Talk:Soka Gakkai/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Soka Gakkai. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

SGI voting requests during election time

I know this isn't a source that I can reference properly, but maybe someone who is more familiar with related literature look into this more and find it in published source. My Japanese girlfriend, who is a member of SGI (though not practicing in any serious form) has told me that members of SGI have called her numerous times during Japanese elections, asking her to vote for the New Kemeito Party. They have also asked her to ask her friends, in a very polite way ("if you're not voting this year, could you vote for NKP?") to vote for NKP. I think it is worth mentioning this in the article that indeed SGI is still active in explicitly influencing members votes.

→Different user: I think these issues are touched upon in several sources, I think you could probably do an article check online and then read at the library. The activities you mentioned do happen, but they are limited to the Gakkai in Japan only. The SGI is prohibits the formation of political parties other than in Japan, so this discussion, while pertinent and interesting, is probably best addressed in the wikiarticle for the "Soka Gakkai" instead of here, the "Soka Gakkai International". Japanese social policy and politics are completely different than they are overseas. The parsing out of the different cultural nuances of the Japanese that make the New Komeito a completely valid organization (but only in Japan) is a daunting task. I think it should be done, but in the Japan specific article. The SGI will never have a political party in the West, because in general the West does well in protecting civil rights. In Japan, civil rights are not completely protected as they are here, in the U.S. for example. There's a lot of corruption in government spending that isn't for the welfare of the people, courts do not have strong laws against defamation, or at least, do not have strong penalties, etc. and the ethics of Japanese culture are different than here. In general, Japan doesn't not encourage the freedom of individual expression and often times the media will use bullying tactics to encourage conformity. Please ask your girlfriend about the concept of "the nail that stands out gets pounded down". Individual freedoms are often discouraged, even if it puts the individual in unhealthy circumstances. My mother and relatives are Japanese, I am also relaying their experiences.Tjnebraska 18:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is somewhat common for any church to in some way or another endorse a candidate or party, though in the US it is probably illegal or just a bad idea. Sometimes this is a matter of corruption and other times, my father included being himself a minister, it is simply for a doctrinal reason. Now I am not saying my father ever explicitly endorses people through the church rather as a person giving advice he simply asks that people vote what they believe best represents the expectations and guidelines found in the Bible. So in a sense it can be alright for a group to advocate for a specific party, however if it is presented as a requirement for membership it is quite wrong, if such pressure is ever presented I would suggest writing an essay book about it that can be used as a source. Daniellis89 (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Checking in

Hi I'm glad to read that other SGI members are writing in and also thoughtful non-SGI members. The last time I checked about a month ago, I saw that numerous people changed the wording of the main article in several places to support innuendos rather than proven facts. I was pretty disappointed that not many other people were changing things back to fact, at least for a few months. I appreciate seeing the interest in this article, and the desire for factual representation.

I think the Criticisms and the Praises of the SGI and Daisaku Ikeda both need to be reputably sourced. I think it is okay for any Wikiuser to make changes, as supported by the guidelines. I think it's perfectly reasonable to delete any unsourced criticism or praise. In my opinion, it would be great if someone tried out a more logical arrangement of the article.

I would have to recheck, but I'm pretty sure Wikipedia does not support the use of other websites as being a reputable source, which would mean that the "Rick Ross Institute" link under "Criticisms" should be deleted, but I figure I'd have to put up quite a fight if I decided to delete any criticism of the SGI.

Please make any logical or reliably sourced change to the article!

Just a note: In my Wiki-experience in this article, please sign your posts with your user ID. Some believe that not signing your posts is a basis for discounting a users contribution.

Thanks, Tjnebraska 18:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Not signing is globally unacceptable in wikipedia, and some take it as a membership of "insert imageboard URL here" which is translated as trolling. Daniellis89 (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of listing famous SGI members

What is the significance of listing SGI members? Is it to out them, or to imply that their membership is an endorsement and therefore substantiation of the validity of the organization or religion? The latter practice is used frequently by new religions in Japan, especially with regard to non-Japanese; but many non-members of these organizations see this practice as a form of outing and many of the persons named do not appreciate this aspect of their personal lives coming under scrutiny. In this context, listing people this way might also conflict with Wikipedia policy. Just some food for thought.... Jim_Lockhart 02:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is meant to be promotional, the way groups like Scientology use celebrities. Secretlondon 03:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It also appears to me to be, at best, of little importance, probably irrelevant and not encyclopaedic in style and sounds like the sort of thing you´ll find in a promotional pamphlet, some kind of "celebrity endorsement". Not very rigorous. I support removing it. --Sandrog (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents: Listing prominent members of a group seems to be fairly common in Wikipedia. For example, the pages on Zoroastrians and Ahmaddiyya include such listings. Personally, I'm interested, and I'd support the reinstatement of the list. 141.211.134.41 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the point he is trying to make is that in Japanese culture religion is a VERY personal thing. People don't talk about it. The only place you see mention of celebrities as members of the organization are at that organizations meetings. Yes, we often see mention of famous members, because it is good to be proud when one of our own does well. After the Olympics, when Soka Gakkai had multiple members (at least two) that won gold medals, there was much pride in them. It is not however a matter of public interest that they are part of Soka Gakkai. I think Jim may be right on this one. Remember, we are talking about a country where it is considered better to talk about the weather or stand around silent, than it is to ask how the family is doing. This is not a generalization from a random foreigner, this is from a foreigner who has actually been in Japan close to five years. I agree that the cultural context needs to be taken into account when you decide which names to list and which ones not to. Emry (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it matters but I would point out that Soka Gakkai frequently (or at least used to) points out its famous members. I have seen NSA books (obviously this one is before the split with priesthood) where they list famous members, including actors, politicians as well as endorsements and so forth. I have also seen a video which is mostly a lecture by Daisaku Ikeda where there is at least 5 seconds showing Tina Turner chanting at a Gakkai meeting. So it is clear these celebrities are of importance to the SGI if that helps settle this issue.Raving Realtor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC).

Excommunicated?

Excommunicated is the wrong word to use here. The definition is: "officially exclude (someone) from participation in the sacraments and services of the Christian Church." This is not a Christian religion or part of the Christian Church. The word is referring to the Eucharist, or Holy Communion, i.e., ex-communion. Also, it's more of a philosophy than a religion. Religion is the "belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power." There is no "creator god" in Buddhism. (Oh, and I am a member of SGI) DavidRavenMoon (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Excommunicated is the word that SGI uses.

Emry (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Excommunicated might have started as a Christian word, but etymologically is has grown to include all religions. (Rachelskit (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

I would agree with Emry: I too am an SGI member and held some leadership positions for several years. There is no question that the SGI leaders state that this lay organization was indeed "excommunicated" by the NS priesthood.Raving Realtor(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC).

The religion does not make the man in most cases unless the religion was the catalyst for the man meeting peers that change the course of history in a significant way (see Free Masons). A link could be provided for an official SGI site with such lists but it does not belong on Wikipedia unless the former is met. woops forgot to Daniellis89 (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone still watching this talk page? A Call for Dialogue

Dear all: I had made comments about wanting to work on this article before, but I'd not ended up with the time to actually do so. In the interests of full disclosure, I am an SGI-UK member and responsibility holder. However, I am also a WP admin and former Mediation Cabal coordinator, so I certainly understand the importance of not "flying one's own flag" in article editing.

Now, I'd actually like the "Criticism" section to stay, at least in terms of what it represents, because I believe it to be important that verifiable criticisms are discussed in the article, in the interests of presenting a fair perspective. However, it's a whole swathe of material that isn't sourced, except for a couple of sources in the first paragraph. It's also got quite a few "weasel word" type generalisations in it. I can't help but think, also, that this article looks more like the result of both pro- and anti-SGI editors venting their opinions versus a coherent attempt at making the subject clear to the reader. I'd like people's input on this, as I'd really love that NPOV warning box to be removed. Criticism should be included, but I think it should be written in specific terms referencing specific sources; also, it isn't necessary to "overguild" the lily, and what should happen is that the counter-perspective is also stated where applicable, with a proper inline source.

This must not be a case of, "Oh, the SGI's already had a lot of positive stuff, so we get to have our criticism without any kind of interference" or "Well, the critics have had their say here, so we can present an exhaustive opinion on the [Daisaku Ikeda]] article how we like." No. That isn't good enough. We need to talk facts from the perspective of what has been printed, not what we believe to be true. My proposed plan of action is:

Consolidate each of the topics to clear, logical sections. Much of the material is rather liberally fragmented around multiple sections, with huge pieces of monolithic information going off on their own individual tangents. Conversely, I wonder if the "Criticisms" section should be integrated with the text, so that it might run "Daisaku Ikeda, speaking <when>, stated that [quote/reported speech]... However, Person Y disputes this, on the basis that..."
There is no such group of people as "Critics.." There is no International Bureau of General Critique that has a unanimously-negative opinion on every disputed Wikipedia topic. From my extensive past in WP dispute resolution, I have often pictured this unsavoury group of people, The Critics, who appear as a lynch mob in every Wikipedia dispute. We need to eliminate all such usage of generalisations regarding criticism, as we need also to eliminate generalisations of pro-SGI claims, and instead scrupulously and obsessively source every single thing.
Write to be read, not to have our opinions heard. If some poor soul was to Google "Soka Gakkai International", they'd get this article, and probably be none the wiser what the SGI even is, let alone both sides of the pro- and anti- SGI movements. Write things once, and write them clearly. Write a clear and detailed synopsis, without being excessively wordy or wishing to include insignificant detail out of proportion to its relevance. At all times, the target audience must be our guiding principle.
Contribute our individual perspectives. Regardless of our opinions, both sides have access to information that the other lacks. Whereas I have extensive access to all of the SGI sources, I own no in-print critical publications, and also can't read Japanese. Thus, I'm utterly hopeless when it comes to finding sources for criticisms; and I'm also hopeless following the long-running controversy in the Japanese press. Therefore, the more critical amongst you have skills and capacity that I do not have, and I should be most grateful for your support. Equally, those of us who are SGI members have unparalleled access to official publications, lectures, books and so forth that we can reference.

