![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I think this has been controversial, but I am removing the quote "We must make our children thoroughly understand that loyal service to their sovereign is synonymous with love of country." and replacing it with a new description of Makiguchi's educational theories. He may well have said this. But this is the kind of thing that you had to say in prewar Japan if you wanted to teach. It's hardly accurate to single out this one quote. As we note ourselves later in the article, he died in prison for insisting that the Emperor was human. -- Margin1522 ( talk) 15:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, SG refused to install the talisman according to State Shinto that was about it – SG never ever was a resistance movement – the conflicts were on religious but not political grounds. And as I explained earlier Makiguchi was indeed involved with Kokuchūkai. As we look at the organisation’s history one should also quote the founders thoughts. That they may have changed over the years – fine. But no brushing under the carpet please! How SGI views those early years, how it portrays itself can by all means be mentioned – but white washing is a no go and deleting quotes that some may find uncomfortable is not on. Simple as that. And again one quote describes SGI’s split from Nichiren Shoshu as a move of democratisation – fine so it may be, but as a reader I would like to see evidence of SGI being an organisation with democratic structures. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 18:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The translation I suggested also is problematic because it over-defines "value", but using value by itself sounds awkward, and "association" might be better than society. Here is a multi-page list of hits from an online dictionary for 学会.The Soka Gakkai (literally, "Society for the Creation of Value")
The following quote is placed quite prominently within the “Separation from the Shōshū priesthood” section: “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 Shōshū and the lay-based, globalized SGI". Could anyone provide, especially secondary tertiary, sources which underlines the fact that such a democratisation process took and takes place within SGI? The only process I was aware of within SGI-UK was crushed.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 18:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Personally I am not do bothered about the quote per se but rather the claim that it makes. Is SGI a democratically structured organisation or not? I guess it is not on that basis I find that quote should be deleted as it would be a POV.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 20:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Even though I did mention it earlier on I would like to highlight the following guideline : WP:SOC-- Catflap08 ( talk) 22:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC) I am really thinking of filing a complaint as I feel that there is some sock puppetry going on in here.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 21:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Some of current editors of this article seem to misunderstand the guideline for citing Sources. Go to: WP:PSTS, and read: “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources”. Apparently, the wording of this clear guideline does not completely (or utterly) exclude Primary Sources. A PSource can refer to a neutral fact. On the other hand it is reasonable to reject a PS if its essence is propaganda; this is fair because Wikipedia does not do PR for organizations.
However, some of WP Administrative editors seem to misunderstand what PR is. A citation of Self-praise is one thing – and citing impartial verifiable facts is completely another. To explain: there is a difference between a PS saying : “SGI is working for world peace”, an apparent self-judgement by SGI, and between “SGI president published proposals for peace”, or “ SGI held meetings with Gorbachev”, etc… which describe Facts. Note that the noise made about Noriega in the article uses an undeniable Fact (but the conclusion of making a “link” a ridiculous POV). Discerning Facts from POV is important. Facts that impartially reveal SGI activities in meeting Castro, Noriega, Mandela, Kissinger etc…belong to the same category – and hence should be equally mentioned even by PS - as these Facts are shared with world figures. Facts are not fabricated POVs. And any reasonable person would accept that Facts are different from PR, such as internal statement by SGI about itself (and which would have been otherwise a PR).
Neutral editing should refer to SGI link with Goethe Institute, Martin Luther King Jr chapel …etc… in the very same way other Facts should be presented with honesty and without fear from the truth. Wikipedia guidelines do not reject a reliable and traceable PS (SGI Quarter for example detailing a meeting between SGI and Simon Wisenthal Centre) – because this is a mere Fact describing a real SGI shared activity. Some editors, however, do not agree because they do not understand WP guidelines (and which does not consider PS as utterly unacceptable – as these editors mistakenly think).
This means that PS can be used if presented Facts relate to events which are shared with world institutions. The idea that PS are absolutely unacceptable in WP is simply incorrect. Nevertheless, with the current misunderstanding of Administrative editors of the margin of using PS – there seem to be no other way than to present this matter to the opinion of the cultural institutions (whose shared activities with SGI is rejected by WP Admin Editors).
