Talk:Soka Gakkai/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Changes

I expanded a little in 2 sections: "Separation from the Shoshu priesthood:, and "Chanting of the Daimoku". Everything I did, I believe, is backed by solid secondary sources.--Daveler16 (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Generally good. Thanks for giving notice here. Shii (tock) 16:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed the word "modernization", as it casts judgment on what is modern vs. outdated, but you might replace it with "members believed that Ikeda was modernizing Buddhism" or something like that. Shii (tock) 18:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Shi. I changed it to "most however, stayed with the Soka Gakkai and what they perceived as Ikeda's modernization of Buddhist ideas." That okay? I also added the quote from Seagar to the reference. Speaking of which, there is no reference for the preceding statement, "Some Japanese members of the Gakkai left at this time, believing that a cult of personality was developing around Ikeda which departed from Nichiren's teachings;". I'm sure that it's accurate, but we don't know where it comes from. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone (I looked at History and can't tell who) deleted my observations by Carter and Cooper in the "Criticisms of the promotion of pacifism" section. I can find no explanation on this Talk page either. Since the policy states that unexplained deletions can be instantly reverted, (here) I'm putting them back. I understand the sentiment among some editors that anything that doesn't denigrate the subject is "self-promotion", but I can't find that stated as policy wither. These statements are from a good source, and must carry at least as much weight as the statements of an academic whose scholarship has been seriously questioned (though my source is also an academic). So even if the deletions policy hadn't been violated, I think there is still justification for putting them back.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I noted in my edit earlier today: "move praise out of criticism section". I'm not sure if you couldn't tell that you were quoting praise, or what. Shii (tock) 02:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no, didn't see that. Technically, criticism can indeed be praise. Beyond that, if there is a chance the negative criticism is unwarranted, shouldn't that be included? After all, the "Criticism" section is a sub section of "Peace Activities" - but it is not a peace activity. So what's the difference? If we are going to remove things that do not exactly fit the literal meaning of the headline, this whole entry could be much shorter. For example, the Life Force section. By this logic, how is the second paragraph included in that section, as it is not about the SG idea of life force but a theological argument that it's wrong--Daveler16 (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Once again, moved a book about Nichiren Shoshu out of the Book section. This time I placed it in the Nichiren Shoshu entry, as it evidently concerns the beliefs of Nichiren Shoshu.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Now you've tried to remove that book twice and been reverted twice by different editors.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a rational reason that a book about Nichiren Shoshu beliefs belongs in the Soka Gakkai section? I have at least stated my reasons for moving it. No one else has stated ANY reason for putting it back. I started editing with the impression that changes could be discussed, explained, maybe argued. I have tried, for the most part, to approach editing that way (a few exceptions, I know). This is not my full time job, nor do I have access to an academic library. I work for a long time finding sources, traveling to the library, writing and re-writing, and then explaining what I'm doing on the Talk page. Do you have any idea how aggravating it is, after all that work, when someone just clicks a button deleting all that work, and there is no explanation, no warning, no discussion about it? It gives the distinct impression that there is an agenda at work by some editors to absolutely keep the overall tone of this entry negative. Your comment above, Ubikwit, reads like a "nyah nyah nnyah", has nothing to do with the content of the article, and everything to do with "I'm getting my way and no one will change anything without mmy permission". I've asked more than once for the consideration of a discussion - which I believe is WP policy. I'm wondering why you don't want to discuss things before you do them?--Daveler16 (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, this bibliography entry is not a matter of research, but you have a point. We wouldn't put an SGI publication in the Shoshu bibliography. Putting a Shoshu publication in the SGI bibliography is asserting the dominance of the sect over the former hokkeko-- which is exactly the sort of hierarchical thinking that SGI rejects. Let's limit the bibliography to SGI's self-presentation (put all the Middleway books in there, there's an idea) and respectable outsider accounts from people who are not invested in the argument. This will do a service to readers.

I was recently picking through Japanese books critical of SGI at the Harvard library and I was surprised to find so many smears and guilt by association arguments. The best Japanese books on the subject are not by freelance journalists but by scholars of religion like Shimazono. Of course, the Japanese public has some distrust in religion scholars after the whole Aum Shinrikyo affair, but alas, that distrust is not something Wikipedia can integrate neutrally into articles. Shii (tock) 16:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Only list SGI primary sources? That sounds rather unusual for a bibliography.

The description reads, "presents details of Sōka Gakkai's gradual distortion of the school's teachings and reasons for its severing of ties", and considering that there is a whole section on the split as well as a discussion of the relationship in the "Beliefs and practices" section, the book seems relevant and something that should be presented to Wikipedia readers as a source for further research. I don't see it as an "asserting the dominance of the sect over the former hokkeko".

There are also differences between scholars of religion and people that research new religions, which are generally very different from traditional religions and highly derivative thereof. In the case of SG, which is engaged in operating a network of private schools and is closely connected to a political party, free-lance investigative journalists are going to be the best sources in some cases. Scholars of religion aren't generally examining those phenomena.

@Daveler16: You seem to be mischaracterizing the book to some extent. Part of it addresses the split with SG in terms of doctrine, etc, which is a central issue.

I've mentioned competency issues before, and there is also WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. It seems fairly obvious that you are an adherent to the SG belief system or whatever and are trying to present that in a positive light, but that is not the goal of Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, perhaps a compromise could be made -- we could make separate subheadings for "Outsider accounts" and "Shoshu account"/"Primary source on schism" to show that the Shoshu source has a conflict of interest and is not an objective look at Soka Gakkai. I agree that there could be useful information in it regardless.

Also, let's appreciate Daveler's work for what it is. There is currently a team of SPAs here, mostly likely concerned SGI members and friends, all of whom are (1) adding additional research to the article, (2) correcting errors based on the use of outdated or untrustworthy sources, and (3) interacting civilly with other editors. This is far superior to the situation in 2012-2013, where Safwan was extremely incivil and wrecked the article multiple times. Now, some of the SPAs have been relying on untrustworthy sources themselves, but if we can continue with this type of collaboration the article might be able to achieve WP:GA. I don't think there are decent enough English sources for it to ever reach FA but GA would be a great accomplishment. Shii (tock) 17:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Shii, I think that the suggestion to create categories in the bibliography is fine. I guess there should be three, in that case, one for Middleway, one for Shoshu and another for third party sources.

I don't have any problem with the SPA's and agree that there has been some poorly composed and poorly sourced text removed, but the soapboxing posts on the Talk page and disruptive edits to the article are a significant time sink.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, I assume it is also not the goal of WP tp present the SG in a negative light. which is the only outcome of including a book from a sect with open antipathy toward the SG, specifically about ways in which the SG is deviant -- i.e., heretical -- from Nichiren Shoshu. I am not saying that the previous ties not be examined; I'm saying it's been over 20 years, and an encyclopedia entry on the SG does not need to define the SG so relentlessly in terms of its former association. Would you want to work together on a new bibliography? Frankly, I'm not familiar with all the books Middleway published, so it would take a little time to compile a list.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Daveler16: Sourcing is a somewhat complicated and multifacted issue on Wikipedia. Shii and I discussed the bibliography briefly and agreed that on this topic it might be advisable to have a few categories, namely those for primary (pro and con) and another for third-party sources. Primary sources are, by definition, not independent. That doesn't mean they aren't reliable for certain purposes, but their scope is limited.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent.

