from one of them. As one Administrative Editor once commented, Wikipedia is evolving. I think that considering the a policy against Negative-Advertisment - would be truly beneficial to guide against using articles for defamation of honest and sincere people and from inciting hatred and religios or political strife. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you mean to post this to the admin's noticeboard (WP:AN)? It's unlikely many admins will see this here (except User:Shii, of course).Kiruning (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Safwan, I have warned you before about WP:TALKNO, which is an enforced guideline here. Simply put, editors are asked to stay in the "top three sections of the pyramid" shown in that picture, but your comments are sinking into the bottom three sections, and I have seen editors disciplined on WP:ANI for persisting in such behavior. Obviously I am involved in collaborating on this article so I will never ban you, but I cannot guarantee you will be allowed to edit if you continue to use the talk page to write long rants like this. Shii (tock) 06:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Even though I refrain from editing this article in any major way I find the comments by the editor in question useful in some way as they show in an exemplary way why the organisation in question is being criticized in the first place. It should not be too difficult to find examples on how those who ‘dare’ to question or openly criticise SGI are being portrayed as enemies or enemies of the (Buddhist) law. Even though blogs are not a useful source some of them (i.e. the Rick Ross site on cults, this can be time consuming to read though: http://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?5,87661) they give an idea why many members turned their back on SGI … especially during the time of the conflict with the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood. It was the language used also by SGI officials which was quite disturbing.
For anyone firm with internet research the Lisa Jones case is half way documented. (This sight gives an insight but sure there are better sources: http://benjaminfulford.com/Sokagattukai.html)
As an ex member and employee SGI was able to silence her not by counter evidence but by the law of contract i.e. making SGI internals, such as ghost-writing an Ikeda book, public. It does make one wonder why a religious organisation employs working contracts that one would expect, let’s say, from software companies.
Same goes for incidents at Soka University. Ex-Staff claimed unfair dismissal which was turned down – yet again law of contract. The testimonies about proselytising by ex-staff and ex-students are still out there though.
In the end one must bare in mind that when push comes to shove even the editor in question is in a strictly legal sense no member of SGI. In almost all countries in which SGI operates the membership is not larger than the minimum legal requirement it takes to run the organisation in any respective country i.e . board members.
Again keeping an eye on this article will be a laborious task. Many editors who at the same time adhere to SGI’s teaching will aim to portray SGI as pristine and when criticised SGI will be victimised.--Catflap08 (talk) 09:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
In an earlier post on the talk page I hinted on how SGI’s view on the master(mentor)/disciple – relationship is in stark contrast to traditional teachings. I included some examples of various schools. An editor in question debated even that, even though its simply a different view in SGI compared to the rest of the Buddhist world – nothing less nothing more. The Zen one I believe was deleted …
Tibetan example: http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/A%20-%20Tibetan%20Buddhism/Subjects/Tantra/Introductory%20essays/Lama%20Yidam%20Khadro%20Chokyong/Lama,%20Yidam,%20Khandro,%20Chokyong.htm
Zen: http://www.threewheels.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8
Tendai: http://www.tendai.org/membership-training/
The Nichiren Shu site explains this in a training context: http://nichiren-shu.org/Houston/pages/minister.htm
--Catflap08 (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Mention of SGI's UN connection

Safwan has repeatedly canvassed for mentioning the fact that the SGI is accredited as an NGO at the UN. I've removed these mentions more than once because they weren't properly sourced and given undue weight in the perceptions section, but I'm perfectly willing to discuss if and how the UN connection should be mentioned, and in what context. It is however a highly contentious topic - I read in one source or another (which one, I can unfortunately not recall atm) that Ikeda has been pushing this fact himself to promote the organization's credibility ever since the '80's. I don't mean to be insulting, but with this in mind, it bares to say that Safwan is following the SGI rulebook on how to promote the organization, whether wilfully or not. So, you know, let's proceed with some amount of caution.

Since Safwan himself has so far not been willing (or perhaps, too busy) to present sources demonstrating the notability of the UN connection, I've taken it upon myself to review some of the available literature.