What do people think? I'd really like some good, constructive dialogue on the above points, and whether people think this proposed approach would work. I'll go ahead and start it if nobody thinks there's anything severely wrong, but I really want this to be a collaborative effort from all sides. Thanks so much, everyone, for your time and brainpower! Indeed, the key to success here is, I think, by treating this article more as a dialogue between a range of viewpoints than a statement, showing who's speaking at all times. (SGI members: we've been trained excellently to accomplish this. Let's lead the way, eh?) --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of material on excommunication

I have removed the following a reverted the previous material, as this misrepresents the content of the cited source:

However, due to a number of ongoing issues and disputes that existed between the High Priest Nikken Abe and the leadership of Sōka Gakkai, Nichiren Shoshu excommunicated the entire membershipof both the Sōka Gakkai in Japan, as well as the entire SGI (Soka Gakkai International) as its lay organizations in November 1991—although both together easily exceeded upwards of 11 million members worldwide.

Further, there are several problems with the veracity of the removed material:

The dispute was not a personal one between these to men, it was doctrinal and between the organizations;
The organizations Soka Gakkai and SGI were stripped of their status as lay organizations affiliated with Nichiren Shoshu in 1991. The first excommunication of any individual came in 1992 (and it was of Ikeda personally, not of anyone of the general membership); the general membership were never excommunicated, though they lost their status as temple members much later, in 1997. If you want to present Soka Gakkai's interpretation of how events unfounded, fine; but source it, and don't removed sourced material because it conflicts with it. —–Jim_Lockhart (talk) 06:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Non RS and unreferenced sources

I have removed a non_RS source. Because somebody calls their blog a cult watchdog, or whatever, doesn't change its status. It's still a blog. Which is not a reliable source by wiki criteria. Please consult the criteria for RS if you doubt this.

Similarly, naming an apparent book in parentheses is not sufficient to reference information.

If the criticisms alleged are widespread, as claimed, then there presumably will be no difficulty in finding RS for them. Even then, they will still need to be expressed proportionatly and in the proper context Bluehotel (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

World Scholars Exchange of Views with SGI

Following invitations from scholars from various Universities around the world, SGI President lectured about Buddhism on 32 lectures. The subject of these university lectures was about Mahayana and Lotus Sutra's teachings: http://www.daisakuikeda.org/index.php?id=156

Many scholars - some Noble Prize Winners such as Michael Gorbachev and Linus Pauling - exchanged views on issues facing humanity and the future. Some of their dialogues which were published in 23 books - were translated into various languages. http://www.daisakuikeda.org/sub/books/books-by-category/dialogues.html

The mentioned books contains an open exchange of views of world figures who are NOT MEMBERS of SGI and who are NOT BUDDHIST, and who are not promoting SGI, but exchanging opinions about world issues and life in general. (Their views were sometimes different from SGI teachings, nevertheless these books constitute an impartial exchange of opinions). For impartial researcher about SGI, these world wide available books constitute a reliable, clear and currently traceable source of un-baised information about SGI perspectives as seen by nonSGI scholars world wide, in the fields of Education, Peace and Culture. Some universities in China had established special departments to study SGI literature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisaku_Ikeda

SafwanZabalawi (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Books on Sōka Gakkai

I came across a reference to a couple of books on Sōka Gakkai which I thought people might find useful in developing this article. The books might add some much needed balance.

James A., Dator (1969). Soka Gakkai: Builders of the Third Civilisation. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
James W., White (1970). The Sokagakkai and Mass Society. California: Stanford University Press.

The sect is also mentioned in the following book, in which it is described as "manipulationist":

Wallis, Roy (1976). The Road to Total Freedom: A Sociological analysis of Scientology. London: Heinemann Educational Books. p. 156. ISBN 0-435-82916-5. Scientology displays a fusion of charismatic and bureaucratic domination also evident in some other manipulationist sects. It was a notable feature of Christian Science during the lifetime of Mrs Eddy, and appears to be characteristic of the contemporary Soka Gakkai.

HairyWombat 00:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That was an "Empty Basket " Argument against the Soka Gakkai.

First of all; this Discussion Page is about the Soka Gakkai and not about Scientology or the Christian Churches or others. Including irrelevant subjects to the discussion is red herring. Adding noise-data instead of related information goes beyond the definition of "Discussion Page".

Example of an "Empty Basket" argument: "Scientology displays a fusion of charismatic and bureaucratic domination also evident in some other manipulationist sects. It was a notable feature of Christian Science during the lifetime of Mrs Eddy, and appears to be characteristic of the contemporary Soka Gakkai".

An irrelevant to the Soka Gakkai someone's criticism to - or support for - Scientology, Christian Science, Aum sect, etc...shows absurdity and lack of arguments.

It is also against Wikipedia rules to quote unreliable sources (such as the quote above) which states that a feature of a Christian sect "...appears to be characteristic of the contemporary Soka Gakkai". Evidently the writer himself was unsure about his own statement, carefully stating "appears to be". Appears to be -this is a clear indication of lack of certainty and lack of verifiability.

Arguments based on "Appears to be" or "maybe" ...have a place in some internet discussion groups but not on the Wikipedia as they degrade the quality of Wikipedia as a reference.

It is also clear that a book which was published more than quarter a century ago - is not a meaningful reference, as we are now in the year 2010. What misleadingly "appeared to be" to that writer over 25 years ago - clashes with the truth of the contemporary situation of support of world scholars, acknowledging{{citation needed, Daniellis89 (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)}} the Humanism of the Soka Gakkai International. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC) __________________________________________________ If the texts are not neutral or a written by proponents of the article at hand, given a controversial nature that it may posses, the source becomes unreliable. Sun Tzu's art of war was published 2600 years ago but it is still relevant today. Furthermore the texts Soka Gekkai uses as a foundation of beliefs are far more than 25 years old, which by your logic, makes them unreliable. To the majority of Buddhists, Soka Gekkai is a cult, just as Aum is a cult in the eyes of Soka Gekkai. All sects are deviations of original doctrine that result in a clash of doctrines which cause them to be mutually incompatible. Appears to and maybe are valid words when used appropriately as they beg the reader to draw a conclusion. The same goes for Appears to be. Daniellis89 (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________ Hi Daniellis89; I agree with your view that it is valid to quote an old document - which is over 2500 years - if the subject was about that “unchanged-in-time” document. But the subject here is about an organisation which developed dramatically in time after freeing itself from the Priesthood influence. To mislead Wikipedia readers by someone’s opinion given 25 years ago as current now about SG and which was AT THAT TIME dominated by the Priesthood, this is unfair to the truth. The Priesthood influenced the SG to the degree of open threats to its leaders position and forcing a resignation in 1979 (making it clear that they had the diecision on SG activities at ALL that time - until 1991, when both became separate).