• Primary does not mean "not independent"
• Secondary does not mean "independent"

What you are saying is that "non-independent sources are by definition not independent". That is true. I think that these sources should be handled according to the rules for "third party" vs. "non-independent sources". Along with Middleway. I'd add that Shōshū is not an independent source. It is directly involved in a bitter doctrinal dispute with SG, so it shouldn't be treated as a third party. And I would add the so-called "third-party" novelists and journalists who write about SG. Most of them are employed in the SG-bashing industry. Their employers (notably 週刊新潮) and audience are extremely biased, for political and ideological reasons. They shouldn't be treated like neutral scholars because they aren't. Ideological and financial interests are at stake, and they are every bit as biased as Middleway.

Let me say too that I don't think much of this idea of dividing reference sections up into "pro-" and "anti-" sections. Everybody should be treated according to the same rules. If they are biased, say so at the point where the source is used. That's what's normally done with biased sources. --Margin1522 (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

If I could add one more thing, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a division into separate sections for journalistic and scholarly studies. And about reliability, we list a couple of sources associated with the Asahi. Asahi is generally considered to be left-leaning, and the sources tend to be neutral. But leaning which way doesn't matter. What matters is whether the source has fact checking and control according to accepted journalistic standards. Asahi does. 週刊新潮 and the tabloids in general don't. --Margin1522 (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

How about Akahata? I have a positive opinion of both Akahata and Shukanshincho. Shii (tock) 05:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've never read Akahata. Whenever I glance through it, it seems pretty boring. About Shincho, they lost my respect when they jumped on the 嫌韓憎中 bandwagon. If there is one thing I cannot stand in politics, it's flag waving and appeals to nationalist animosity. But getting back to them as a source, most of their attacks on SG are over 10 years old. They've toned it down considerably ever since the Komeito allied itself with the LDP. --Margin1522 (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok - added one book from Middleway to the list. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The "Criticism of peace efforts" section remains as is. "Praise of peace efforts" section added.--Daveler16 (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"If there is one thing I cannot stand in politics, it's flag waving" [Margin]... Then perhaps we should include the Guiness Boook of World Records that cites [or cited] SGI as having waved the largest number of American flags ever assembled in a parade. 2602:306:CD27:DC29:8D15:5C52:5374:5C4A (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Mark Rogow 26 September 2014

Some changes in the "Priesthood split" section due to faulty referencing. 1) Ian Reader does not say "Soka Gakkai began fabricating evidence that the Shōshū administration had engaged in illicit conduct." He says the book he is reviewing should have examined this topic, and that there is "evidence of Soka Gakkai involvement in producing spurious evidence against Nikken" - nothing so definite as had been written by an editor. 2)Levi McLaughlin does not say members left "believing that a cult of personality was developing around Ikeda which departed from Nichiren's teachings". That is extrapolation by an editor. McLaughlinn says "they were disenchanted with Soka Gakkai's increasingly Ikeda-centered ethos." Nothing there about Nichiren or a cult of personality - so I re-wrote the sentence. 3)McLaughlin also does not say "In response, Soka Gakkai began collecting names of Shōshū members across the country and held regular prayer sessions to attempt to "defeat" (打倒 datō) them." He says "In response, Soka Gakkai launched the dako undo 'the movement for leaving the confraternity, a campaign that developed after 1991 to draw former Gakkai members away from Hokkeko and back into the Soka Gakkai fold." He also says Gakkai members prayed for "Nikken's self-destruction, praying for Abe Nikken and Nikken-shu to self destruct by means of their own degradation." It's still rather sinister, but nowhere does the reference say SG was chanting to destroy individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveler16 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Question about using SG publications

A question about SG publications (including, I guess, Middleway). As I understand what I have been told, the reason other religions (like Nichiren Shoshu) can cite their own websites and pubs, and the SG entry can't, is because the SG is a "new religion" - is that right? I ask because I looked up "Japanese New Religions" in WP ([[1]]) and found the group Soka Gakkai is in. It appears that in a great many of those WP entries, the religion's own websites constitute a very significant percentage of the reference works cited. For Rissho Kosei Kai, for instance, 7 of the first 10 are it's own publications, including a couple that explain its teachings. For The Church of Perfect Liberty, virtually all the references are to its own website. I think we need to discuss again why we can't cite SG pubs in the SG entry, but other New Religions can.--Daveler16 (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

SG publications would be great in the "Beliefs & Practices" section to talk about how SG defines its own beliefs and practices. It would not be a very good source in the "History" section because, like a Nichiren Shoshu source, it provides an insider account with a conflict of interest.

This article has improved far beyond the PL Kyodan article. Obviously PL Kyodan's article also needs to be balanced with outside sources, however PL Kyodan does not have extensive overseas missions so there are not many people interested in editing it. Shii (tock) 20:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Shii, what is your take on the article on The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints? The majority of its sources are drawn from its own publications such as its journal Ensign, the writings and commentaries of founder Joseph Smith, and other church materials. The article is not even tagged as being non-neutral.

IMHO its lack of neutrality stands out and is objectionable. Yet there is something to be learned. As you point out, the insider perspective is valuable to readers. Yes, insider perspectives should be properly labeled as such so readers are apprised and can draw their own conclusions. And, of course, these perspectives should not be permitted to overwhelm secondary sources.

I think this is an important issue to discuss further.

BrandenburgG (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I just clicked on a citation in the LDS article at random: "Hyrum was Joseph's designated successor", citation: "Young, Brigham (October 15, 1844), Times and Seasons 5: 683". Here is a clear example of a conflict of interest degrading the article. Obviously, there is a dispute over who Joseph Smith's successor was, because there are several different Mormon churches in existence. Using an LDS source for that is unacceptable. This article is already doing better than that one, because we have outside sources attesting to the handover from Makiguchi, to Toda, to Ikeda. Shii (tock) 22:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Gohonzon" section and Nichiren

Yes, that part needs to be changed. Victoria is not quoted in the "Gohonzon" section, but there are (at least) two very misleading uses of references. The statement "The power of all gohonzon are taught to flow from the dai-gohonzon" is sourced to Buddhism in America, with no page number. As this statement is clearly not a belief or teaching of the Soka Gakkai, it doesn't belong here anyway - but more so since it doesn't really have a source we can examine. Even worse, the statement "To SGI Nichiren Buddhists, the gohonzon symbolizes the superiority of the Lotus Sutra over other religions and Buddhist sects" is attributed to a book by Clifford Pickover in which he makes no such statement singling out the SGI - he says "Nichiren Buddhists". An editor changed it to "SGI". Moreover, Pickover is writing about magic and numerology in religious icons - he has no interest in belief or teachings, only in what things look like. To underscore this disinterest, he credits Makiguchi with being the founder of Nichiren Shoshu, and says the Dai Gohonzon in enshrined in a temple in Kyoto. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This idea that the power of all Gohonzon are derived from the Dai-Gohonzon needs to be changed. Nichiren clearly states that the power of all Gohonzon is rooted in the faith of the practitioner. To designate one Gohonzon over another is as ridiculous as trying to say one Buddha is superior to another, as in Shakyamini over Nichiren, or visa versa. All are equal. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltdan43 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this the belief of at least NS, if not SG? Has SG come up with a new interpretation? Can we get some sources on this? Shii (tock) 04:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Shi: It would be easiest, of course, if we could use SG publications (about which more later). But for now, here's 2 references about the SG belief re: Gohonzon. 1) "To the Soka Gakkai, the split from the priesthood resulted in an incredible sense of freedom. They are free to express what they have always believed - that the power of the Gohonzon is separate from any priestly authority and that the Daishonin inscribed the Gohonzon for all people throughout the world..." -- Jane Hurst, "A Buddhist reformation in the Ywentieth Century", in Global Citizens p.81 2)"Certainly new members begin their practice in front of a white wall since, according to Nichiren, the Gohonzon truly exists only inside an individual and can be found only through faith." -- Dobbelaere, Soka Gakkai, p.13