  • "The dichotomy between Soka Gakkai's religious and social activities creates a paradox. The Gakkai claims that it is a champion of world peace, and its support for refugees, the United Nations, and the environment have created tentative links with the outside world. However, its dogmatic orthodoxy places limits on its credibility and ability to influence Japanese society. Even the most sincere Gakkai advocate will not be taken too seriously by a highly skeptical Japanese public that regards the Gakkai peace movement as a form of self-serving religious propaganda. ... Scholars and critics of the Soka Gakkai have often questioned the impact that the movement has had on Japan; what are its long-term contributions to society? One must be careful not to exaggerate the influence of the Soka Gakkai in Japanese society as a whole. Despite fervent activities by the Gakkai to win public attention and respect, most Japanese are very ignorant of the movement. They all have heard of Ikeda and are aware that mass media on occasion has linked the Gakkai to certain scandals, but they know little more." (Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia. p 393) (my emphasis)
  • "A Soka-sponsored traveling exhibit called “Gandhi, King and Ikeda” equates him with the martyred civil rights leaders, although his peacemaking credentials are largely limited to his writings and speeches, plus SGI’s status as a registered NGO with the United Nations. He has collected countless peace awards and over 300 honorary diplomas from universities and schools, including Chicago’s Francis Parker. Meanwhile the organization has built schools and monuments around the world; critics claim their chief function is to glorify Ikeda and promote the faith." (Monumental Error? How a Statue Honoring a Controversial Japanese Religious Leader Wound Up in a Chicago Park (Newcity)) (my emphasis)

If the above mention makes the connection notable, it's perhaps not in the positive light Safran wants to portray it. The reference is a "cultural weekly" based in Chicago and while the website does look a bit "blog-ish", I don't see any reason it wouldn't clear the bar for being a WP:RS.

  • "Daisaku Ikeda is a muscular Buddhist, an administrator who tackles the problem of world peace with all the industry, optimism and persistence of a successful Japanese businessman. In recent months he has adopted the United Nations. By the time he is through with it that international organization will be fully aware that he is around."Japanese Buddhist leader tackles problems of peace (Daily News (AP)) 1975

This is from 1975, and suggests Ikeda (rather than SGI itsef, but I guess it's hard to separate the two) might end up influencing the UN, but since it's before the (possible) fact, it's really just opinion. It doesn't stand to reason to include, in a Wikipedia article in the year 2013, a source to say "In 1975, an AP journalist theorized that Ikeda was likely to come to have an influence on the UN."

  • "... Soka Gakkai also maintains an international political presence as a registered Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) with the United Nations." (Handbook of Contemporary Japanese Religions, p. 273)
  • "Moreover, Soka Gakkai's representative to the United Nations has served as president of the Committee of Religious Non-governmental Organizations. Soka Gakkai's public image as a global player against war and for interreligious cooperation is, however, mostly associated with the global activism of Ikeda, who has engaged in dialogue with intellectuals ... and received honorary doctorates and professorships from dozens of educational institutions worldwide." (Japanese Religions and Globalization, Ugo Dessì, p. 36)
  • "Cooperation with United Nations projects is another characteristic of Soka Gakkai's peace activities. Soka Gakkai has been registered as a Non-Governmental Organization with the United Nations' High Commissioner for Refugees since 1981, and two years later the SGI was recognized as an NGO with consultative status in the United Nations Economic and Social council." (Prophets of Peace, Kisala, p. 84)