It is fair to acknowledge that SG is opposed the spirit of fanaticism whether racial, ethnic or religious http://www.sgi.org/resource-center/introductory-materials/sgi-charter.html and that it has records of working for peace with other individuals and organisations world wide http://www.sgi.org/resource-center/ngo-resources/ngo-resources-overview.html SafwanZabalawi (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC) ________________________________________________

Presidents sention

In the interest of accuacy I have edited the section towards the end of the page which listed the Presidents of the Soka Gakkai as it listed Daisaku Ikeda as being the third and current President, serving from 1960 - present. Ikeda actually resigned as President in 1979 and there have been three Presidents since then, the third being still in office. Ikeda is, however, the current President of the SGI. So I have edited this page to reflect this, showing the successive Presidents and there dates of succession and retirements/deaths. Mollari08 (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Careful with amount of members

Please do take care with the number of members. Its seems cummon practice in both, SGI and Nichiren Shohu, to take pride in the number of their members - hence how many joined officialy. No indication how ever is ever given to the number who still practice this form of buddhism, have left for other schools or indeed practice independently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.214.250.81 (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2007‎ (UTC)

Attacking the Soka Gakkai

It is a violation to Wikipedia rules to make defamatory remarks and it is a violation to Wikipedia rules to include unreliable information and/or unverifiable data, and for this reason I have removed the entry titled Soka Gakkai and the Yakuza entered by;121.115.225.89 (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC). The deleted paragraph states that: "In Jake Adelstein's new book "Tokyo Vice", one passage indicates that Juzo Itami was about to make a film on the Soka Gakkai/Yakuza connection before he died under mysterious circumstances". This type of "information" is below any standard of reliability or reason to be included as a "proof" and it degrades the quality of Wikipedia as a source of information. The author also stated that a certain "murder went unsolved for years (the Yokohama lawyer Sakamoto) before it was finally discovered that a religious group was responsible (Aum Shinrikyo)", but this has nothing to do with the subject of the current article, being the Soka Gakkai. The Soka Gakkai - following the steps of Nichiren 1222 - opposed authoritarianism and was the subject of suppression and attacks since its inception. It was banned by the Japanese military authorities during the II W W and had its leaders impriosned for disagreeing with the demands of the oppressive authorities. The same forces which attacked the Soka Gakkai still take now other forms. See: Why the Soka gakkai is Attacked: http://www.buddhawill.com SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC) __________________________________________________________________________________

Rather than retitling and editing the offending passage, wouldn't it have been better to leave it as in and refute it in the text? The rule that you quote seems to me to refer to reference pages, and not Talk pages. Cutting out things out of a Talk page simply because they seem to be offensive runs contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Also, including a link to a pro-Gakkai page makes it seem as though you are suppressing information and attempting to supplant it with your own point of view. SGI should be able to defend itself directly, and there are enough members on this list who are willing and capable of that. (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2010 ______________________________________________________________________________________

Regarding the comment above: Wikipedia pages are not a place for spam or abuse. There is a difference between "Information" and "spam" aimed at abuse. Wikipedia is not an internet vilification tool but a place for reliable or traceable information. The subject of the article is Soka Gakkai, which has nothing to do with Aum Shinrikyo and the forceful inclusion of a terrorist organisation (and which was investigated by the police and the courts) as an 'example' of a 'religious group' is not only meaningless but indicates an intention for abuse of Wikipedia degrading its quality. There was nothing to "refute" in the deleted passages because there was no verifiable information offered. Texts based on : "I heard that someone heard that ..." this meaningless spam is utterly rejected in Wiki practice.

As for what you mentioned " SGI should be able... ", well, it is beyond my ability to tell or to dictate the SG what they should do. My entry about opponents of SGI is very relevant to the subject. The reference includes a documented account of conflict between the SG and her opponents. All the facts included in the mentioned source are traceable and were historically recorded - in particular regarding the dispute with the military authorities during the II W W and the priesthood in early 1990. Please accept that any organisation has opponents and there is nothing wrong in presenting why the SG has opponents - based on quotes from both sides - entered here in the most impartial presentation.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC) ______________________________________________________________________________

Jake Adelstein was a reporter at Japan's biggest newspaper for over a decade. They printed what he learned from anonymous sources on a regular basis. Those sources remain anonymous to protect them, in this case, from the reprisals of the yakuza, but that in no way lessens the quality of information, which is being reported by a recognized authority who would not have written it if he did not have reason to believe it was accurate. For these reasons, it would be fair to cite the allegation that Soka Gakkai is tied to the yakuza.verjus75 (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________________________

Despite the above concerns, the Japanese version of this article (not the Talk page) discusses Adelstein's allegations and the connection to the Goto-gumi. 98.243.172.27 (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What Does Attacking and Criticizing the SGI Have to Do With the Kempon Hokke? September 26, 2010 Mark Rogow

Time , circumstance, and teachings. Nichiren had Nembutsu, Zen, Ritsu, True Word, and Tendai [Mikkyo] with whom to contend...........

Answer to above : That lengthy almost 10 pages lecture by Mark Rogow , starting with the above sentence about "Time....." is only an abuse to Wikipedia principles. It is even unacceptable in social discussion to bombard others with one-sided view and dominate the speech for over 10 pages - on account of a concise, short and clear delivery of "timely" information.

What is the use of putting 10 pages of one-opinion - "discussion" - if people are going to use the mouse to scroll down the end of that clogging text ASAP? Let the Commonness prevail. And please accept that this particular page is about the Soka Gakkai. not about promoting Hokke Kempon, Nembutsu, Riysu True Word, Tendai or Christianity, Scientology-Aum, etc...all of which are completely unrelated to this Article. Please have discussion on your different matters at private websites. Again: this Discussion is about The Soka Gakkai. For this reason clogging the page with about 10 pages of irrelevant views of personal understanding of other religions - this is a distraction and avoidance of the subject. Inputs which do not respect time and contents are simply not communicative. For this reason I will delete these 10 pages of unrelated Hokke Kempon (which in fact was not mentioned anywhere in SGI literature, nor it is of any relevance to the subject). . SafwanZabalawi (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________________

Edit Request

{{Edit request}} I think an info box would be useful, giving overview info of when the org was founded, what year, current president etc etc. i've already added an image, but am not sure how to add the info box. Steve (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I used the wrong edit request template. It's not because of any conflict of interest, I just don't know how to add the info box. Steve (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but it may be Template:Infobox religious group you're looking for. Just copy it into the top of the article and fill in the parameters as needed. - Sudo Ghost 18:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the box, but can't get the image of the flag to show in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Milburn (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be fixed now. - Sudo Ghost 19:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you can't change the name of the parameters, such as changing population to members here, because if it doesn't recognize the parameter name, it won't show up at all in the infobox. - Sudo Ghost 19:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help! Steve (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the infobox for now, I'll add another one when I find one with different parameters [and I know how to add it now, LOL]. Thanks for your help. - Steve (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Difference between Soka Gakkai and Soka Gakkai International?

What is the difference [if any] between the two? Ikeda is no longer president of SG, but he is president of SGI. Should some info on this be added to the article? - Steve (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This article, on the pic of Ikeda, says that he is current president of SG. But according to the Ikeda article, he was succeeded by Hiroshi Hōjō. I do think this needs to be clarified. - Steve (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sōka Gakkai is the organisation which functions in Japan, the original organisation, whereas Sōka Gakkai International is the collection of all the Sōka Gakkai's organisations in other countries around the rest of the world. Ikeda is the Honorary President of the Sōka Gakkai, but not the actual president, though he is the president of the Sōka Gakkai International. This is probably just a typing error and I've changed the caption with the picture you mentioned. Mollari08 (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining. - Steve (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Gregorian Calendar or Chinese Lunar Calendar?

SGI's Dictionary of Buddhism gives dates as "the fourth month", "the eight month" etc. As far as I know, it never says "April" or "February". I suspect that the dates are actually the Chinese Lunar calendar, and not the Gregorian Calendar. - Steve (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

POV Template added to 'reception'

This section seems biased to me. Statements like: "researchers find that arguments on policy issues and good governance lead Sōka Gakkai members to support New Kōmeitō". Is that passage an effort to promote a Political Party?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Milburn (talk • contribs) 21:01, 11 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Deleting incorrect description about the Split

Various parts of the paragraph about the Split with Priesthood require a radical clean up:

It is against Wikipedia rules to insert personal or unverified views such as: SGI members often describe their group as Buddhism's first Protestant movement, since its excommunication by Nichiren Shōshū in 1991.[24]. There is no reference to this statement, and - what's worse - the reference [24] associated with it is misleading and biased against SGI: a New York Times article describing "unease" due to SGI growth: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/14/world/a-sect-s-political-rise-creates-uneasiness-in-japan.html.
The paragraph about the Split has to deal with causes of the Split. The Hokkeko membership is immaterial and has absolutely nothing to do with the causes of the split:

The, the traditional lay group associated with Nichiren Shōshū, experienced a spurt of fast growth in the early to mid 1990s following a split between the Nichiren Shōshū priesthood and Sōka Gakkai over doctrinal and practical differences. The Split is not about Hokkeko, therefore inserting the Hokkeko and and Nichiren Shoshu own regulation ( reference: Nichiren Shōshū nyumon, p. 240) will be deleted as confusing and misleading.

Again, the paragraph avoids the truth about what caused the split and focuses on Hokkeko membership and Nichiren Shoshu own regulations: these Sōka Gakkai and SGI members lost their standing as temple members unless they renounced their affiliation with Sōka Gakkai and SGI, as per a change to the Nichiren Shōshū bylaws decided two months earlier.[27] SGI members are SGI members and this paragraph is about the doctrinal differences with the Priesthood which caused the Split, and which was mentioned but not explained "a number of ongoing issues and doctrinal disputes between the priesthood and the leadership of Sōka Gakkai"

What are these issues?

The "Conferral of the Gohonzon" part describes the opinion of the Priesthood: "regarded by the priesthood as the high priest’s prerogative, and lay believers had been long taught to support that view". The Priesthood's refusal to confer Gohonzon on SGI members led chief priest Rev. Sendo Narita of Joen-Ji temple, Tochigi Prefecture, Japan, to offer (1993) a woodblock Gohonzon originally inscribed by the 26 High Priest Nichikan Shonin, to be conferred on SGI members. SGI Gohonzon was not mentioned in the paragraph, which needs an overall shake up.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

All of the information which has been deleted was relevant and important as this section isn't just about the issues behind the Split but also the actual events of the Split and should all be replaced into the section, though you are right about the original first paragraph's reference. This being said, however, it was important to clarify the reasons behind the Split which has now been added in.