And Ikeda wrote in 1988 (republished in 2003): "...the treasure tower is the great metaphor of the Lotus Sutra that represents the infinite potential for happiness within each individual's life, coextensive with the infinite cosmos. The treasure tower is synonymous with the Mystic Law, or the Gohonzon, or the Buddha nature inherent within each of us." -- (Unlocking the Mysteries of Birth and Death p.185.) In 1988 - while still with the priesthood, and in fact in a book published by the NS International Center - he wrote "In the Daishonin's Buddhism, the the powers of the Buddha and the Law indicate those of the Gohonzon, since it embodies both the person and the Law. Only the powers of faith and practice can bring forth the powers of the Buddha and the Law, the limitless power of the Gohonzon." (Selected Lectures on the Gosho p.61-62)

Hope that helps.--Daveler16 (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

All of these quotations are usable as sources for SG's current beliefs and practices. Please fix the errors in the article.

(I'd like to investigate further before putting them in the History section, but the B&P section should talk about present-day self-definition first and foremost.) Shii (tock) 20:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

All we know about the Gohonzon from Nichiren’s own writings were written before Oct. 12, 1279. It was many years later that Nichiren Shoshu proclaimed it was in possession of an “uber-Gohonzon.” It was a lame attempt to gain an upper hand on more powerful Nichiren sects. Here is a small sample of what he wrote and when: This Gohonzon also is found only in the two characters for faith. This is what the sutra means when it states that one can “gain entrance through faith alone.” (WND-1, p. 833, 1277) I, Nichiren, have inscribed my life in sumi ink, so believe in the Gohonzon with your whole heart. The Buddha’s will is the Lotus Sutra, but the soul of Nichiren is nothing other than Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. (WND-1, p. 414, 1273) Ltdan43 (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing the article, not Lotus Sutra theology. Shii (tock) 05:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Shiii--"This talk page is for discussing the article, not Lotus Sutra theology". Shii (tock) 05:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC) You asked for a credible reference and I thought that is what I did. I am kinda lost on what the rules are. Wikipedia says to welcome new comers and be polite. If I read back in the archives, there is a lot of animosity on the part of the editors/administrators. What's up? I really just want to share my opinion in a fair and open forum.Ltdan43 (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're missing out on an important distinction -- I would like to hear sources about what Soka Gakkai believes today, but I don't need someone to prove to me that this is the true teaching of Nichiren. What you wrote is akin to someone saying, "It says in the Bible that Jesus gave the keys to Peter, so we should state in the Catholicism article that the Catholic Church is the One True Church." It's not my place to make judgments like that, and it's a disservice to readers if we put statements like that on the Wikipedia article. Shii (tock)

Okay, I get it. But, if I may, Why would you want someone who is not experienced with the teaching to speak on its behalf? So you say that it is a sales promotion for that teaching. But how can you educate people to make up their own minds if the choice is not there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltdan43 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Treat Wikipedia as similar to any other encyclopedia. When you look up the encyclopedia article on Christianity, you don't expect the reference book to try and convert you. This article should be the same way. We can summarize SG's practices using their own words, but we should also describe the parts of their practices that are highlighted by religious scholars. Shii (tock) 00:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Shii, I think I get it now. I hope we can continue to share our views. Ltdan43 (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Public Perception and Criticism

An ongoing theme in the talk page on the lede is that more work needs to be done in the body of the article and the lede should follow this work. I am going to take some of the content in the lede and place it into the section "Public Perception and Criticism." Once this settles in I suggest we simplify the lede by removing references that will be found here.

I am also going to be adding additional content about the role of media and research in public perception of the SG. I am more familiar with the literature that supports the SG's claims. I am hoping that editors who are familiar with other points of view will chime in and add appropriate content. I think this is the best way to create DUE.

I am 90% finished with the rest of the content I hope to add. Interested editors can look at my sandbox, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrandenburgG/sandbox. Feel free to make suggestions right there. BrandenburgG (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Good. This is a good place to relegate the "gnostic-manipulationist typology" to. Shii (tock) 16:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree partially, Shii. "Gnostic-manipulationist" should be relegated to "Public Perception" but only after editors agree that there is DUE in the lede between assertions and denials of "cult" status. Otherwise one can argue that the entire mentions about "cult" and "cult of personality" should be relegated to "Public Perception."

BrandenburgG (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the "gnostic-manipulationist typology" is maybe the most informative and objective characterization in the article. So I think it belongs in the lead, but there should be material, probably drawn from Ikeda's writings, that dmonstrates what that characterization is derived from.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I completed the transfer from my Sandbox. I look forward to other editors adding relevant material. The more people participate, the more balanced and neutral this subsection will become. BrandenburgG (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe some of these BA and MA theses need to be removed from the summary; if they are unpublished, then they have not been peer reviewed and may not be reliable. Shii (tock) 21:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have now done so. (I also removed publications by the Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research, for obvious reasons.) This still leaves us with a lot of academic studies to look through. Shii (tock) 06:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Osaka Incident" passage

Until I added a paragraph about policies, the entire "Japanese politics" section consisted of the Komeito violating election laws. Starting way back in 1957, with one case of small gifts to voters. This was a long time ago, and one case. There have been hundreds of cases of this -- usually involving the LDP. I don't think it's that significant. The "Osaka Incident" might be, but we don't really describe what it was about. Anyway, when I read the rest of the page, the entire first paragraph of this section (containing the above) was copied word-for-word from McLaughlin. This is a violation of Wikipedia plagiarism rules, so I am going to delete it. I don't think we have any alternative. If someone wants to rewrite it, they can put it back. But I think we are better off anyway starting with the fundamental question of whether a religious party like the Komeito is constitutionally legal. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Shoshu separation section, again

Kelvintjy needs to use this talk page to explain his removal of sources and insertion of weasel words ("perceived"), which appears to me to be whitewashing. Kelvin, while I hate labeling someone an edit warrior, your actions did not follow the usual WP:BRD process and you have failed to explain yourself. Shii (tock) 05:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