Reviewing these sources, I think a mention does indeed seem appropriate. A one- or two-line mention in the "Organization" section seems like it should do the trick - thoughts? Kiruning (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It should definitely be mentioned that SGI has cultivated an image of internationalism using various means. Shii (tock) 16:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
As Kirunging correctly guessed, I am now just too busy with tons of other study commitments to deal with the editing, but which will definitely occur in the future. There is a lot of useless circular argument about this simple fact that SGI is at the UN as an NGO and that SGI presents to the UN Peace Proposals each year. These Peace Proposals are about the SGI Buddhist point of view regarding world's problems, nuclear threats, the environment etc… These are F A C T S. & they will be mentioned, together with what Shii correctly mentioned, about SGI prompting World Citizenship, Internationalism in terms of harmonious coexistence, and its diverse membership is also a manifestation of this truth.
Now, bringing defamatory and inflammatory words about SGI - this can be mentioned only as PERECPTION not committed facts. Perception and description do not come under the title of "controversy", they constitute POV of some sources. A controversy is a questionable E V E N T ( such as the Komeito, yes this is controversial). Controversy is about contradicting A C T I O N or P R O C E D U R E, while description of SGi as fascist is not a controversy, it is a description, a perception. There is no event or procedure or teaching to support that SGI is fascist or militant etc.... It is truly futile attempt to bring emotionalism and hatred motivated words to Wiki article. All these things will b will be challenged but this may take months or even a year. SGI promotes peace and non-violence as provable f a c t s and real events supported by independent scholars and institutions such as Ghandi's and M.L.King's Jr's.etc... These will be definitely highlighted as part of SGI identity. I suggest a section on CONTROVERSY. In that section we can have what opponents of SGI say and what supporters say. This will be fair, facts abiding and wikipedia worthy non-bias. have a good time ahead.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
You're ranting, Safwan. You're not actually participating in the discussion, when all you do is go on about how you think our edits are futile, how we are emotional and hate the Soka Gakkai and are defaming them. You do this in every single one of your replies, instead of engaging with us in a meaningful way on the topics at hand. Why can't you just tell us whether you think two lines would be enough? And if it's not enough, how much do you think would be ideal, where would you place it, and why? I'm telling you now, if you keep up with this attitude, I will take this up with the admin noticeboard and I will try and have you topic-banned from all Soka Gakkai-related articles. As for the Controversy/Perception/Critiques/Criticism section, there's already a section here on the talk page where we are attempting to discuss whether it's necessary or not. If you have anything to add on this specific topic, please post there.Kiruning (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Please do not avoid the discussion which I presented to improve the Intro section. The subject I raised here was intentionally highlighted as C o n t r o v e r s y. Your understanding of what Controversy is - is incomplete, the least to say. Controversy is always related to an e v e n t, or a certain c o n f l i c t. The defaming name calling in the Intro section were justified by you (or was it someone else?) justified as 'describing a controversy' - but this is plainly wrong. These inflaming adjectives describe personal point of views, not events (in which SGI was involved). I am engaging you in a meaningful discussion on what Controversy means. While I have before me many assignments to do, I don't have time to edit now. This Talk page is a wonderful place to discuss and clarify mistakes which - we all - can commit. Please accept this communication with openmindedness and refrain from threats that you can influence Wikipedia to excommunicate me, this is not your private property.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm certainly not avoiding the discussion - I've already created a specific section to discuss this topic just below, because this has nothing to do with how the connection to the UN should be mentioned. Let's stop the constant derailing and discuss each separate issue in each section, OK? Kiruning (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Many men and organizations have talked the talk of peace but their actions belie their words. For example, it should be explored SGI's and New Komeito's relationships with Mitsubichi Heavy Industrials, New Komeito's role in the lifting of Japan's arms export ban and its new State Secret's Law, etc.2602:306:CC5C:D8F9:FD03:F07B:3DA6:C26 (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Mark R.Rogow

The path to GA

I think we have enough editors working right now to push this article towards GA. Here is a list of Wikipedia:Good article criteria to work towards:

  • Well-written -- here, we need to remove all quotations that substitute for encyclopedic summaries
  • Verifiable with no original research -- remove any standing primary sources or web links and replace with good quality sources
  • Broad in its coverage -- finish rewriting, basically
  • Neutral -- goes without saying, we are working on this now
  • Stable -- avoid edit wars
  • Illustrated -- find an appropriate image or two to add to what we have

This is a fairly important article to pursue GA for, so good luck! Shii (tock) 17:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles can be always improved, and what you think as 'good' may need addition of wider perspectives. Quotations are recommended in any academic and encyclopedic presentation and we should not avoid the truth in what is said.
As for stability, the article was stable for more than 2 years until someone deleted the reference about SGI in the UN, a deletion that can be considered as valnadlism. The Intro also is unstable because it added defaming, inflammatory and false statements, basically relating to what was claimed Half a Century ago, and therefore do not belong to current summary of what SGI "IS". Future edition must also remove the unbalance created by deleting SGI institutions in the world, institutes for peace studies, education, culture and international exchange in universities and music performances. As for illustrations there will be some, from cultural festivals, and also the UN Medal of Peace awarded in 1983.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
You are in a minority of one and have no consensus for your changes. Shii (tock) 06:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
1) Yes, I did remove most mentions of the Gakkai-backed institutions because they seemed out of place where they appeared. I agree they should be reinstated - the "Organization" section seems the obvious choice for this. I don't see them covered in enough 2nd hand sources to make it notable enough to include in the intro though - N.B. that one of the reasons that I took them out from the start was that the only sources presented were primary. We need more than just proof of their existence - we also need proof of their notability. If they're not notable, they're not relevant to the article.
2) There's no medal called the "UN Medal of Peace". I can find no mention on un.org of any medal awarded to Ikeda, in 1983 or any other year. Not saying that doesn't mean it isn't true he received some medal/award or other with some (possibly tenuous) kind of connection to a UN organ, but what was it called? Who exactly awarded it to him? And where are the secondary sources establishing its notability?
3) I think the organization's controversial history (i.e. the militancy) is important enough to include in the intro section, and I don't at all agree that this is defaming, inflammatory or false. I agree it could be argued exactly where in the intro it should appear,and if proper arguments are presented, I will of course consider them (but just stating over and over that they are defaming, without explaining why, doesn't make for a very convincing argument).
4) Please stop referring to my, or other users' good-faith edits, as vandalism. See WP:CIVIL.Kiruning (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
These defensive arguments you mentioned, Kiruning, will be addressed when i will edit the article, on my time. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Let's avoid turning this into a revert war - if you have any edits you want to make that you suspect won't sit well with us other editors, please participate in the discussion already going on here BEFORE you start editing. It seems quite likely that you will be reverted if you make contentious edits without first reaching a consensus for them by discussing them here. Kiruning (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Pictures