The section which mentions the Hokkekō isn't an unrelated piece, as it illustrates the effects on the Sōka Gakkai resulting from the excommunication, and should still be included. "The Hokkekō, the traditional lay group associated with Nichiren Shōshū, experienced a spurt of fast growth in the early to mid 1990s following a split between the Nichiren Shōshū priesthood and Sōka Gakkai over doctrinal and practical differences. Friction between the two surfaced as 1990 drew to a close, sparking an inflow of Sōka Gakkai members into Hokkekō that accelerated for a while after Nichiren Shōshū stripped Sōka Gakkai of its status as a lay organization on November 28, 1991." This should be mentioned at the end after the initial explanation of the issue, possibly under a sub-heading about the effects of the Split. Mollari08 (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I would agree here with Mollari, also did not only Hokkekō, but also other groups of Nichiren Buddhims experienced a substantial growth and some left Nichiren Buddhism altogether. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

SGI Teachings and Other Buddhist Groups

As the past section touches upon the subject of difference between SGI teachings and other "ORDAINED - based" sects, it can be beneficial to investigate more. I'll take Nichiren's spirit in his perspective towards these sects. But first, Catflap, : Nichiren would not have agreed with your statement about a slanderous to ordinary people priesthood quote as being "interesting", as you mentioned: "The quote by Nichijun Fujimoto I find very interesting" . Nichiren would have firmly denonced it as a manifestation of arrogance and disdain for lay believers, with a misguided priest claiming superiority on ordinary people, and Nichiren would have added that Arrogance is the first of the 14 Slanders. This perspective erases the need to follow your further statements and details you were digging in and I find weak and meaningless.

If you are interested in understanding the difference between Nichiren Buddhism of SGI and Traditional Buddhism, please try to investigate these short (1 page) articles:

Traditional Buddhism: http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Nichiren_Buddhism_and_Traditional_Schools.html Zen: http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Zen_and_SGI_Buddhism.html Tibetan: http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Compariosn_between_Tibetan_and_SGI_Buddhism.html Nichiren Shu : http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Nichiren_Shu_Buddhism.html PureLand Buddhism: http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Amida_and_SGI_Buddhism.html

You say that "its amazing how SG-members slag off the ordained of just any Buddhist tradition" - well it is not the ordained themselves, but their teachings which is driving people to sufferings. For you, the word "Ordained" may be of huge influence, but this is not a Nichiren spirit, who cared less about titles and authorities. But all in all, catflap, I am optimistic towrads your path, because the Lotus Sutra says that making an adverse connection with it is also a way for future realisation and enlightenment. Welcome back in the Back to the Future to SG activities standing tall against corrupt authorities, ordained or under other covers. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet again your reply speaks volumes. It is very INTERESTING that the word interesting caught your attention more than what I found to be interesting. Interesting enough I did not say that I support the priests view, as I already have mentioned I do not support the teachings of Nichiren Shoshu full stop. Their interpretation of the sangha is somewhat special anyway. Still I do not know why SGI reacted instead of acted. Personally I would not know what Nichren may think … I can only ponder of what he maybe would have thought. The articles you mentioned I already know and yes indeed they are strikingly short … again the official SGI sources are limited and good grief I can only imagine what would happen if one would use the respective schools own material or even use material of non-buddhist.

Thanks for your comment on priests, yes normally they are ordained. So since the average SGI -member would normally not get along with a priest of Nichiren Shoshu all other priests of other Buddhist faiths are out to let people suffer, indeed the ordained of just any other faith too? Is that right then? Never mind that Nichiren himself wore the robes of a priest, never mind that there would be no priests if there were no 'lay' believers, never mind that there would not be a SGI if there would not have been priests. And again no, I do not speak in defence of Nichiren Shoshu. Gassho. --Catflap08 (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Catflap, we do not respect a doctor because he/she is "ordained" with a degree - we respect a doctor because of applying skills and benefiting and easing people's sufferings. The same goes for "priests". Respect for a priest is not due to his - rather - ordination or robe, but his Buddhist behaviour and actions. ( There are many priests who are respect worthy and others who commited crimes, you hear about this in the news). Nichiren was a priest but he did not stick to this category to provide him with any authority or special status. He also strongly disclosed the arrogance of other "ordained priests". Any focus on the "ordained" - manifests a spirit of either arrogance or submission to "spiritual authority". Buddha nature exists in all people and is the highest level of life, no one has any spiritual authority (or Holiness) just because of ordination. BUT many people do not agree, and prefer to prostrate and be submissive.

You see, with the possibility that ANY person can attain Buddhahood (acc.to Nichiren) in one's own circmstances, abolished ALL distinctions of priest and laity and the Gosho is full of such statements . such as: ..."be it priest or lay believer....".

Without you noticing it, you have lot of resentment towards SGI, but you have to admit that SGI does not stop you personally from developing yourself, or from having a correct perspective of evaluating philosophical matters in an impartial way. To be impartial is an important value. To be impartial you should acknowledge the fact that it is other schools of Buddhism which are in strong, aggressive and even poisoned animosity to SGI, attacking, spreading rumours, demeaning ordinary people and the like. You see; we were the organisation of the sick and poor, the most "mean" people in the view of SG attackers. N

Whatever the case, we live in an age of spiritual freedom. People are free to choose. I know some people who could not continue in SGI just because the teachings are challenging. Facing one's weaknesss is the most difficult thing in life. Surpassing one's ego is not easy. Human Revolution and courage to free oneself from limitations require immense efforts and discipline, and some people are simply not into that. Fair enough. But some do not want to acknowledge their own limitations and go on attacking SGI, arrogantly questioning past history rather than making their own achievement and own history of self-development, and creating value.

ALL religious groups insist - of course - that THEIR OWN TEACHINGS are the only correct one. In this regard, you'll acknowledge the broadminded teachings of Nichiren and SGI in the following statement: "In his letters, Nichiren mentioned various non-Buddhist sages and philosophers whose humanistic views were based on the happiness and security of ordinary people: “...the wisdom of such men contained at heart the wisdom of Buddhism” WND 1122 On this subject, P Ikeda comments:

“Nichiren Daishonin writes that some people come to a correct view of life through systems of thoughts and philosophies other than Buddhism. One who encounters the Lotus Sutra but is prejudiced and does not try to comprehend its true greatness is inferior, he asserts, to the wise men and saints of non-Buddhist teachings. He also writes “When one knows the Lotus Sutra, one understands the meaning of all worldly affairs”. (The Wisdom of the Lotus Sutra Vol 1. p 55) SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Safwan we are going in circles. You criticise all priest by just any faith based on your experience. A priest, man or woman, is foremost also human. I find your attitude somewhat intolerant as it seems to be in stark contrast to SGI's own charter regarding religious freedom. Other faiths simply do not have an issue with their priest, ministers, pastors, monks etc. as SGI had with its. For you to dash out at anyone ordained is a bit disturbing. At any rate this is the talk section of an article. Our discussion is about our personal views by now. According to Wikipedia the talk section is not a forum though to discuss personal issues which to me appear to be inconsistent with each other. This article has systematically been stripped of just about any critical or alternative views, not because those views were fictitious, but because they did not fit some editors view of the world. This is not in accordance to Wikipedia regulations. You are quite happy to insert just any source that supports your view, even academic ones, but discard just any opposing views, some even on the grounds of being academic … as can be seen in the Nichren Shoshu talk section. This article therefore lacks neutrality in a big way and when looking at its history you have heavily contributed to that fact. An organisation is not being reviewed by an assumed absence of criticism but rather by the way it deals with it – so the editing policy by some speaks for itself and even reaffirms the alleged inability of SGI to face criticism. In contrast deleting opposing views as is the case in this article can be the source for even greater suspicion. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There is lot of YOU YOU YOU ...in the text above, but it doesn't matter, really. As for the Wiki articles: instead of complaining here and offering unsubstanitated judegemnts, please be specific in pointing out your arguments in a concrete manner, not a descriptive, judegnental and vague chat. Before I decided to monitor this and other articles there was lot of bias and personal views, even nonsensical statements - rathere than concrete facts suppoerted by references. I introduced and implemented the action that BOTH sides views on a conflict should be included as well as the views of non-committed professional scholar's published research- whatever they are. To face the truth requires maturity, confidence and self-development.

As for the "ordained" and "non-ordained" : If you have an argument to state on Wikipedia article regading this matter please show it. If it correct and referenced it will stay. Other wise it will be deleted according to the rules, and please do not use the talk to bring personal views about this or other subjects.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Well as I said a discussion between us two does not seem to work either. Your trying to use the article who in your eyes was right or wrong. This is beyond the scope of Wikipedia.--Catflap08 (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Changing an incorrect title

The previous title of section " Effect on the Soka Gakkai" is ambigiuos. "Effect" of what? And the text in that section was about the Nichiren Shoshu lay organisation, Hokkeko, not about the SGI. So, this means that the title does not match the contents. If you want to add that Hokkeko (maybe Nichiren Shu also?) increased its membership because of the split then fine, that is the effect of the split on NichirenShoshu, not SGI. This is why I corrected that part leaving the text as it is - however please review the text and try to make it meaningful. If there was an increase how many? 10 people? 10.000 members? and what is your proof? Any source of reference or just a rumour? You are bringing ambigious opinions which date half a centuary ago and without any reference of proof. And it is also consistent with the truth to acknowledge that the Priesthood simply failed to disban or destroy the SGI (as they called for).