All I did is just undo what Ubikwit do as he had cause quite a number of editors who had been trying to improve the article to feel very frustrated with his action of just undoing all their action with just WP:BRD reason. I did not add anything much. I mostly contribute in the education institution and the cultural activities in which you had put the link into the main article. Maybe I will not touch the political discussion of SGI. Kelvintjy (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I made some changes yesterday and I explained them in the "Change" section. I see today they are undone. Sorry - maybe I should have explained them in "Sources", because they have to do with sources. I said: "Some changes in the "Priesthood split" section due to faulty referencing. 1) Ian Reader does not say "Soka Gakkai began fabricating evidence that the Shōshū administration had engaged in illicit conduct." He says the book he is reviewing should have examined this topic, and that there is "evidence of Soka Gakkai involvement in producing spurious evidence against Nikken" - nothing so definite as had been written by an editor. 2)Levi McLaughlin does not say members left "believing that a cult of personality was developing around Ikeda which departed from Nichiren's teachings". That is extrapolation by an editor. McLaughlinn says "they were disenchanted with Soka Gakkai's increasingly Ikeda-centered ethos." Nothing there about Nichiren or a cult of personality - so I re-wrote the sentence. 3)McLaughlin also does not say "In response, Soka Gakkai began collecting names of Shōshū members across the country and held regular prayer sessions to attempt to "defeat" (打倒 datō) them." He says "In response, Soka Gakkai launched the dako undo 'the movement for leaving the confraternity, a campaign that developed after 1991 to draw former Gakkai members away from Hokkeko and back into the Soka Gakkai fold." He also says Gakkai members prayed for "Nikken's self-destruction, praying for Abe Nikken and Nikken-shu to self destruct by means of their own degradation." It's still rather sinister, but nowhere does the reference say SG was chanting to destroy individuals." Or. I might add, to "defeat" anyone. "Weasel words" can go both ways. I think changing "evidence of involvement" to a definite "fabricating evidence" is weaselly; changing "pray for them to return" to "pray to defeat them" is weaselly; changing "disenchanted with an ethos" to "fear a cult of personality" and adding something about "Nichiren's teachings" is pretty weaselly. So I'm going to change it again in a while, unlless someone can justify using sources to support things the sources don't say.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Daveler16 What you say in "2)" is wrong, as McLaughlin mentions the "cult of personality" issue on p. 301. On p. 300 he states, "adherents continued to organize in the thousands to revere Ikeda as the leader of an increasingly outward-looking movement that growing rapidly distant from its lay Buddhist roots".

I see nothing about "the perceived primacy being given Ikeda's writings".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

An example of 打倒 being used in a sentence is 敵を打倒する（＝負かす）; it's something you do yourself, not a prayer for "self destruction". Shii (tock) 17:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

For someone who’s niece is active in SGI some contributions seem quite unusual. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Many people have tried to remove the Gohonzon image from the article in the past. Would someone be willing to add an explanation of how reproductions of the Gohonzon are limited and usually must be made by qualified individuals? It would be good for outsiders to know this. Shii (tock) 20:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Looking at Daveler16's edit, he had the p. 300 "cult of personality" reference to McLaughlin. You deleted it when you reverted his edit, and the source we have now (Seager) says nothing about "cult of personality". This has happened a number of times recently when people simply revert each other. So what he have now is a quote (Seager) that says nothing about a "cult of personality". We really ought to avoid that, because when readers look down and see that the source doesn't support the statement text they will start to wonder if they can trust other sourced statements.

The level of trust among editors is pretty low already. I think we should be doing less summarizing and more quoting, using the actual words in the source and putting them in quote marks. For example, if we say "SG lost members because of the cult of personality", we need a source that says that, specifically, in quotes, not just that SG lost members and also that there was a cult of personality. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused by the choices being made. McLaughlin says the same thing in two different ways - that some Japanese were concerned about the emphasis on Ikeda - and, faced with a choice of which to cite, we choose the least objective, most denigrating phrase. Why, please, is that? --Daveler16 (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Left "cult of personality" until we discuss it more. Using Margin1522 suggestion, inserted direct quotes form McLaughlin and Reader.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Daveler16 cherry picking and misrepresenting sources is not acceptable. I would also recommend that you not touch any portions in which Japanese language is included, because if you aren't literate, you aren't competent.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit:I don't think we have to worry about Daveler's Japanese. The problem with that passage is that the English was misrepresented. We quote the same information from page 302 of Mclaughlin twice:

1. Local Japanese chapters routinely passed out lists of nearby Shōshū temples for members to focus on in their daily chant. ("Chanting of the daimoku" section)
2. Soka Gakkai began collecting names of Shōshū members across the country and held regular prayer sessions to attempt to "defeat" (打倒 datō) them. ("Separation from Shōshū" section)

Of these two references, 1. is OK and 2 is wrong. Daveler was correct to object to No. 2. The source doesn't say that.

About the 打倒, it's not wrong to say that it means "defeat". But in practice, this is used only when the opponent is perceived as stronger than you. A military regime, a sports champion, the soccer team that has defeated you 10 times in a row, etc. It makes no sense to say that Gakkai members were trying to datō individual believers. No one would ever say that. The target was obviously Shōshū as an organization and the head priest in particular.

I find this mistake especially disturbing, because first we say (without any basis in the source) that SG is collecting Shōshū member names, and in the next sentence we say that SG beat a former member unconscious. This is pretty serious, if we have a source for it.

But it looks like we don't. I located the TIME article we are using for this "beat unconscious" story, and there was nothing in it about anyone getting beat unconscious. I put the URL into the article. Perhaps this version of the article is different. But since this is the only evidence I could find, I have to conclude that this "beat unconscious" story is fiction. Unless I hear from someone to the contrary, by say tomorrow, I'm afraid I'm going to have to delete the TIME reference and the misinterpretation of 打倒 in No. 2. That will leave this particular paragraph with some SG members leaving because of Ikeda, and others leaving because they were more comfortable with the priests, but the majority staying with SG. Not as exciting, but probably closer to what actually happened.– Margin1522 (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Daveler16 removed the "dato" mention completely and replaced it with the following quote. "In response, the Soka Gakkai launced the dako undo'

The "cult of personality" accusations are mentioned on 301 of McLaughlin.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Yes, he did replace the "datō" mention with "dakkō", because he read the source carefully and that is what it says. The problem was people defecting and joining 法華講. In response, SG launched a 脱講, or "leave the 講" campaign. It's exactly what the source says. So I don't see where you get off issuing a last warning to Daveler for misrepresenting the source. Our story, OTOH, was that in response SG launched "datō" campaign of violent confrontations aimed at individual Shōshū members. That is fiction. It's not McLaughlin and not in TIME. McLaughlin devotes a footnote to the "datō" campaign, and makes it clear that this was private prayers at home. He wonders how that is supposed to work, and so do I. But clearly it's not what we said it was.

Also I'm looking for "cult of personality" and I don't see it on pp. 300-305 of McLaughlin. This was an interpolation by a WP editor. It does occur in the TIME story, as reported by an American journalist. So there is that. But I'm not comfortable having TIME in the article, because Wikipedia policy is not to link to unauthorized copies of copyrighted content. This has got so many problems, I say just throw it out. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Margin1522: Have you read the paragraph starting at the top of p. 302? --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Um, yes I have. The first half of that paragraph deals with the defections and the "dakkō" campaign. That is the topic of our paragraph, so I am going to rewrite our paragraph in line with McLaughlin and Daveler's edit, which you reverted. And I am going to delete the TIME cite and the "datō" business, which we discuss in a separate section.