  • Here's a picture I'd love to use in the article:
http://sokanomori.exblog.jp/13505548/
http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/201001/17/41/c0180341_7131292.jpg
Since it depicts Toda, it must be from before 1958, but the photographer must have been dead by 1963 for the copyright to have expired... no info on the photographer is given. There must be a lot of photos from the Toda era that have expired copyrights though. The question is, how to locate them? Kiruning (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2013

True Main Hall

The issue is an interesting one but the translation ‘True Main Hall’ is a bit tricky. The original term is ‘Kaidan’ which in literature is normally referred to as ‘Ordination platform’. To be honest I never heard the term ‘True Main Hall’ being used. The term Hondō on the other side is a general term for a temple’s main hall. True is that on a dogmatic level SGI apparently believed that ‘Kosen Rufu’ (Conversion of most of the population to its interpretation of Buddhism) is on its way or has already been achieved in Japan. The priesthood argued that this was not the case. After the demolition of the Shōhondō the Hōandō was apparently on purpose built in a traditional warehouse style. This was to underline the fact that ‘Kosen Rufu’ is still to be full filled. So letting aside the buildings fate the name given to it in Taiseki-ji indicates a shift on the issue of a ‘Kaidan’. --Catflap08 (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I made some changes to the relevant section. "True Main Hall" is given as a translation in McLaughlin.Kiruning (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

When was SGI made the main organization?

When was the SGI made the "mother organization" of the Japanese Soka Gakkai? I was hoping to find this info in the Japanese Wikipedia (because it's usually great for years and numbers) but I came up short. Anybody knows? Kiruning (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Collection of articles, books, etc. to incorporate in the article