Another thing: in the text you refer to that SGI members "MISTAKENLY" believe that they are excommunicated...etc. This is laughable indeed! How do you know? What is your reference that SGI members "most mistakenly" whatever....? This sentence about the "mistakenly" - is just an imaginary opinion and should not be included in Wiki articles. I am SGI member for 30 years, and as millions of others I never belonged to any temple and do not care about Nichiren Shoshu's adminstration rules. What you mention is simply incorrect.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to Wiki Editors stop Vandalism

It is against Wikipedia rules to delete a text without giving a valid reason. There was a section under the title " After the Split", and it contained the following- which I will reinstall. If anyone erases it I will ask for Wikipedia Editors for their judgement on tye subject and whether it is vandalism. The information included is presented by non-SGI, Non_Buddhist, and impartial professors in religion and philosophy in respected universities around the world. It is not acceptable to delete and silence these opinions just because you do not agree with them. If you have other non-Buddhists who have different opinions on the subject please add to the text. We should not fear the truth:

The split between SGI and the Priesthood attracted the attention of various academic researchers in the field of religion and history. Several books were published about the expansion of the SGI after the split, such as Daniel A. Metraux's 2001 book The International Expansion of a Modern Buddhist Movement: The Soka Gakkai in Southeast Asia and Australia ^[1] and: How the Soka Gakkai became a Global Buddhist Movement ^[2]. Other studies by independent scholars were the 1998 Oxford University Press book A Time to Chantby B.Wilson and K.Dobberlaere ^[3] and :”Encountering the Dharma” by prof. Richard Seager ^[4], as well as various other publications. According to Prof. M. Bumann, of the University of Lucerne, Switzerland, the cause of the split was the friction between conservatism and openness, hierarchy and democratization: “A spirit of openness, egalitarianism, and democratization pervaded the SG, embodying and giving new life to the idea of self-empowerment. In 1991, these liberalizing developments led to the split between the Japan-oriented, priestly Nichiren Shoshu and the lay-based, globalized SGI”. ^[5] . In an analysis of books studying the expansion of SGI after the split, Prof. Jane Hurst of Gallaudet University viewed the split as the result of conflict of interest: “lay members seeking religious support for their lives, priests seeking perpetuation of hierarchical institutions".^[6] SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well vandalism is normally reported here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. I would however be somewhat careful on that in respect to you own edit history ... at least on the 500 pages one can see.--Catflap08 (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Perception of the Soka Gakkai in Time

The section titled “Reception” is stated by Wikipedia editors to be in dispute of neutrality. Respecting the request not to delete the section (or is it the "not to delete the note" about the dispute?) - I just left that section as it is and initiated a new Section: “Perception of the Soka Gakkai”, including part of the text of the disputed section, expanding and presenting both sides of views about each criticism.

The disputed text of "Reception" section is not only biased but borders with using the Wikipedia to introduce nonsensical statements such as: “Outside observers have looked upon SGI’s version of the mentor and disciple relationship as a cult of personality for its focus on SGI President Ikeda as well as the two preceding presidents (and founders) Jōsei Toda and Tsunesaburō Makiguchi.” Outside Observers? Who? There are hundreds of academics who are “Outside Observers” and who do not view the SG as operating on Cult of Personality. Besides, it is just meanigless to state that the cult of personality is extended to 3 Founders of SG 2 of whom who long passed away, and without any supportive reference to this view about cult of 3 personalities. The disputed text mentioned also Nichiren and Shakyamuni as Mentors, so are these also included in the cult of their personalities? Regarding the Cult of Personalities, the SG founders went to prison opposing the cult of Emperor Worship and the third president stood against the Cult of High Priest Worship and Absolute Obedience (to Person of the H.P.): http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/NShoShuP13.html

The disputed section contains defaming and unsubstantiated claims such as: “There has been controversy about the degree of religious tolerance practiced by Sōka Gakkai members”. What is this “There has been”? Where? When? Any reference? The insertion of such unsubstantiated and imaginary thinking - this is using Wikipedia to put divisive and biased views, which the claimant would have been unable to claim in any professional or legal statement. The Section of “Perception about the Soka Gakkai” traces the impressions it created since early development with focus on main points of criticism and offering references for variety of views including non-Buddhist observers.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Catflap, just a calrification: please remember that Wikipedia is not an instrument for lecturing others on what you believe is correct. Your consistent chnaging of the text to introduce the views of whatever sect about what is Master Disciple - this is irrelevant, and please stop lecturing like you did here:

Most of all though it is, traditionally, a personal relationship between two individuals in order to seek knowledge it can be a lifelong bond or be terminated by either side^[7]

Your personal understanding of what is "Most of all though it is traditionally..." .. lacks clarity. The text here is about Mentor in SG being a modern naming of the concept of Master in traditional Buddhism - that's all. It is not to hammer the reader with an irrelevant lecture about the "meaning" of Master as some think it is. Those interested to know more about Master and Mentor - have access to refrences. BTW, the way you presented Master was a marriage which ended in devorce as you say: : raising committment in a life long bond of 2 individuals, which can be terminated!!! .This understanding of Master Disciple it is controversial. In SGI literature: the Gohonzon is regarded as the oroginal Mentor - as well as individuals who were or are Mentors. The concept of Mentor in SGI is much more than the weak description you brought, it is not between just 2 individuals but includes millions of disciples and the Mentor is not one Master but a range of Role Models in behaviour including Nichiren's life, mnifested in the Gohonzon. So, your bringing a narrow defintion from your understanding of traditional Buddhism should be balanced by an SG perspective on the subject - but this is not the place for that nor the article is a lecture.

Would you please accord with Wiki rules and kindly EXPLAIN what you are editting and why. To do the changes silently - without declaring what you did and why - this is not consistent with editing and openness. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all not every change has to be explained in great lengths in the talk section. Wikipedia has this nice little tool to comment why and what has been done in the brackets. If changes are minor it is also mentioned. Secondly the paragraph is about the criticism that SGI faces. What it is not about is to decide whether the criticism is right or wrong – it is just there, it exists. What you consider hammering or a lecture (any lecture I read or attend is considerably longer) is simply information.

It briefly explains the core and nature of the criticism and what it is about. And yes in traditional schools this relationship is sometimes defined a bit like a marriage that either side can terminate or not even enter into. It is also no invention that, traditionally, this relationship is a personal one – the information is referenced. So it’s not saying that the traditional concept is better or not, right or wrong, but explaining the nature of the criticism. It comes natural that this traditional definition is in contrast to SG’s definition – otherwise it would not be a controversial issue. Its more than obvious that you are a member of SGI and therefore you will find it hard to understand any critics anyway. This article however is not owned by SG nor by its members, any critical views should and must be mentioned and the content of that criticism should be explained.--Catflap08 (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Since I had to got to work I could not elaborate. SafwanZabalawi, your position is more than obvious in either article contributions or talk sections. Once and for all though Wikipedia is not a platform to present SGI's view of the world (certainly one has to mention it in order to understand where they are coming from), but appart from SGI's view of the world what is also part of the article is how the world views SGI. That the view of others is not always in accordance to the organisation you are a part of comes as no surprise. In case of the master-disciple relationship it should be noted, why this issue is a source of controversy and part of it is that key elements are simply treated different in what one calls 'traditional' Buddhism. The reader should be made aware of that – nothing else. There is nothing wrong adding a section about the Mentor-Disciple relationship in SGI as it is one of the corner stones of its philosophy. Combined with the paragraph about SGI criticism the reader would then get a balanced view. While we are talking about it it would be best to do away with the reception/perception section in simply call it critical views. Those views exist and have the right to be mentioned and before you end up in a SGI jargon this has nothing to do with defamation etc. Without knowingly doing it … the way you edit the article … the way you speak in various talk sections you prove the old and most common criticism of SGI – that is does not know how to deal with opposing views. I know SGI members as friends and even family members and to them SGI is the next best thing that happened to the world since the invention of sliced bread … they even contribute the end of the cold war to SGI - but sorry, not everyone shares that view. Some regard SGI a cult, some even say its not Buddhist at all.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Catflap, I'll respond to the positive side of your various comments, and say YES, the word "Criticism" should appear in the current section.