If you think I've missed something, please say what it is. I've written enough today. And please stay away from the "Undo" button. If you have a problem with my edit, please discuss it here before reverting it. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow anything your saying. What other section is the "dato" business discussed in? Why are you trying to separate the two? McLaughlin seems to associate the two. Also note that the same paragraph describes a contingent leaving because they were "disenchanted with Soka Gakkai's increasingly Ikeda-centered ethos", which goes hand-in-hand with "cult of personality". I see nothing wrong in using the TIME piece as a refcite for that, but I've removed the link. Also, on p. 301 at the top there is a discussion of "personality cult" labeling, which I believe I already pointed out above.

It is you that should follow WP:BRD and present the proposed text here and gaining consensus before posting it to the article. No more warnings about misrepresentations, etc. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:07, 15:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

We mention it in 2 sections. I numbered them. The other one is No. 1. About why we shouldn't use TIME, here are some reasons:

1. Notes are supposed to enable verifiability, so we are supposed to avoid sources located behind paywalls.
2. The interview was reported by an American reporter in English and edited by an American editor in New York. Who knows what the subject said in Japanese?
3. If the only purpose of using TIME is to get the magic words "cult of personality" into the article again, that's not good enough to outweigh 1 and 2.

Yes, the magic words are mentioned by several sources, usually in the form of quotes from SG opponents. We don't have to take every possible opportunity to hammer that home. Let's go with what the source says in the passage in question. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The geisha incident

If I could also make a few comments on the geisha pararaph, this is also riddled with errors. The Japanese Wikipedia has a whole article on this (ja:偽造写真事件). What happened is this. A Shōshū priest attended Nikken's birrthday party and took a picture. Later he fell out with Shōshū, doctored the picture, and took it to SG. The woman in the picture was the wife of someone at the party, not a geisha. But SG printed the picture in 創価新報 (a different publication from Seikyō Shinbun), and said it was a geisha. Shōshū sued for libel and won, with damages of 3 million yen. SG appealed. The appeals court upheld the libel charge, but threw out the damages. So Seikyō Shinbun printed a story saying SG had won the case, because the damages were thrown out. They didn't mention the libel charges.
Note here that SG didn't doctor the picture. The priest did, and maybe SG believed what he said. That's what happens when you believe disgrunted former members of religious groups -- sometimes they make stuff up. Also SG never said that the libel charges were dismissed. They simply didn't mention it. So we have three mistakes in our article which should be fixed. As to where the mistakes came from, Yamada? This is what happens if you believe tabloid journalists. They leave stuff things out when it doesn't fit the story. So while the facts may not be exactly false, the way they write it and the stuff they imply is false. These writers are dangerous and every sentence needs to be checked against other sources.
So what should we do about this? I'm not suggesting the entire topic be thrown out. Fix it, and say that SG printed a libellous story about Nikken. Nikken tore down a 35-billion yen temple. Say both sides behaved deplorably and just leave it at that. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Gee, if only there was some kind of mainstream coverage of this libel case involving one of Japan's largest newspapers. Asahi Shimbun just received a full month of criticism and opinion articles just for retracting an article, and yet I see no coverage of the Seikyo libel case at other major newspapers.

The Akahata source for this has gone missing from the Harvard library for some reason, so I'm afraid I won't be able to pull the correct quote and details until next year.

However, Yamada was not making stuff up but in fact used a named source on the details of the trial:

奇妙な事例で言えば、創価学会が「全面勝訴」と報じる創価新報の写真偽造事件も同じだ。「これは日顕法主があたかも芸者遊びをしているように他の男性の参加者を写真から消し、その偽造写真を創価新報が大々的に報じた事件です。宗門側はこれで学会を訴、え、一審で宗門側の勝訴。しかし、二審では、奇妙なことに学会側の違法性を認定した上で〝名誉毀損をされたのは日顕法主であって日蓮正宗ではない″として、宗門の訴えを退けるのです。実は創価学会は、月刊ペン裁判の時は、池田本人を証人として出廷させないために、〝池田への名誉毀損は即学会への名誉毀損だ″、つまりトップ＝組織という主張をしていた。それが写真偽造事件では、全く逆に、個人と組織は違うという主張を行なったのです」（ジャーナリストの乙骨正生氏）

Shii (tock) 12:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, OK, but that is a rather nitpicking point. SG arguing that the organization lacks standing in this case while arguing the opposite in a different case. Sure, lawyers will spend forever arguing about standing. But there is nothing more boring to a lay audience than arguments about standing. We don't have time to go into every last detail about this case and how the Seikyō Shinbun reported it. In any case, this passage doesn't answer the three objections to our paragraph:

• We got the publication that carried the photo wrong.
• We say that SG doctored the photo, when that isn't clear.
• We elide the fact that Seikyō Shinbun did in fact have grounds for saying that SG won the appeal. If that's important, which it isn't.

IMO all we need to say about this story is that SG published a doctored photo of Nikken, got sued for libel, and lost. That is plenty. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough Shii (tock) 19:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sections that could be shorter

Looking at the bare links in the notes, a lot of them are to elementary schools. Instead of fixing all of these, I'm wondering if we really need to list all the schools. Can't we just say that SG has established many schools in Japan and abroad and then link to SG's own list? The Soka University of America description could be shorter.

The academic research section is fine to have, but do we need to spend a couple of sentences defining each type of research? Approaching it like that makes it sound like an essay on research methods. I think it might be better and shorter if we could incorporate some of that into the descriptions of the work being cited. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm kind of taking the current "academic research" section as a guideline for future sources to read; it probably shouldn't stay in the article longterm because it is more an essay about religious studies. Shii (tock) 01:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason why I list down all the school is because of all the negative information that is written by the editor in the introduction page. Even the history section is filled with negative articles. By listing down all the school that is establish in the world, this may let the reader understand why Soka Gakkai is very negative at the same time managed to establish the education institution in 8 countries ranging from kindergarten to university. If it is really a brainwashing cult, how come there are 7 countries (exclude Japan) that have Soka Education Institution. Why the 7 countries never ban these institution for trying to brainwash the children into becoming "quasi-fascist", "fascist", "militant", "overzealous", "manipulationist" and "authoritarian".

Another thing, there are reason why I added in the article with the links. The previous editors had the habit of deleting those article that do not have any links at all. Hence the long list of note as some editors like to delete those that do not have note at all. Kelvintjy (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There are Wahabi schools in many non-Islamic countries. Why are they allowed to spread their violent brand of Islam? Politics and money.2602:306:CC5C:DB99:6C76:B447:A579:6814 (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Mark Rogow 10/16/2014

Thanks, Kelvin, I understand why you did this and appreciate the work that went into it. But this list is never going to be complete, and I think that if we could make the same point in just a few sentences, it would improve the article.

You see, everyone? This is why this article is so hard to improve. It's averaging about 400 views a day and I think it ought to be better, and could be. But the presence of this offensive language is making it very difficult. I'm planning to make one last proposal to get "brainwashing cult" out of the lead, and to rewrite the section where it is mentioned, if it's mentioned at all, to make it clear that this is by no means the opinion of any of our sources.