Also useful Brian Daizen Victoria, Senior Lecturer Centre for Asian Studies, University of Adelaide, Engaged Buddhism: A Skeleton in the Closet?--Catflap08 (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Toshiaki Furukawa: Shisutemu to shite no soka gakkai (1999). "... 海外での名誉博士号取得や国内でのさまざまな謀略活動のための「裏工作費」に充てられているものと大別される( ※ここで「池田個人の資産」といったが、現実には、学会内部で池田が絶対的な権力を握り、学会を私物化している以上、例えば、学会施設内の「池田専用施設」や、特に事実上の私邸として使っている「学会本部第二別館」などは、本来、池田個人の資産とみなすべきなのだ る[sic]ための工作資金である(最終的なタ—ゲットはーノ—ベル平和賞」であるが)。" (p. 231). "こうした形で、池田大作が海外で表彰、名誉博士号等を受けるにはそれなりのコストがかか池田大作がゴルバチヨフと面会するための工作費は数十億円社会福祉団体から「福祉功労賞」を授与されれいる。" (p. 236). 126.25.72.25 (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • LA Times interview - perhaps more interesting than the Tricycle magazine interview (at least it's not glorifying to the degree that Ikeda uploads it to his website). Kiruning (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • REUNION WITH PANAMANIAN LEADER (excerpt) "President Ikeda had met General Noriega four times in the past, twice in Japan and twice in Panama, the last time being in 1981 when President Ikeda visited Panama City. Mr. Ikeda noted that peace is being maintained in Panama while other Central and South American countries are hit by civil strife, and hoped that Panama would act as a “pillar of peace. General Noriega assured President Ikeda that Panama would continue to assume the role of mediator in the internal conflicts of Central American countries. President Ikeda thanked the Panamanian leader for erecting a monument in his honor at a scenic observation point on Flamenco Island in the Bay of Panama at the Pacific approach to the Panama Canal last year. The name, “Mirador Ikeda.” was given by General Noriega to commemorate his meeting with President Ikeda on February 20, 1981, on Flamenco Island. At that time, the two discussed the problems of world peace and the future prospects of Central America. The plaque on the monument is inscribed with the words “Praying for world peace from this place looking upon the Pacific Ocean.”" The Soka Gakkai News (precursor to the SGI Quarterly)　Kiruning (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "Kempe writes that Noriega first heard of the Soka Gakkai in the early 1970s when as the intelligence chief in the Panamanian military he studied judo with a Chinese-Panamanian named Chuh Yih. By the mid-1970s Kempe relates that Noriega was an occasional visitor to Taiseki-ji and an acquaintance of Ikeda. At the height of Noriega's reign, a life-placque [sic] honoring Noriega was placed at a Gakkai meeting hall in Japan. Ikeda visited Noriega in Panama several times in the 1980]s and both leaders praised each other's virtues in public statements. Kempe reports that Noriega's friends say that Ikeda provided the Panamanian leader with several million dollars' worth of assistance during 1987 and 1988 but that Soka Gakkai officials deny that Ikeda provided Noriega with money. Kempe believes the two men were attracted to each other because both had "great intellectual pretensions, but only modest education. Ikeda "boosted Noriega's ego by calling him 'Shogun' (and) Japan was a place where Noriega never had to apologize for human rights violations or repressing democracy." p. 160 The Soka Gakkai Revolution, Metraux Kiruning (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
"Mr. Ikeda has also become known for his expensive trips around the world to meet with various dictators, including Krushchev, Noriega, and Ceausescu" p. 79 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiruning (talk • contribs) 06:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Japan Quarterly, Volume 47 (2000): Assessing a Patchwork Coalition, Tominomori Fuji ([10]) "Soka Gakkai's aggressive proselytizing, which had been quite effective in the past, no longer carries the same weight. It has obviously become increasingly difficult to maintain a financial base strong enough to support such a huge organization. During the immediate postwar years, Soka Gakkai membership was largely made up of people with low incomes, owners and employees of small businesses and homemakers and other nonprofessionals, among others. As such, the organization had to compete with the Communist Party in the makeup of its voter support base. In Japan's postwar economic miracle, however. Soka Gakkai followers, too, gradually became affluent. affluent. One report sets their current average annual income at ¥7 million, whereas the average annual income for those backing the Communist Party is estimated around ¥4 million. One way Soka Gakkai could reinforce its financial base in the face of declining membership is to try to help lift the level of affluence of its members. I believe this is precisely what New Komeito is now trying to do, on the assumption that by being part of the ruling power structure, it would have a better chance of achieving that goal. Coalition Advances New Komeito's Game Plan New Komeito has already achieved some benefit from being part of the coalition in many local governments. This makes it perfectly logical to see the party trying to achieve the same objectives from the central government to pass on benefits, both tangible and intangible, to Soka Gakkai members. Late in 1998, when New Komeito was still outside the coalition and thus regarded as part of the opposition, the party proposed 'regional business promotion coupons" as a way to encourage consumer spending to spur the economy. The original idea was to give merchandise coupons worth ¥20,000 to families for each child up to age 15, and for low-income elderly people aged 65 and older. The administration was at first skeptical of the effectiveness of the measure, and was reluctant to go along with it. Out of fear of antagonizing New Komeito, however, it relented. New Komeito trumpeted this outcome as a major coup. As a result, according to one Soka Gakkai watcher, at least ¥50 billion poured into the Soka Gakkai coffers. Most of it came from Soka Gakkai-related companies and shops that benefitted from the coupon program through purchases made by its followers. Given the strict observance of the Soka Gakkai rules by its followers, it is only natural that the organization would see its coffers swell as its members gained income and had more money to donate. Soka Gakkai and New Komeito had maintained an anti-establishment stance from their inception. To them, joining forces with the conservative camp was a drastic shift. Not that they had not contemplated such a move. On the contrary, they had been exploring the possibility for many years, but just could not follow through. What made them finally decide to follow through this time? The answer to this question requires a recognition of the current wave of conservatism apparent among Japan's voters. More Japanese now feel their nation's postwar democracy needs to be reviewed." (this is not openly accessible but I was able to extract this one page through google books' "snippet view") Kiruning (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Asiaweek, Volume 20, Issues 14-26 (1994): The Komeito Factor. Fears Over the Rapid Rise of a Buddhist-Backed Party Soka Gakkai: Aggressive proselytizing, extensive networks - and big money. (not available freely online, copy-pasting here)
"In mid-May a group of conservative legislators, religious leaders, commentators and scholars met at Tokyo's tony New Otani hotel. They were worried about Komeito, the "clean government party" supported by a shadowy, nationwide Buddhist sect. The party's increasing power "is a problem shaking the basic principles of democracy," says Kamei Shizuka, a Dietman of the once-dominant Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and a member of the "April Association" set up to oppose Komeito and its founder and backer, the Soka Gakkai Buddhist body. "The most dangerous scenario," warns Kamei, "is Komeito taking control of Japanese politics."
At a time when most political parties are showing signs of turmoil or imminent disintegration. Komeito is on the rise. For some time, the centrist group has held more than its share of power. With 52 seats in the 511-seat lower house, it has played a pivotal role in critical political contests. It gained influence several years ago by helping the LDP, then the ruling party, pass crucial laws, including those that allowed Japanese troops to join U.N. peacekeeping missions. When the Liberal Democrats' 40-year rule ended last August. Komeito became a key player in the new governing coalition led by Hosokawa Morihiro, with four cabinet posts. Its clout grew again in April when Hosokawa's successor, Premier Hata Tsutomu, gave the party six of the 20 cabinet portfolios.
Komeito has downplayed its pacifist philosophy in favor of the conservatism of dominant parties. To detractors, that's evidence that its sole goal is to grab power. They see behind such ambitions the Soka Gakkai, principal lay group of Japan's largest religious body, the Buddhist sect Nichiren Shoshu. Running Soka Gakkai is Ikeda Daisaku, 66, its charismatic and, some say, dictatorial leader.
Since he became its head in 1960, Soka Gakkai has become richer and more powerful. Aggressive proselytizing and extensive grassroots networks have helped build membership: an estimated 10 million in Japan and 1.26 million in 115 foreign countries. Followers reportedly donate $2 billion a year - funds that enjoy generous tax exemptions for religious bodies. Soka Gakkai invests actively in stocks and real estate, including extensive Tokyo properties. Its most lucrative venture publishes the Sei-kyo Shimbun newspaper (circulation: 5.5 million). The organization also sells gravestones - its No. 2 business - and performs religious services. Soka Gakkai uses much the same strategies and organization to promote Komeito, which it founded in 1964. Ikeda is said to have exerted influence on the party as Soka Gakkai head and later honorary president. To admirers he is a missionary of world peace. Soka Gakkai-backed newspapers run articles praising him and pictures of his meetings with religious and cultural figures. "He's just so great," says Tokyo housewife Kuniyasu Kuniko. "He says only good things and tells us what to do." Kuniyasu regularly volunteers to go door to door flogging subscriptions to the sect's newspapers and magazines. During elections her family campaigns for Komeito.
But some former members, including a powerful Soka Gakkai lawyer, paint an entirely different picture of Ikeda. They portray him as a greedy autocrat who views the lay group as his private fief. All top leaders of Soka Gakkai and Komeito are said to be Ikeda proteges, including Komeito chairman Ishida Koshiro and secretary-general Ichikawa Yuiichi. Ikeda's grip on Soka Gakkai is so strong that reports of corruption, tax evasion, tyranny and alleged links to money scandals have done little harm to his reputation among followers. Nor has Ikeda lost clout after his own Buddhist temple excommunicated him three years ago. Commentators wam that if Komeito took power Ikeda might move to restrict religious freedom. "As far as religion is concerned, politics must remain neutral," Komeito' s Ichikawa said last year.
But many doubt him. Watanabe Michio, a powerful LDP leader, recently criticized Soka Gakkai's control of Komeito, hinting that the religious body's tax privileges should be reviewed. That criticism is said to be one reason why Watanabe failed to win unified support from the ruling coalition for a deal to bring in his LDP faction in exchange for the premiership after Hosokawa resigned. Another sign of Komeito's growing influence is Ichikawa]s increasingly cozy ties with Ozawa Ichiro, probably Japan's most powerful politician. Komeito would make a good building block in any future governing party. The ruling coalition's chief strategist, Ozawa may be anticipating the single-constituency system that is to apply during the next general election. Under its rules, 100,000 votes can conceivably clinch a Diet seat. Soka Gakkai is believed to have some 20,000 votes in each of the new, smaller constituencies. That seems sure to increase Komeito's clout - and the fears of those worried about its unconventional ways." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiruning (talk • contribs) 08:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection

The article was recently semi-protected by User:Amatulic, meaning the article can't be edited without an account. While I don't doubt Amatulic's good intentions, I think this is unnecessary. There have been several constructive edits by "IP's", while the problematic edits are usually by account holders. Most importantly, I don't think the gohonzon picture is taken down enough to warrant protection. In December, it happened once or twice, if my memory serves me right? Kiruning (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. I believe it to be a temporary measure only though and it does send out the message that the article is being watched. Although I do admit that even discussions with one or the other editor on the talk page proved to be futile. At one point in the past the article got so bad I refrained form editing it any longer. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
On a side note. Kiruning  don't you already fulfil the requirements as an “autoconfirmed user”? I am not 100% sure, but I believe it to be standard procedure for instance in the German Wikipedia that only autoconfirmed users are able to freely edit a text or confirm edits by unconfirmed users. Not THAT bad after all.--Catflap08 (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I am autoconfirmed, but I think that anonymous editors in general shouldn't be kept outside of the editing process unless it's absolutely necessary.Kiruning (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Well in such a process they are actually not kept outside the article. Their edits just have to be confirmed. Its not a measure against disputes or even edit wars but its a good means to keep vandalism on a minimal level. In the end edits by unconfirmed users are just slightly delayed as long as they do not go against fundamental guidelines.--Catflap08 (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