As for your personal issues, your friends, family members - Wikipedia is not the forum for this chat. Besides, you have belittled your family members comparing their mind of spiritual belife as valuable as the "invention of sliced bread" - your words.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Perception and Criticism of the Soka Gakkai

I have changed the title from just "Perception" to "Perception and Criticism" of the SG, because I found the word "Criticism" in each of the observations made in the text (about various activities and beliefs of the SG). As Catflap kindly mentioned, Criticism is also a valid point to mention, and I agree. However, in every intelligent presentation: the 2 sides of the accusation/criticism must deliver to the reader their views. We do not live in the Middle Ages where only a "Traditional" criticism" occupies the text without the other side's view. This principle (of offering the perceptions of the 2 sides of the story) was behind editing the paragraph of Mentor/Master - Disciple, which occupies now almost 5 lines of description of both views. References are provided from both sides for deeper study if needed by readers. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Disputed section Reception deleted and subsituted by Perception & Criticism

The section titled Reception was hanging in the article for few months being under dispute and without any resolution: I have requested interested editors to have a review of that section (which was written as a POV) - but no answer was given. Then I took the same contents of that disputed section and expanded on them in the current section "Perception and Criticism", adding the word "Criticism" of the SG to ensure balanced views and provide appropriate references. The disputed section Reception which I deleted, was biased, lacked support and was a description from a point of view. However, the same points of the deleted Reception - are now found as part of the Perception and Criticism - supported by references.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Questionable Photo

In the Article, a 50 years old photo of Daisaku Ikeda appears in black and white. I could not trace up the editor who put that photo as I find it irrelevant to the Article's title: Soka Gakkai. Ikeda did not originate the Soka Gakkai, neither he is now a president. A proper relevance would be Josei Toda's photo. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't just about Sōka Gakkai but also the SGI as well, so it is completely relevant. The photo is in the section which details information specifically relating to the SGI, the International organisation to which he is the founding and current President. Though if you or anyone else can find a more recent photo of him that would be better. I've tried looking online but I can't find anything which conforms to the guidelines about copyright and uploading photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollari08 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Claiming ignorance

Catflap, if you want to put a certain statement on Wikipedia you have to support it by a reference or citation. What you did was extraordinary: you put your statement and added that CITATION NEEDED for your own statement. I will be in contact with permanent Wikipedia editors on whether this self-defeating editing is allowed and whether it is not a "clever" trial to show that a statement on one side of criticism - is lacking credibility and that no citation was included to support it: "However official materials[74] state all other religions, including other Buddhist denominations, should be viewed as valuable inasmuch as they are able to support the happiness, empowerment, and development of all people[citation needed]" - This is a perhaps new attitude in Wikipedia: Claiming Ignorance: when someone brings a statment but adds a self-confession that no knowledge about the truth of the statement is known to him/her and wants others to bring a citation on what he/she had put on Wikipedaia article. I think this amounts to misusing Wikipedia. Second point here: is that this article is about the Soka Gakkai, it is not about Nichiren's writings : "Many of Nichiren's writings, however, are about how other forms of Buddhism are incorrect", and if you wish to question Nichiren's writing or attitude you better do that on Nichiren Buddhism page. This article is not about criticising Nichiren Buddhism and your entry here is trying to incite hatred towards Nichiren Buddhism: "Apart from the critical views about the SG as an organisation, it is also criticised for its doctrinal teachings based on Nichiren Buddhism, perceived by some observers to be lacking tolerance towards other forms of Buddhism". What is "perceived by some observers" - against Nichiren is perceived by other observers differently. Your attack on Nichiren's beliefs as lacking tolerance is lacking understanding of his writings - and it is stigmatizing over 20 Nichiren groups other than the SG. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What IS extraordinary that xou deleted a whole pragraph ... one dealing with proselytizing. The citation needed tag says nothing elses that a citation is still needed. The issue as a whole is relevant though.--Catflap08 (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

After you had - or maybe another editor? - put the proper citation - I left it as it is. I am still concerned about the implication of attacking Nichiren Buddhism by claiming that it is not tolerant. This is one sided view which can be easily disputed, as those who claim he was not tolerant ignore the historical facts that he was attacked, violently ambushed, injured, sent to exile and survived an attempt to kill him by beheading. Such "tolerant" sects of Buddhism who were behind this aggression expose themselves. But whether someone uses a Wikipedia article on SGI to spread onesided views, defaming Nichiren and incorrectly labelling Nichiren Buddhism - this I think amounts to abusing Wikipedia. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Its not about abuse, its not about your beliefs and its not about what you hold dear about SGI or Nichiren Buddhism and its not defaming anyone. Nichiren Buddhist of nearly all sects have been confronted with the issue of nationalism and one COULD read that into Nichirens works. Nowhere does it say that Nichiren Buddhists ARE Nationalists, but the issue has been raised within and outside of Japan. You bring up an important point – Wikipedia is not about white-washing. Just as any religious group Nichiren-Buddhism and SGI do contain controversial issues – as a member of SGI you might not like that – but nevertheless those issues exist. Having said that I just reinserted what you deleted.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually SafwanZabalawi, I delt with the citation issue. In truth there was already a citation in the sentence which referenced the information, but whoever put the ^{[citation needed]} tag ignored this and reinstated the citation. I simply moved the citation to the end of the sentence to replace the ^{[citation needed]} tag.

Also, the issue about the criticisms of intolerance are reported and published criticisms that have been made by people to the public, and, whether or not they can be easily refuted/disputed, they need to be mentioned. In this section it is appropriate as a balanced and unbiased article needs to mention all the views to remain NPOV.

Also Catflap08 didn't add this section of text in, but merely replaced it after it was summarily deleted without proper grounds. It was deleted as an entire section when merely one sentence had a ^{[citation needed]} tag attached, which had no reason to be there in the first place. The deletion could be looked upon as an attempt to quietly remove some of the criticisms, which were deleted along with it, all of which were indeed cited.

Just as a side note I am an SGI member, and although I would personally prefer that there weren't any criticisms, I'd rather this was an unbiased article and that critics were proved wrong in their criticisms than ignore or even hide their criticisms from people. The latter just reinforces their view of SGI and gives it undue credence. Mollari08 (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I deleted what was irrelevant and what was a POV, a story telling, but never mind now, things somehow have settled down except one point about criticism:

I welcome criticism and and benefit from it (either by making corrections or responding with more reseach made). The word Criticism of SG was brought by me in the first place, and I have a different opinion from yours that ..." ...prefer that there weren't any criticisms" - I believe those who oppose SGI are a proof of SGI's reality. The whole point I was trying to make is that criticism is a form of Freedom of Expression - but which requires BOTH sides of the views to be present. BOTH sides, and this was not practiced in the past. This applies also to criticising Nichiren's teachings (as lacking tolerance) as a way to criticise the SG teachings. To portray SGI as lacking tolerance is a POV because in reality SGI is making huge efforts all over the world for Interfaith Dailogues and is recognised by hundreds of scholars from hundreds of universities as an openminded Buddhist organisation of peace. Whoever criticised Nichiren here (as lacking tolerance) is in fact criticising the Right to Expression, by which Nichiren explained the reasons for social disasters of his society. Freedom of Speech was never a tradition in the mind of authorities and their religious supporters, and who can possibly deny this? Those who criticise Nichiren's freedom of speech - should also admit that the response to his brave attitude was beating him, setting his hut on fire, trying to kill him several times, he bled in the forehead from a sword attack, his arm was broken, set to exile twice, and escaped beheading. Lacking Tolerance? Who is lacking tolerance? That's why I mentioned that to bring to the articel some personal views of a scholar (who viewed Nichiren as lacking tolerance, and hence, how bad is SGI) - this is not true criticism, it is a hidden implication to affect the reader's perception, and a response to this was inevitable.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry again this is incorrect. Wikipedia is not a debate where one has to bring in the pros and cons on an issue. If a point is raised and referenced, especially when controversial, that is enough. Any other editor can come along though and bring up an opposing argument. I would however not beat the drum too loud on the freedom of speech issue. Almost any religious groups do know limits to freedom of speech especially about internal affairs … one can certainly voice those issues but then it can happen that you are not part of the group any more. SGI is no exception in that … especially when one works for them.--Catflap08 (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