Engaging cultural establishments, universities, human rights institutions in the subject of editing citing facts about these establishments and cultural institutions - is beneficial for neutral editing, and would protect Wikipedia from bias. Yes, there is a solution to the problem of WP editors misunderstanding WP guidelines, which is found in the following post on the Necessity to Help Wikipedia’s neutrality. Regards to all. SafwanZabalawi ( talk) 07:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Well the thing on the medal issue was that Mr.Ikeda never ever was a recipient of the Goethe Medal issued by the Goethe-Institut which next to medals like the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany is one of the highest merits on can receive in the FRG. He presumably got a recognition of some sort by the Goethe-Gesellschaft which is far less known and prestigious. An observation that is interesting is that Mr. Ikeda received a whole lot of recognitions by either universities that depend most on external financing or/and countries which are not known to have true democratic structures (i.e. China). -- Catflap08 ( talk) 20:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Shi: Need some clarification. We have been discussing a new intro for quite some time, and last week you seemed to be accepting the one I proposed, to wit: "I think this is mostly good, and I'll see if we can try to replace the current lead." I wasn't sure if you would change it or if I should, so I waited almost a week, looked up what I could find about "semi-protected" status, and got the impression that I could do the edit. So the other night - nearly a week after your last comment - decided to go ahead and post it. Immediately the previous has been restored, so, thinking I had made a mistake, I tried again. My cjhange was removed again, so I checked View History. The first cancellation,apparently, was by someone named NeilN; he is a "master editor", but I can't figure out how to communicate directly with him. The second change was restored by you, with the comment "please continue to discuss these edits on the talk page". So my questions are: For how long must we discuss it? And with whom? Besides you and me, in over a week only one other person has commented and, judging from his or her previous posts, that person is a member of a rival sect (please correct me if I'm wrong, Ubikwit). When can the change be made?
Related: I made a mnor edit in a the History section, and I see that is gone too. I changed "... Nichiren Shoshu, by that time a small and obscure Nichiren Buddhist sect" to "AT that time...", since "by" gives the impression it had been larger and dwindled, so I think "at" is more accurate (and, coincidentally, more complimentary to Nichiren Shoshu).
I want to make changes that are positive, consistent with Wikipedia policy, and that will stick, so if you could clarify what the situation is in this particular case, I would appreciate it. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 19:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is outrageous. I can't make changes we discussed, but Ubikwit gets to go in and eliminate "puffery" - his very use of that word ought to be a tip off to his antagonism towards the SG - and make the intro even MORE critical - with no discussion? Why is that?-- Daveler16 ( talk) 05:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, more than one person has now suggested that, before the intro be changed, we go through the entire entry and make changes. I can see how that makes sense - then the intro can be fitted to the changes, is that the idea-- Daveler16 ( talk) 15:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)?
NeilN: It is not my intention to get into a "I edit-someone reverts-they edit-I revert" fight. The whole thing needs a re-write,, as it is in fact a "Criticism of the SG" page and in no way describes what the Soka Gakkai is. I would like this to be more like the Nichiren Shoshu entry, which has not a word about the sect's past history of losing the property of its head temple, or changing its prayers to placate the militarist government, or any other dirt; the first 11 (of 17) footnotes on it's entry go to Nichiren Shoshu primary sources (except one to a dictionary), and that's fine with me - it allows to entry to be about what Nichiren Shoshu is and teaches - not what it's critics hate about it or think it should teach. I thought I would start at the top and work down, but there seems to be a consensus that the body of the entry be changed before to intro can be changed - am I correct? -- Daveler16 ( talk) 19:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Having had some time, Shi, I must revisit something: when I posted a new intro here as a proposal, you said it seemed pretty good and could possibly be used. After I actually posted it, the excuse for taking it down seems to be: it doesn't reflect the rest of the entry. I'm wondering why that wasn't mentioned earlier, when we were discussing it as a proposal? --
Daveler16 (
talk)
22:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I am removing the words “fascist” and “quasi fascist” from the lead’s second paragraph as well as the source [1] from which these labels are being drawn. The source is a fake reference as per [[ WP:FAKE] (“A fictitious reference is a source that is listed within an article that an editor has added to support specific text within an article, or to support a claim of notability for the article's topic, while in reality that source does not exist, has nothing to do with the article and/or the information that the source is supposed to support, or otherwise does not support the content.”) Here is the complete quote in the Aruga article this label of "fascism" is probably pulled from: “On the one hand, this ‘reformist stance’ [of the Soka Gakkai] had a refreshing appeal to those citizens who were dissatisfied with the existing order [of post-war Japanese society]. On the other hand, when this image was combined with an exclusivist religious nature, a large number of people sensed a kind of fascism in the Soka Gakkai. However, when one takes into account the uniquely Japanese traits of the Soka Gakkai, one can see that there was never really a threat that it would move toward fascism” (p. 104). So the cited "asource" actually says the SG is NOT fascist. Nor is there any citation of “fascism” in the index of Machaceck/Wilson. Therefore, I am purging the second paragraph of this source as well as the references to “fascism” and “quasi-fascism” which were allegedly drawn from this source. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 01:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Shii and Ubikwit, thank you for your support. Just a cursory exam leads me to believe that dibious sources are peppered throughout the entire entry. But for now, I'll concentrate on the intro.