If it fails again, then we will have to go to dispute resolution. I've never done this, but I understand that the editors on both sides of the dispute have to state their positions. If it comes to that, I hope the editors involved will be willing to step up and do that. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually see the discussion on this page as remarkably cool and I appreciate the work of everyone who's put in an edit or opinion over the past few months. Right now we have a kind of critical mass of information and the article is too long. But there is enough good prose and well-sourced information to provide for a GA.

That being said, Kelvin's list of schools can be easily transformed into paragraph form without reducing the quality of content offered. Shii (tock) 19:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Lewis isn't the only source that describes SG with respect to brainwashing, as the Japanese text fro Furukawa and Yanatori show, for example. The preoccupation with not having any negative material in the article is in error.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Margin, the current “brainwashing cult” sentence in the intro is extremely irresponsible. I’m happy to participate in any dispute resolution.

I know earlier some individuals were opposed to changing the intro based on the wiki guideline that the lead should be a summary of information in the article. I’m sorry, until there is a “brainwashing cult” section in the article, we should take it out of the lead.Lionpride82 (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Brian Victoria and other dubious sources

I think that in an article as long as the SG entry, with so many people editing, there will be, as a matter of course, a shortcut taken now and then, a source misinterpreted or misquoted. One might also expect that whatever mistakes there are, they would be tone neutral - not a preponderance of erring on the side of making the subject look bad (or good). But the SG entry is riddled with questionable and misleading source citations. For instance:

In an article entitled "Brian Victoria and the Question of Scholarship", (in The Eastern Buddhist 41/2), Kemmyo Taira Sato, with Thomsa Kirchner responds to Brian Victoria in what is evidently part of an ongoing written discussion on Victoria's views of Japanese Buddhists during the war.

Right away Sato notes that, after their discussion, Victoria changed some of his views about TE Suzuki - meaning, one presumes, those opinions were in error. In fact, he changed from portraying Suzuki as an "active supporter" of the war, to acknowledging that he "refused to engage" in promoting the war. Quite and error! Victoria evidently made further attacks on Suzuki.'s character, however, and Sato uses this essay to "point out questionable arguments and techniques Victoria used in his critique." Sato is especially critical of Victoria's habit - I say "habit" because Sato mentions that he had heard about this from a number of readers (p140) -- of misusing, misquoting, and misrepresenting sources and what they say. Sato gives a number of examples.

In his review of Victoria's work, Metraux (http://www.globalbuddhism.org/5/metraux04.htm) finds it necessary to include an entire section entitled "Victoria's Flawed Portrayal of Makiguchi Tsunesaburo". He says "Two other scholars, Dayle M. Bethel and Koichi Miyata (Bethel 2003, Miyata 2002), have already published articles attacking Victoria's conclusions. They correctly note that Victoria has quoted Makiguchi out of context and through their own examination of the texts that Victoria uses to draw his conclusions, they have skillfully provided longer versions of Makiguchi's quotes which when seen in context tend to negate Victoria's assertions."

Koichi Miyata concludes his long critique of Victoria with this: "I have responded to the views of Brian Victoria on four fronts. I can only imagine that in order to prove Tsunesaburo Makiguchi cooperated with the war effort, Victoria has shaped his arguments to fit his pre-established conclusion, willfully quoting only those passages of Makiguchi's writings that would seem to support it. I cannot imagine he studied all ten volumes of Makiguchi's writings in Japanese to reach this conclusion. While there is ample room for the frank exchange of academic views, including highly critical ones, it is important that a tendentious agenda, clothed in the guise of academic research, not stand challenged."

It is obvious that Brian Victoria manipulates his data, twisting it to support what are evidently his pre-conceived - conclusions. At least four noted academics have condemned him for it. He should not be used a a source.--Daveler16 (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the following remarks from Makiuchi's 'Corroborate Records of Life based on the Philosophy of Value of the Supreme Goodness published on August l0th,1942, under the heading, "The Instruction Manual Summarizing the Experiments and Testimonials of Life based on the Philosophy of Value of the Supreme Goodness," taken out of context? If so, how?

"'Sacrifice your own skin to slash the opponent's flesh. Surrender your own flesh to saw off the opponent's bone.' With their faithful implementation of this well-known Japanese fencing (kendo) strategy into actual practice during the war, the Japanese military is able to achieve her glorious, ever-victorious invincibility in the Sino-Japan conflict and in the Pacific war, and thus, easing the minds of the Japa- nese people. This [strategy of sacrifice] should be held as an ideal lifestyle for those remaining on the home front and should be applied in every aspect of our daily life." 2602:306:CD27:DC29:8D15:5C52:5374:5C4A (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Mark Rogow 26 September 2014

I think Victoria is a valid source. He seems to be on much firmer ground when talking about Zen during the war, but he should be allowed. I would suggest the place to do that is the article on Makiuchi, where both sides of this question could be given a fair treatment. BTW, Mark, you should consider registering a user name. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for the benefits. One benefit is that you would be able to edit this article, which is semi-protected. --Margin1522 (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I mean that if we have a good, full treatment in the Makiuchi article, then we can build on that in this article. Debating whether Victoria should be allowed when counterarguments exist just makes everything more complicated. We can't really settle it here. --Margin1522 (talk) 05:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I know Victoria is an ideologue but I think the instances we are using him are okay here. I am seeing two uncontroversial claims (Komeito supported the 2014 changes to the constitution; Makiguchi was a religious man, not a politician) and two direct quotations. Perhaps the quote beginning, "In a 1933 publication by this group, Makiguchi explained one of his educational principles" is WP:UNDUE, but otherwise I don't see what needs to be changed. Shii (tock) 14:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've created an article on Brian Victoria. Right now it is mainly just a list of his own books and articles, with a link back to the Zen at War article. Hopefully the new article could be a place to discuss some of the criticisms mentioned above, along with his contributions in drawing attention to the connection with militarism, which previously had been neglected. The specific question of his view of Makiguchi I still think should be discussed in the Makiguchi article. Anyway, if we had a general discussion at the new Victoria article then we could just wikilink his name, without having to explain it all here. --Margin1522 (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The Prebish-Tanaka edited book, The Faces of Buddhism in America, does not address issues between the SG and priesthood on pp. 285-286. Nor does the citation name the actual author. Finally, nowhere in the book are the issues prioritized. So I'm deleting the sentence it is used to support. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

In the lede and "Public perception" section, corrected title of paper by Lewis: it is not "Legitimatizing religion", but "Scholarship and De-legitimatizing Religion". Also expanded quote before the elision as it's an important continuation of the point Lewis makes. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not the title of the book.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's the name of the article. I cleaned it up so the name of the book is still there, but so is the article name.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I amended the 2nd paragraph in the "Repression during the war" section, because the citations were skewed. Nowhere on pp 98 or 108 of Makiguchi the Value Creator does Bethel say anything about someone being told his daughter had died as punishment for not joining the SG. Metraux's essay on the Rissho Ankoku Ron doesn't have a page number cited (reason enough, I think), but I've read the article and can't find a reference to the incident there either. That leaves Ramseyer, who describes the incident, but does not say it led to the arrests of Makiguchi and Toda - as an editor had implied. I included in the body of the article Ramseyer's exact words. I also added his exact words to the end of the paragraph, where we are discussing the Japanese government's commitment to religious freedom.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for your trouble, Daveler16. I was the one who originally added the citation to Ramseyer, but this was in order to appease Safwan back in January 2013. Safwan didn't understand Japanese and was angry with me doing research for the article. But the Saki and Oguchi source, which was written by two religious scholars, does state that there was a causal link between the events. I don't know how these false references sprang up next to Ramseyer. Shii (tock) 03:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.worldcat.org/title/soka-gakkai-sono-shiso-to-kodo/oclc/123356597 It's at Yenching... I can go pull the quote next time I'm there Shii (tock) 03:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I am befuddled to report that I am at the library now and this book has also gone missing. The second missing book in as many weeks. This is a shame, because the details of Makiguchi's trial are rarely reported by outside sources. Shii (tock) 18:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In the Makiguchi section, the citation for Makiguchi's statment about the glories of the emperor has no page number. Please supply one, or this statement will be gone. --Daveler16 (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Any further POV questions?