One has to distinguish between the 2 functions of Article and Talk in Wikipedia. In the Article, points are raised with citations and references. Talk page, on the other hand, is a communication forum between editors to improve the Article, to explain their crucial editing, deletion or changes etc... And it can point out for an editor who mistakenly assumed a certain view - clear arguments and backgrounds, so that the quality of editing will get improved. I'll give you this example of someone stating that SGI follows Nichiren Buddhism and that Nichiren Buddhism is nationalistic or can be perceived as nationalistic. When this view is put under light of reality (not personal perception) then it is not a pro and con debate (that you may think should not be on Talk). Because it was brought up then it has to be corrected: SGI propagates the concept of World Citizenship and its literature defines "Nationalism is Evil" - that should be defeated. Some editors are so consumed by rumours and mistaken views that such a clarification about their attitude is beneficial for all. As for the Freedom of Expression - aren't you enjoying it? I see no problem in accenting this vital human right and explaining how Nichiren's freedom of expression was treated in the most violent and aggressive way by those who claim that his Buddhism lacks "tolerance". I want to thank you for this exchange because it opens a possibility to clarify on Wikipedia page of Nichiren Buddhism his opponents argument about "tolerance".SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well just as a side note it is quite remarkable, not just here, but almost anywhere where SGI is discussed its members will quite happily brand negative reports as rumours or originating from tabloids. When the individual who tells of his/her negative experiences of SGI, some do not hesitate to call that individual a traitor or someone out to destroy the org. having a negative life condition. Is can got as far as questioning the persons integrity --- the issues raised by such a person are not talked about much. So much to free speech ... In my books its not the absence of critical views that impress me about an organisation of any sort, but the way its dealt with.--Catflap08 (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A broadminded person would agree that in any organisation (sport, political, religious or even at one's work place) you may find individuals who develop personal and selfish aims and try to use the organisation for their personal benefit. No one can deny that this has happened in all sorts of societies. Some - out of psychiological need - develop a need to dominate and dictate others the "correct" way - and "what 'should' be done". I know of such. Don't ignore the fact that an organiation of more than 10 or 12 million is bound to include all sorts of people, in fact some small countries - like Hungary for example - are about the same size as the SGi, and in any country you'll find the whole spectrum of individuals' attitudes. The valid Q is : If you do not like it, why are you in it? Toda said that those who have negative/selfish aims and voice constant dislike of others are immature and better "leave us". Spiritual organisations are plenty and a dignified person who disagrees with one (he/she belongs to) should behave with decency and leave. But to just chatter and complain - this is a sign of weakness. The Human Revolution requires that one faces own weaknesses, but some find it easier to blame, complain, and disrupt harmony, a reflection of lack of their own inner harmony. Your books should also include such facts of life. If some one is decided to develop oneself and attain inner harmony, no one in the world - no organisation or wahtever - would be an obstacle, but some still cannot see this reality.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Before we enter into a chat mode again I must say I find it interesting that you should have picked Hungary as an example. Hungary may be a member of the European Union but at the moment its on the Unions fringe. Why? It currently has a nationalistic extremely right wing government, the country suffers form a catastrophic economical situation and to make things worse there were efforts to limit the freedom of speech/press and even gay rights in Hungary. If I follow your logic now anyone in Hungary who disagrees with the condition should leave?? Without knowing it you have described a core problem of SGI though. Internal conflicts are silenced, views that issues can or may be discussed are suppressed and those who voice them are described as weak and unfit for the so called human revolution – again defamation of critics rather then discussing those issues. This however is not a sign for a pluralistic and open mined organisation as the harmony lid is put on. What you describe even indicates a certain impeccability of SGI, if not who is allowed in SGI to correct mistakes and aberrations (that any organisation is bound to make at some point)?? Any church congregation has by the means of a consistory more voice on internal affairs than members in SGI. You are right though … since this is the way SGI deals with criticism some people either retreat or leave and not all of those have lost their belief for the teachings of Nichiren. In the past decade SGI has manoeuvred itself into a catch 22 situation. --Catflap08 (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

:: Sorry, I did not explain to you that I mentioned a country of 12 million just as an example. I read few sentences of your answer in which you stuffed the Europena Union, Hungary, catastrophies etc,.. and that's it, I could not read more. Congrats and no more explanations.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Correcting judgemental statements about Nichiren Buddhism

Although this article is about the SGI, someone has turn it into attack on Nichiren Buddhism claiming false accusations of intolerance. I have depended on Rev. Tarabini (of Nichiren Shu) article explaining historical facts about mass killing and attack on Nichiren Buddhism schools, by the same groups who accuse Nichiren Buddhism of "lack of tolerance". Nichiren expressed his views and teachings about how his Buddhism differs from other schools in the most peaceful manner of speech, and ordered his disciples never to be engaged with violence. These facts must be included here and in the article as the insertion of that part of criticism was misleading to Wikipedia readers, and based on false arguments.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have depended on Rev. Tarabini (of Nichiren Shu) article explaining historical facts about mass killing and attack on Nichiren Buddhism schools, by the same groups who accuse Nichiren Buddhism of "lack of tolerance". where does that come from ???? Where does Nichiren Shu state that?? As I said I am not a member of any Nichiren-Group anymore. Or is Kisala a member of Nichiren Shu now??? That would be new. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Please follow the mentioned refrence in the article and read Rev. Trabini's explanation:

Nichiren Buddhism came under attack by outlying temples from other schools due to their zealousness and success in propagation. These other temples declared war on Nichiren Buddhism and wished to eliminate it from Kyoto. In fact, at the time,propagation of Nichiren Buddhism had reached a great height.Almost the entire city had converted to Nichiren Buddhism, was reciting the Lotus Sutra and chanting the Odaimoku of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo. When the armed warrior priests(from Mt. Hiei and other schools)entered Kyoto, they burned down many temples and killed thousands upon thousands of Nichiren clergy and believers. Consequently, all the Nichiren schools (including what constitutes today's Nichiren Shu, Honmon Shu, Nichiren Shoshu, Kempon Hokke Shu, etc..) banded together to protect and support each other.

BTW, the article and talk is not about your personal affiliation, catflap. Your statement: As I said I am not a member of any Nichiren-Group anymore is irrelevant to Wikipedia editing.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh okay now I get it … occurrences 700 years ago are a sign of intolerance of today's schools and what happens today is the result of tabloid rumours... okay.--Catflap08 (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Simplyfying the introdutory definition

This Article is about the Soka Gakkai / SGI. The focus is about the SG. The intorduction started with explaining who was Nichiren in 13 c Japan, referring to him as a monk and then asking for citation on whether he was a monk, etc... This is very messy and lacking scholastic approach. The first sentence refers to the SG as within Nichiren Buddhism, and that's it. This article is not on Nichiren Buddhism and who was Nichiren etc... Those interested in who was Nichiren - or seek info about Nichiren Buddhism - can do that easily. Clogging the introduction is a way of disorientation of what the focus is.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

SGI Official Status around the World

I have added to the section Perception and Criticism - facts related to official recognition of SGI in various countries and also within the United Nations. There was a valid suggestion to include information about SGI recognised as a cult in France and Belgium (although fully allowed to practice and have activities). The question is also raised in this answer: http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Is_SGI_a_Cult.html - based on scholastic definition of cults.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

To QuietUnusual & NaveenReddy

I noticed on my WatchList your comments about Criticism, bias, reliable/unreliable references...etc. Why don't we have a dialogue here rather than make judgemental statements somewhere esle about who and what. I think we can arrive to a reasonable editing which offers BOTH sides of criticism the right for expression. Just to delete and reinstate and then delete and then alter and reinstate and then.... this is meaningless. The section is stuffed with many allegations, whether correct or not, BOTH sides have the right to respond and refer to their sources of information.

There is a part in the text which criticises SGI because it follows Nichiren Buddhism.The Writer of this "criticism" accused Nichiren of lack of tolerance. This has shifted the subject from SGI to Nichiren Buddhism. The writer's aim was to insert an implication: that Nichiren Buddhism is bad, very bad with tolerance, and becuase SGI follows Nichiren Buddhism which is bad then it must be bad! This sort of "clever" arguments of "criticism" is stuffed here not against SGI but against Nichiren Buddhism, which is followed by more than 10 sects OTHER THAN SGI. So, as you see, the motivation to just "find something wrong" led to a messy and lengthy text which is all irrelevant to the article itself. Now: when you are accused of lack of tolerance, you have the right to provide counter facts - that you were actually unjustly attacked - and you have the right for expression and this will also take the subject far and clog the text. So, I suggest here to delete the part accusing Nichiren Buddhism of lack of tolerance BECUASE it belongs to Wikipedia page on Nichiren Buddhism - and it can be raise up THERE.

One thing is evident: the side which criticises SGI because it follows Nichiren is declaring its lack of reasons and goes to search for religious fanatics opinions who themselves lacked tolerance and were violent - just to criticise SGI - this is an attitude of Zero logic. Isn't it time to employ wisdom and acknowledge reality, offer facts rather & reasonable views rather than judegement and futile going in circles.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing unverifiable source

English Wikipedia is obviously for English readers. To put a statement in English-written article supported by an alleged reference in Chinese, Arabic or German makes the statement unverifiable. The statement- which I removed- is also doubtful as it says that "The German federal diet's committee of enquiry on so called cults described SGI in its final report as latently problematic". This statement contradicts the reality of SGI Germany as an officially registered religious organisation legally allowed to have activities which are open to all. Cults have closed organisations and other features - and none of these apply to SGI open to all and working for humanity and world peace. SGI is also acknowledged as an NGO at the United Nations. Catflap, please read Wikipedia guidelines.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