My rationale for semi-protection is given in the protection log. Anonymous IP addresses and unconfirmed account have repeatedly removed an image from this article on the grounds that it is offensive. So I semi-protected the article. This is the same reason why Muhammad has an indefinite semi-protection on it, with the decision to retain such images being the result of a long and drawn out ArbCom decision.

If there's a consensus that semi-protection is unnecessary, I can remove it. There's also a milder form of protection, usually reserved for biographies of living persons, called "pending changes" in which unconfirmed and anons can still make edits but they don't appear in the article until an editor with "reviewer" status confirms them. In practice, I find this burdensome, but again I am willing to change the protection level if there's a consensus to do so. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well personally I would just leave the status as it is and watch how things develop. The image issue is in my books just the climax on multiple issues which made the work on this article difficult to say the least. The issue on SGI leads to heated debates even elsewhere on the internet so it should come as no surprise that this article is a reflection of that. To my mind it would serve the article if just not not anyone can come along and add edits. In the long run any means to ensure that the article is neither pure SGI promotion nor pure SGI bashing would be welcomed by me. As I said the image issue is not even the most urgent. In the past critical or alternative have systematically been deleted the extent of those users who have participated in that is reflected in the article's history. As I am an ex-member of the organisation I keep my own edits to a bare minimum. To my mind the user Kirunning has contributed tremendously by sending some editors back to the drawing board and brought the article to the attention of a wider range of editors. So Cheers for that. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, anonymous and unconfirmed editors are not locked out of the editing process. They can still make suggestions and edit requests on the talk page. They do that all the time on Talk:Muhammad. The system works well, and preserves the stability of the article while still allowing anons to participate, who would normally try to push their point of view directly into the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
They're perhaps not locked out but they do have to jump through hoops to contribute. I have often edited as an IP (having an account tends to make Wikipedia too addictive for me) and if I hadn't been logged in when I first came upon this article, I would simply not have bothered to become involved in the editing if it had been semi-protected.Kiruning (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead section overly negative?

From the first paragraph: "It has, together with its international offshoot Soka Gakkai International (SGI) been described as "the world's largest Buddhist lay group and America's most diverse", but it has also been quoted as "quasi-fascist", "fascist", "militant", "overzealous" and "authoritarian", especially in the first few decennia following World War II."

From the third paragraph: Further expansion of the movement was led by its third president Daisaku Ikeda, who planted the seed for the organization's international expansion in 1960.[10] While Ikeda has been remarkably successful in moving the group towards mainstream acceptance in some areas, the organization is still widely viewed with suspicion in Japan and grapples with a reputation of being a "brainwashing cult", as well as a cult of personality centered around Ikeda.[2][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]

Is the lead section overly negative? While I would like to see the first paragraph weighed up by something more positive, I don't personally feel it goes to far in the criticism, as there's heaps of controversies surrounding the group (and as WP:LEAD states, the lead section should mention any major controversies). I do however feel that the juxtaposition in the first paragraph of "large and diverse" and "fascists and militant" doesn't seem entirely natural. The fascist/militant quotes should rather be contrasted with the "humanitarian peace work" SGI supposedly has carried out - but... the rub here is that this is very much connected to Ikeda, rather than SGI itself, and if we go into his figure in the first section, we would have to remodel the third paragraph entirely, and probably bring up the accusations of personality cult already in the first paragraph. Seems easy to mess things up here.