Since May there have been a lot of Gakkai members (or friends of Gakkai members) editing this page, which had a lot of negative material added to it from questionable sources. It is now mid-October and there has been a lot of editing done. I would like to hear from everyone what they think remains to be done before the article is sufficiently NPOV. I don't know if I will continue editing in the future but it would be good to establish a version of the article that is considered NPOV by both sides. Shii (tock) 21:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is what the Soka Gakkai teaches about the DaiGohonzon [For Daveler]: http://www.gakkaionline.net/Dai-Gohonzon/index.html 2602:306:CC5C:DB99:6C76:B447:A579:6814 (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Mark Rogow 10/16/2014

As you are probably aware (and maybe tired of hearing) I think it would be most helpful if the article were more about the Soka Gakkai, and less about what Nichiren Shoshu thinks about the SG. The "Separation section is absolutely necessary,and differences could be delineated there; but I think including the words "Nichiren Shoshu" or "the priesthood" in the sections about SG teachings are nothing but judgements, and aren't really about the Soka Gakkai. Much progress has been made in ths regard, but I think still more can be made. Shi, I hope you're not leaving us VERY soon?--Daveler16 (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I also think the article is better than it used to be, and that we can start thinking about removing the neutrality tag. The obvious thing that still needs to be done is the words that some readers find offensive, especially "brainwashing" and "cult". There is no difference between "Ikeda-centric ethos" and "cult of personality", except that one is an insult and one isn't. Not that we can't mention this language, but we need to make it clear that this is language used by SG's enemies, whatever their agenda may be, and that it isn't endorsed one way or the other by Wikipedia. That in itself will make it less offensive and less likely to trigger allergic reactions. (Sorry I've been busy with other things and still haven't gotten to suggesting a rewrite. I still want to do that.) – Margin1522 (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, great points so far. I agree that the "cult of personality" label is something that needs to be clearly stated as an antagonistic criticism and not as the neutral perspective of NGOs and scholars. I do think something like it (maybe that "gnostic-manipulationist" thing) should stay in the article because it is a concern widely held by the Japanese public, but it shouldn't be a claim Wikipedia is making.

One way to address Daveler's concern could be to move the "history" section lower in the article, which might coincide with a larger rewrite. Up until the rewrite began I understood SG to be the result of a fierce split with NS. I now understand that post-1991, SGI thinks of its history primarily in terms of its three leaders, and its relationship with NS is something that is in the background and not as important to self-presentation (since SG was always keeping the faith when NS supposedly lost it). Accordingly, the messy "beliefs & practices" section should be rewritten to explain why people come to SG and the message it gives to its members. For example, here's a really dumb question: the five concepts on this page seem to be key to SG's social message, but none of them are on this Wikipedia page. Has anyone seen a source out there that explains this? It would be way better to start the article with this religious message than with the history of the group.

Logistically, I will be on vacation starting in mid-November and won't be editing Wikipedia then, so I don't think I could participate in a rewrite unless if there was significantly more collaboration here over the next month. The article is now a rather large project that seems to be at the very limits of what is possible for volunteer editors. Shii (tock) 19:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's a point. Maybe we could explain something like, why is Herbie Hancock a member? Moving the history section is an option. It's fine if it's still on centered on controversy, there was a lot of controversy. And I think it's OK if it takes time. We have lots of time. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Shii, the reason why "The five concepts" is not explain in this Wikipedia page is that it is from a primary source. Right now there is no secondary source of "the five concepts". You want us to only put in secondary source as you all had said that primary source is an "Advertising" source as said by most editor who even used the BOLD method to delete the articles. So anything that is from the primary source or those without source are deleted from this Wikipedia page. Even it is the key to SGI's social message, it will be deleted as it is from the primary source. Kelvintjy (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to be so petty about this. First, I have already said, simply elaborating Wikipedia policy, that SGI sources are acceptable for self-description of religious views. They are not acceptable to define the narrative of SGI's history; we do not allow any religious group to determine history.

Secondly, BrandenburgG has already given us like three dozen academic publications, so I was hoping the five concepts were mentioned in one of them. Shii (tock) 15:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Shi: I have been slow, but I am working on the Beliefs and Practices section. While doing so, I had a thought similar to yours (but for a different reason) that Beliefs and Practices should be placed before History. My rationale is that, while there may be academics and historians who use Wikipedia, most visitors are probably laymen who have heard about SG one way or another, and want to know what it teaches as their primary interest. Moving that section up would make it easier for them. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That would not be encyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not intended to serve the aims of proselytizing for religious organizations. Furthermore, the beliefs and practices have developed over time.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's not be overly historicist. If the major question people ask about SGI members is "what do they believe today?" then the answers to that should reasonably come first. Shii (tock) 23:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think being encyclopedic contradicts "knowing your audience". Here is a good example, where "doctrine" is the first thing after "Overview", and there isn't a History section at all.

Another thing comes to mind, Shi: citations that are incomplete, or are interpreted by an editor, or don't say what they are alleged to say. A few mistakes in this regard is understandable; perhaps some of the 215 footnotes are superfluous? A question: if a source is dubious, but contains the quote or statement it is being used to support; and there are academic papers questioning the author's scholarship or contradicting the statment - can those be placed in the article? I'm thinking specifically of Mr. Victoria and his work on Makiguchi. His research in general has been questioned, and his research on Makiguchi specifically has been chalenged. Can this be mentioned in the section on Makiguchi? Thanks.--Daveler16 (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

These quotations found in Victoria are direct quotations of SG leaders. Now, if you can find a direct refutation of the point he is making in another source, we should simply remove the material rather than discussing a controversy. I agree Victoria is frequently factually wrong. But I didn't see refutations of these specific quotations he made. Shii (tock) 23:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay - I'm sure there are other of Makiguchi's statements available. ....

(Hope you have a great vacation.. I thought you meant you were leaving permanently, but I assume, then, you'll be back?)--Daveler16 (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I may or may not be back, it depends on how busy I am at my next job. Shii (tock) 19:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Shi - is that Sokanet link you suggested the 5 guidelines - faith for harmonious family, faith for surmounting obstacles, etc.? --Daveler16 (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, do you have an English source? SGI publication is OK. Shii (tock) 17:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think so. Probably on the SG website. Or I'll find them in the magazine.--Daveler16 (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Josei Toda

I have been working on revising the Josei Toda page. I think it is far superior to the antecedent article. I would like to remove the qualifications that precede the article concerning the lack of appropriate citations. I would also like to embed a "see main article" citation at the top of the Josei Toda section of the SG article.