False, SGI is in Germany no registerd religion but simply goes as a club that pays no taxes. Just because you cannot read the paper makes the infomation invalid though. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well @Catflap is this a debate forum to evaluate each and everyone's views and authenticity ??. Certainly not !. I completely agree with @ Safwan !. Wikipedia is here to give a brief intro about things. Not for debating and evaluation of credibility and worth of anything ! OK ! 04:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveen Reddy (talk • contribs)

well well I simply disagree since he is deleting anything that puts SGI in a, to what he believes negative light. He can carry on what he does as by doing so he is exactly doing what SGI is being christised for :-)--Catflap08 (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Catflap, Before using Wikipedia you have to agree on the guidelines and rules set by Wikipedia. Your editing and your usage of Talk page here - show disregard to Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, simply, and no jumping the rules. When you say : "...what SGI is being christised for" you are violating Wikipedia rules again, as this is not the place to "characterize" or "stigmatize" - your emotional dislike to SGI can find some blogs on the net, but to say this openly here may disqualify you from editing. Additionally, you are bringing false information about Nichiren Buddhism on SGI page, but Nichiren Buddhism is practiced by many other schools, and the place for clarifying the nature of Nichiren Buddhism is on Nichiren Buddhism's page. Please put Nichiren Buddhism on your watchlist, and be patient for a new section there.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

no worries I just sit back and relax and see what you are doing to the article ... can not be bothered ... --Catflap08 (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I would point out that, in fact, several articles do contain references to sources written in some language other than English. This is very much permitted, and even encouraged, when a subject has received the bulk of its attention in sources other than English. And I would urge all editors to review WP:TPG. Article talk pages are specifically intended for the subject of improving the article. They are not for posting comments about other editors. The implicit threat in one of the comments above is particularly worrisome. I very much hope all editors involved read the relevant conduct guidelines before engaging in similar commentary in the future. John Carter (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input John … I know the guidelines allow foreign sources – as one is allowed in most other Wikipedia-languages. At this point however the editing policy speaks volumes of the individuals and organisation behind. Any one more interested will use the history tool. This article as it stands speaks for itself and the somewhat irrational 'attack' on Nichiren-Buddhism claims speak for themselves too. I actually find that saying so is attacking me in person but will leave it there. I fear worse to come for the articles on Nichiren and Nichiren Buddhism, but when confronted with such an emotional baggage its hard to argue in an unbiased manner – shame for the articles in question.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Correcting misleading information

It is within Wikipedia guidelines to openly write here on the Talk page the reason for editing articles. To silently delete and change text in a controversial way without cooperation with other editors is a destructive and uncooperative move. The editor who wants to use SGI page to attack Nichiren Buddhism is not following Wikipedia rules, as this page is not about Nichiren Buddhism. I removed the statement that Nichiren Buddhism is criticised as having no tolerance twords other schools of Buddhism, because this is misleading : it is the other forms of Buddhism who are lacking tolerance against Nichiren Buddhists, including acting with violence. I will initiate a special section about this false accusation attacking Nichiren Buddhism on Nichiren Buddhism page, as this concerns not only SGI but other schools of Nichiren Buddhism.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Then please produce a reliable source which says as much. Unless such sources are produced, it will seem to all that an editor is acting in violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in making comments such as those above, and should that continue, others may be forced to seek some sort of sanctions. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The subject of lack of tolerance and Nichiren Buddhism is an important subject in the field of Nichiren Buddhism, practiced by various schools. For this reason I have added 3 new sections on Nichiren Buddhism page regarding this matter. While Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia, which in my understanding would include only reliable information about presented subjects, it is important to include the facts of religious intolerance reaching the level of extreme violence towards Nichiren Buddhism. For this reason I sincerely believe that clarifying this subject is consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines of impartiality. However, I do acknowledge that I am in a learning stage about editing, and need to read more of Wikipedia rules and guidlines, and I give my sincere apologies in case I overlooked or contradicted any of the editing rules, as this would have been definitely unintentional.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Well if you had so little knowledge of Wikipedia’s guidelines you were quite happy to base you argument on them ... and quite bold if still in a learning stage. You also seem to make one grave mistake – neutrality; impartiality does not mean to actively withhold information that may not fit your personal belief system. Presenting facts such as proselytising, legal status in other countries, claims of being a cult does not mean that Wikipedia sides with such issues – they are simply out there and facts, those are issues this organisation faces – no claim whether or not they are right or not are being made. Facts that may some not like, facts that may be in the process of being corrected, but nevertheless facts. Same goes to how SGI is officially being regarded in France and Germany. It does not mean that SGI is being persecuted in those countries but that there exist strong reservations on the level of the respective governments. Since English is a lingua franca the sources can be in French, German, Japanese or Swahili. And before you beat the drum that Nichiren Biddhism is attacked, this is utter nonsense … and I never said that either. What was said, referenced by the author (who ever this was), is that some Nichiren Buddhists were involved in Nationalist movements and based those actions on Nichirens teachings and maybe still. This however is not a new issue and most Nichiren Buddhists are familiar with that fact, in reverse that does not make Nichiren Buddhists automatically Nationalists. Same goes for tolerance towards other Buddhist traditions – it should not be- and really isn’t a secret that some Nichiren Buddhist defame adherents of other Buddhist Faiths, sometimes this is done behind closed doors sometimes quite openly… and I am talking of the 20th and 21st century. Yet again this does not make an individual intolerant towards other Buddhists. You simply deleted what did not fit your views.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. If Nichiren has a dubious legal status in any country, that is certainly relevant to the subject. But saying that does not mean we are "attacking" it, just presenting factual information. There is a long entry in the Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones on "Nichirenshu", which I have in front of me. That source is counted among the best reference sources on religion out there, with of course reservations about some specific articles, as would be expected. It says on page 6608 that two Japanese Nichiren leaders, Tanaka Chigaku and Honda Nissho, "were especially influential in promulgating nationalistic Nichirenist ideology and won support from military officers, government officials, and intellectuals." Like I said, some of the articles in that book have been criticized, and I'd have to check if this was one of them, but the article from 6606-6609 in that book is probably among the better basic sources for material about the subject. The article on Soka Gakkai there probably is on that subject too, subject to the same possible reservations. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I will reinsert the issues critical of SGI anyway ... even if an edit-war breaks out, as what has been done to the article lately is surley not what Wikipedia is about.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the info about Encyclopedia of Religion" , I will find a way to obtain it and use it as a reference. As for the subject of nationalism and Nichiren Buddhism, I think this is a good topic to add to the page Nichiren Buddhism. But this page is about the Soka Gakkai (and SGI). SGI stand on nationalism is that it is a form of evil, and it advocates the concept of World Citizen. It is utterly illogical to put on an informative presentation any correlation or association between nationalists and internationalists who reject nationalists views. Why would this subject now be discussed here on SG page? The mentioned Tanaka lived and died at a period of time the SG was not in existence! In fact this was my concern about redundant stuffing of SG page with irrelevant to SG issues. As some of Wiki editors correctly mentioned: sometimes editors downgrade an article not by deleting but by adding. I'm not sure whether "having reservations" is a strong enough argument in scholastic sense, as it reveals lack of factual evidence and lack of citation proven source about the matter at hand.

In my view: to add issues unrelated to SG on SG page then consume the Talk page on its merit or lack of merits - this can be correctly avoided. Now on the other topic of Frensh and German view of SGI as a cult, I welcome this as a fact and I also preserve my right to add that SGI is a legal organisation in these countries, this is also a fact. The United Nations acknowledges SGI as a an NGO, and thus is also a fact. Finally as to non-English reference, well for probably 99% of page-readers such a source can be described as "unreadable". However, if Wikipedia rules allow for this then I may also benefit from it in the future.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Expanding on Section “Perception & Criticism”

To allow for clarity in some sentences of the section I had to expand on missing references and provide citations. (I’ll leave the part relating to “proselytizing” as it is a separate case containing questions about Wikipedia’s guidelines, and this will be presented in a separate post below). First, the reference to Nichiren’s views about other faiths lacked his views about the necessity for interfaith dialogue. Second, SGI status at the UN required a clarification, which I provided. Third: there was ambiguity in wording a sentence about Komeito SGI and Article 20 of the Japanese Constitution and this ambiguity (unnecessary word Dispite...) was clarified by providing a reference to the sentence which was speaking about Article 20. Forth: the mentor -disciple part focused on what Traditional Buddhism views Master Disciple without specific citation to how SGI defines the principle at hand, and this ambiguity was clarified by citations and references. While these steps were necessary to improve the text, there is a part which needs Wikipedia editors to evaluate, and this is explained separtely in the following post.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

^ http://www.sgiquarterly.org/news2001Apr-8.html
^ http://www.mellenpress.com/mellenpress.cfm?bookid=7963&pc=9
^ > http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_xgU9zC-TwsC&source=gbs_similarbooks_r&redir_esc=y
^ http://books.google.com.au/books?id=utaH3TyPf2EC&source=gbs_similarbooks
^ www.globalbuddhism.org/7/baumann06.htm
^ www.globalbuddhism.org/7/baumann06.htm
^ http://viewonbuddhism.org/spiritual_teacher_guru.html

[1] ttp://www.sgiquarterly.org/news2001Apr-8.html

[2] ttp://www.mellenpress.com/mellenpress.cfm?bookid=7963&pc=9

[3] > http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_xgU9zC-TwsC&source=gbs_similarbooks_r&redir_esc=y

[4] ttp://books.google.com.au/books?id=utaH3TyPf2EC&source=gbs_similarbooks

[5] www.globalbuddhism.org/7/baumann06.htm

[6] www.globalbuddhism.org/7/baumann06.htm

[7] ttp://viewonbuddhism.org/spiritual_teacher_guru.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]