What does everybody else think? Kiruning (talk) 04:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Safwan's response (?) - [11]
Basically what Safwan's argument boils down to (Safwan, correct me if I've misunderstood you) is that descriptions of the group as "fascist" etc. are only "personal opinions" and not "events". Safwan claims that only actual "events" should be included in the lead section, while "adjectives" (POV's?) should only be included in a "criticism" section.
My response: this seems to be a gross misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." So adhering to WP:NPOV does obviously not mean we can't represent anything that could be described as an opinion or POV, if they are significant and published in reliable sources. Criticism sections are furthermore discouraged in WP:CRIT (though only an essay and not a policy). There's no support in policy anywhere for what Safwan is suggesting.Kiruning (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

On reflection, there should probably be some mention of what Soka Gakkai practitioners believe in, in the lead. Not overly long though. What sticks out to me most is the chanting and the promises of this-worldly benefits. What does everybody else think?Kiruning (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Many of quotes in the following statement in the introduction section are taken grossly out of context: "It has, together with its international offshoot Soka Gakkai International (SGI) been described as "the world's largest Buddhist lay group and America's most diverse", but it has also been quoted as "quasi-fascist", "fascist", "militant", "overzealous" and "authoritarian", especially in the first few decennia following World War II." Here are a few examples:

1) "Fascist" from this reference "3: Aruga, Hiroshi. "Sōka Gakkai and Japanese Politics," in Machacek, David and Bryan Wilson, eds, Global Citizens: The Sōka Gakkai Buddhist Movement in the World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 104-114" Page 104 of the book: “ On the one hand, this “reformist stance” had a refreshing appeal to those citizens who were dissatisfied with the existing order. On the other hand, when this image was combined with an exclusivist religious nature, a large number of people sensed a kind of fascism in the Soka Gakkai. However, when one takes into account the uniquely Japanese traits of the Soka Gakkai, one can see that there was never really a threat that it would move toward fascism."

The author himself clearly is not claiming the Soka Gakkai is "fascist," instead is arguing that such an against such a claim.

2) The "fascist" quote is supposedly also "backed up" by this reference cited. "Seager, Richard Hughes (2006). Encountering the Dharma: Daisaku Ikeda, Soka Gakkai, and the globalization of Buddhist humanism. Berkeley [u.a.]: Univ. of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24577-8."

“Much of the article consists of testimonies by Gakkai rivals old-line scholars, who together characterized the movement as superficial, pathologically intolerant, and highly materialistic. Makiguchi is not principled but “pugnacious”; strong convictions are “fanatical egotism.” Daimoku is described as a “hypnotic drone” said to mean “I am the Supreme Power.” The main point to be taken-that neither the Japanese nor Ikeda are entirely to be trusted-is made clear in the quote framing the article: “Japanese people either want to be a leader or want to be led. Soka Gakkai guarantees fulfillment for both the shepherd and the sheep…or a Hitler and the hordes.” …The Times intelligently handled Makiguchi, the Gakkai’s ability to address the malaise of the postwar years, and its ongoing electoral successes. It noted political by words then current in the movement such as “neo-socialism,” “a third culture” neither capitalist nor socialist, “global nationalism,” and “Buddhist democracy.” Describing the Gakkai as a “militant society” of lay Buddhists whose overzealous members have occasionally become violent, the Times also dismissed charges that the Gakkai was fascist or even right wing. Its main concern was that should the Gakkai’s presence in the Diet grow, it might “favor a more independent and neutralist course for the United States’s principal ally in the Far East.” Page 207

Again, if anything the author is debunking claims that the group is "fascist" or "militant" not endorsing them. Wandrews73 (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"it has also been QUOTED as ..." Ability to read helps to differentiate between IS and being QUOTED AS--Catflap08 (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The lead is duly negative, as the group is highly criticized. The quote acknowledges the claims of being "fascist" laid by others indirectly, so it is a reliable source in reference to the fact that such claims have been made. Furthermore, "Describing the Gakkai as a “militant society” of lay Buddhists whose overzealous members have occasionally become violent contains both "militant" and "violent" as asserted by the Times.
I would add the the Komeito's support for the State Secrets Act recently rammed through the Diet by the LDP-Komeito coalition has been widely reported. Since many people have characterized that as "right-wing", there is another source that demonstrates such a proclivity. The only thing that has kept them from being more widely characterized as right-wing is probably the opposition to revising the Constitution and Article 9, but that may soon be revisited.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The Renaissance Charter School

For US-editors it might be worthwhile to look into the matter of Chartered Schools run on Soka principles. Keyword here seems to be The Renaissance Charter School Catflap08 (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I can only find articles written by Gakkai members and those closely affiliated with them. Shii (tock) 04:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Found the following on Wayback from the Buddha Jones website that was closed presumably by the SGI or their agents: https://web.archive.org/web/20110622024623/http://www.buddhajones.com/diary/406/soka-sneakiness-in-soka-school You will have to dig a little because some of the links are not retained by Wayback. I bet you can find a lot of stuff depending on your determination to dig up the truth. Mark Rogow 01/20/14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCB1:3829:FD45:468:F756:D467 (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soka_Gakkai/Archive_8&oldid=1137192829"