Before taking these actions I would like to kindly request your feedback.

Thank you, BrandenburgG (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You have done well, and I like your use of quotations in your citations. However, please take note that some of your citations have caused errors [this was fixed by a bot] you need to follow a more standard format. I recommend the one described here, which will let you keep the quotations: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Short_citations. Simply put the books you used after the footnotes section, rather than putting them inside footnotes.

I agree that the new Josei Toda article deserves to be prominently linked from this one, but the section we have here is about the Gakkai under Toda's leadership and not about Toda as an individual, so I don't think we should rewrite it. Shii (tock) 21:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Shii, that the books cited should be listed in their own section, and the broken named references need to be fixed. You might want to look into the {{sfn}} template. Or even without that, when you list the books in their own section, you can define the ref names there. I have some other things to take care of today, but maybe later I can do some to show how that would work. My impression right now is that it goes a bit overboard on the quotes in the footnotes. But that can always be reviewed later. As for the cleanup template at the top of the article, anyone can remove that. If you feel it has enough cites now (it sure looks that way), you can go ahead and remove it yourself. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Shii and @Margin1522, thank you for your comments and editorial help. I was on vacation for a bit but just returned and got to work. I think I have the broken links all fixed now. I am still not clear about what you mean about putting the books after the footnotes section. I will look at other articles to understand better. Also will study up on {{sfn}}. Thanks again. BrandenburgG (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Photo of Gohonzon

Please remove the photo of the Gohonzon that is on this page because it is inappropriate and sacrilegious to to copy a Gohonzon in anyway, either by photo or handwriting. Please respect the religious practices of members of this group and remove the photo. 168.156.80.141 (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Chris

Not done: see WP:NOTCENSORED Cannolis (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I sympathize with your request and I am glad that your point of view is on record. There is a similar discussion about the use of images of the Prophet Muhammed in the article on Islam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ

BrandenburgG (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Well if the photo is available on Commons so be it. And if it is taken out I will supply another one.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

As an SGI member myself I understand this and really wish it could be removed. However, my personal feelings on this (and those of other members too) don't come into it. The Wikipedia policy is clear about this and it stands, so there are no grounds for it being removed, so please stop trying to have it removed. This issue keeps popping up over and over again and it doesn't add ANY value to the discussion and does not help to improve the articel in ANY way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.87.70.50 (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Josei Toda Section

I am hoping we can take a fresh look at the Josei Toda subsection of the article. The subsection purports to describe the SG's development under Toda's leadership. I think the subsection understates his influence and doesn't provide insights into why and how he was able to transform a small and broken organization into a major phenomenon that has withstood the test of time. The only explanation it gives for the movement's growth is aggressive "forced conversion." I think there are multiple alternative explanations that should be offered to readers.

The SG article is already quite long and I hesitate to add more material especially when there is already a lengthy article (Josei Toda on him. But as it stands now, it just doesn't convey a balanced and insightful picture to readers. BrandenburgG (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2014

Removal of photo of Gohonzon. This image is an object of respect and devotion and should not be posted casually as a reference. I understand that the idea is to be npov so to go beyond whether the image is objectionable to SGI members having it posted symbolicly lacks foundation as posting the image does not represent what the Soka Gakkai is as an organization. That is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact. It does not add any value to the discussion of SG and its removal would relieve continuous contentions so that further editing can focus on more valuable additions. Another suggestion would be to replace the image with a diagram if the Gohonzon which is more infirmative, factual and npov j Trobinson708 (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

See above section. Stickee (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: User updated their post after my 05:42 comment. Stickee (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There are pictures of Gohonzon on the Shoshu and Shu WP entries, too. It is disrespectful - and, I think, unnecessary -- but I don't think it's going to change.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The picture is in accordance with English Wikipedia's queer philosophy that important images relevant to the subject must be displayed, even if those whose hearts are close to the subject would rather choose different images. If you look at, e.g. the Arabic Wikipedia article on Muhammad, they have a slightly different philosophy. But this being English WP we must abide by their philosophy. Shii (tock) 20:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Beliefs and practices again

I added a sentence to the first paragraph to clarify the phrase "personal gain". --Daveler16 (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Added a sub-section on "Faith Practice and Study", I think incorporating stuff from other sections. Also amended the sections on "Life Force" and "Gohonzon". I think a few of the othewr subsections of "Beliefs and Practices" are not necessary, or perhaps belong in other parts of the entry. I think a few of the other subsections can also be improved, but it may be a while before I have the time. --Daveler16 (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Daveler. Very too bad that primary sources, such as the writings of Daisaku Ikeda, can not be used to document "variable beliefs": Religion? Philosophy? Attachment? Non-Attachment? Shakyamuni is the Original Eternal Buddha? Nichiren is the Original Eternal Buddha? Namu Myoho renge kyo is the Original Eternal Buddha? DaiGohonzon central? Gohonzon within central? The Lotus Sutra has lost its power in Mappo? The wisdom of the Lotus Sutra? Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism? Soka Gakkai Buddhism? Faith is first and foremost? Just chant and you can believe in anything? Five recitations of the Sutra in the morning and three at night? Two recitations of the Sutra morning and night? Hiki [Namu Daimoku]? Only Nam Daimoku? Nikken Gohonzon good? Nikken Gohonzon bad? Need I go on? 2602:306:CC5C:D7C9:B53D:426F:2A9:B6BF (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Mark Rogow 10/27/14

Actually, according to Shi, and to every other religious WP entry I've looked at - yes, you can use primary sources in the matter of what the religion believes. And I believe our concern here is what SG believes; there are (I think)other forums for arguing about the validity of those beliefs, but that's not what we're doing here. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What Mr. Rogow is suggesting is actually WP:SYNTH though. I think it would indeed be funny to compare passages like "Nichiren is the Original Eternal Buddha? Namu My the late 90s and can't oho renge kyo is the Original Eternal Buddha?", but that belongs on something like RationalWiki, and it's not what Wikipedia is for. SG is a large, international organization, and we need to summarize their teachings neutrally. Shii (tock) 02:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added to the Lotus Sutra section, and changed the "Chanting Daimoku" section - added a lot, and got rid of reference to "namu" as no one in SG pronounces it that way. Also, the "chanting for destruction" reference is covered in the Separation from Priesthood section; since SG doesn't actually teach such a thing, it shouldn't be in "Beliefs and Practices". While I understand that at one time an independent author said this, and there are no academic studies that list all the things SG does not believe, I've searched a lot of SG books and periodicals published since the late 90s and can't find an injunction to "chant in groups for the destruction of enemies".

Two more things: I don't think the "Views on Priesthood" subsection is necessary, since there are 11 paragraphs on this subject earleier in the entry. And, I wish to move the "Beluefs and Practices" section to the top of the entry, as we discussed earlier.--Daveler16 (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Re-arranged "Mentor Disciple". Didn't delete or cha ge any wording. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved B&P up. I think it improves the article from the POV of the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveler16 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)