I point to the violation of WP:FAKE in source #2, Seager’s Encountering the Dharma [2]. It appears that this source was used to justify the words “militant” and “overzealous” in the second paragraph. The two page numbers (69 and 207) listed for this reference are bogus. The contents of both pages actually contest the allegations of “militant” and “overzealous.” On page 69 Seager critiques an 1963 article in Look Magazine about the Soka Gakkai and then a 1965 NY Times Magazine article. First of all--in a lead for an article designed for 2014 readers--why do third-hand sources written when JFK and LBJ were presidents deserve mention? I wouldn’t be so concerned if they were buried in the Josei Toda section--but in the intro?
Secondly, Seager vehemently denies the virulent claims of the Look and Times sources. Look at how clearly he makes his point: “Much of the [Look] article consists of testimonies by Gakkai rivals and old-line scholars, who together characterized the movement as superficial, pathologically intolerant, and highly materialistic. Makiguchi is not principled but ‘pugnacious ‘; strong convictions are ‘fanatical egotism.’ Daimoku is described as a ‘hypnotic drone’ said to mean ‘I am the Supreme Power.’ The main point to be taken--that neither the Japanese nor Ikeda are entirely to be trusted--is made clear in the quote framing the article: ‘Japanese people either want to be a leader or want to be led. Soka Gakkai guarantees fulfillment for both the shepherd and the sheep…or a Hitler and the hordes.'” (p69). The 1965 Times article, according to Seager, examines “the political implications that this [movement] may have on American policy,” ones “potentially more important than the anti-Western neutralism propagated by the saffron-robed monks of South Vietnam.” (With the advantage of fifty years of hindsight I think we can all agree that the Times worried needlessly on this matter.) Seager continues: “The Times intelligently handled Makiguchi, the Gakkai’s ability to address the malaise of the postwar years, and its ongoing electoral successes. It noted political bywords then current in the movement such as ‘neo-socialism,’ ‘a third culture’ neither capitalist nor socialist, ‘global nationalism,’ and ‘Buddhist democracy.’” The Times article did describe the Gakkai as a “militant society” of lay Buddhists whose most overzealous members have occasionally become violent,” but, according to Seager it “also dismissed charges that the Gakkai was fascist or even right wing.” Its main concern, Seager notes, was that further advance of the Komei Party might “favor a more independent and neutralist course for the United States’ principal ally in the Far East.”
Page 207 uses the words "militant" and “overzealous”, but here is the context: "By and large, the Gakkai's reputation as an overzealous, militant movement, deserved or not, is a thing of the past, although now and again the old skewed view of both it and Ikeda surfaces." This is no justification for using the words “overzealous” and “militant.”
So I've removed that source and the words it was used to validate, and replaced them with the phrase “at the center of controversies.” To this the Seager article can be cited, “Since its founding in the 1930s, the Soka Gakkai has repeatedly found itself at the center of controversies” (p. xii). And I've inserted that citation. I think there might be a place for 50 year old sources (r older), but certianly not in the intro. Don't you think? -- Daveler16 ( talk) 02:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I am glad to see that someone removed the term “manipulationist” from this article. I am quite sure that 99.9% of WP readers would look at this term in the article and say, “Oh my, the Soka Gakkai must be well-known for manipulating its members or the public.”
People familiar with field of sociology and religion would know otherwise. “Manipulationist” is a word coined by Bryan R. Wilson, a pioneer scholar in the study of newly emerging religions and how religious sects transform to denominations. After resarching many such groups he created a typology of sects and manipulationist was one of his seven categories. "Manipulationist" has become the common abbreviated reference to Wilson’s original term “gnostic-manipulationist.”
Actually manipulationist is a highly evolved form o So..f sects. It recognizes society as is rather than asking followers to deny, withdraw, or focus primarily on a utopian vision. It looks as salvation not as something private or other-worldly; rather salvation is seen as something possible in the current times if people find a means to overcome existing evil. Members of manipulationist sects tend to seek means and techniques to deal with their problems and in so doing they can become agents of social change.
Thus, Wilson’s term has no association with “being manipulated” or “manipulation.” It is wrong to associate the work of Bryan Wilson with criticism of the Soka Gakkai. I believe that both Wallis and Glock and Bellah were all operating from the Wilson framework. FetullahFan ( talk) 11:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Here it says "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." So now I'm removing the sources for Wallis, Glock and Kitigawa. Wallis's book is about Scientology, not the Soka Gakkai. Glock is writing about Satanism, and mentions the words "Soka Gakkai" only in passing. Kitigawa's book was not written in 1968, and only published in paperback in 1990 - with no changes, according to the author himself in the preface to the 1990 edition; so old a book is a questionable source in any case, but I think especially in the intro.-- Daveler16 ( talk) 21:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I must disagree with Ubikwit's description of the Kitagawa source as worthy for the lead.
[3] The reliability of this source--for the lad--must be questioned because it is almost 50 years old. The citation which lists 1990 as the publishing date is misleading. As is, readers would see it as relatively contemporary source but in reality this book was originally printed in 1966—back when LBJ was president. It was reprinted in 1990 as a paperback, without revisions as per the author in the Preface to the Paperback Edition:
“I must admit that I have mixed feelings at the prospect of having a paperback edition of Religion in Japanese History. On the one hand, I am naturally delighted to learn that the volume has met, at least to a certain extent, the needs of readers since its publication. On the other hand, I know only too well that a variety of illuminating new studies on various phases of Japanese religion have appeared over the past two decades, even though a thorough revision of the contents of this volume in light of these new studies is not a feasible option at this time. Thus, the paperback edition is substantially the same as the hardcover volume, except of course for the addition of a very brief account to update it on recent developments.”
Perhaps the Kitagawa source could be used in the Josei Toda section to chronicle the reactions of Western scholars to the emerging Soka Gakkai movement. I don’t think so, however. Kitagawa’s lens was tainted by his times: rocked with Cold War mentality, labor unrest, and crude viewpoints about Civil Rights. A sample of his bias can be seen in his reporting of the Yubari Coal Miners incident of 1957 in which the coal miners union attempted to coerce Soka Gakkai members to renounce their faith because it could seemingly interfere with a perceived need to present a solid front. Today such a stance would be seen as an egregious violation of conscience. Kitagawa holds, however: “It is understandable, however, that the Japanese Federation of Coal Miners in its annual conference in 1957 made the following declaration: “Unless some action is taken against the new religions, they will increasingly disrupt the unity of the workers and play into the hands of management” (300).
No, I think the Kitagawa source should be ruled out for this article's lead. Again, I would not object to it somewhere else in the article.
After a long absence, BrandenburgG ( talk) 22:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Ubikwit, it's not merely that it's old; but that it's old and in the intro. Yes, maybe it could be used in another section. But just the part you linked to says that SG is part of Nichiren Shoshu (no longer true); that the SG does not recognize Shakyamuni as Buddha (I think it's view is more nuanced than that simple statement now), and mistranslates (in the text, though not in the footnote) the word "shakubuku". And his use of the word "unscrupulous" betrays a bias, doesn't it? Why should it be one of the first things one encounters in an 2014 article about the Soka Gakkai? And by what stretch of the imagination are books about Scientology and Satanism relevant enough to be included in the lead? -- Daveler16 ( talk) 22:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
FetullahFan ( talk) 10:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry even within SGI long term members will not negate that past propagation methods have been rather rude and at times even violent. And this is not that long ago. Again I resist tendencies of white washing SGI’s past and present. Also anyone who denies that Shakyamuni Buddhas’s role is inferior compared to other Nichiren Buddhist schools or even other Buddhist schools in general should go back to the drawing board. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 11:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
My comment was more directed towards the evaluation made on Kitagawa. He is a reliable and acknowledged source. Some do not see that secondary and even tertiary sources will always tend to have a critical view on issues – but some mistake being critical with criticising – especially when in an organisation where a critical self-reflection is not fostered. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 15:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
To some this might be of use: WP:SECONDARY, WP:SOURCE-- Catflap08 ( talk) 16:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
This is Exactly the period where the conversion methods where most ferocious right through the 1970’s and 1980’s. I see NO consensus here whatsoever. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 17:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I think keeping that the SG is "a subject of controversy" in the intro is sufficient - it conveys thatthere are issues (hence foreshadowing the rest of the entry) while remaining neutral about them. Neutrality is, after all, one of the core tenets of Wikipedia, and as it says
here: "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts...prefer non judgmental language..indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". I believe including the Kitigawa source in the lead violates all three of these principles: That the SG is part of Nichiren Shoshu (a Kitigawa assertion) and that it uses "forced conversion" is certainly"seriously contested" and can hardly be deemed "non judgmental"; and any statement about what something was like 50 years ago should certainly not be given the same prominence (i.e., inclusion in the lead) as more current statements on the same subject. On page 67 of Encountering the Dharma, Seagar says: "Soon I'm devoting days to the academic literature on the movement and am intrigued to see a meaningful pattern emerge. Newer scholarship, such as Global Citizens...praises the movement for its prgressive values and its members' sense of civic duty. Older articles and books, by contrast, are consistently preoccupied with an array of virulent charges". And Catflap, no one is saying the SG doesn't self-reflect -- in fact I have said some of this stuff may be appropriate in the history sections of the article.As many of these articles and books point out, the SG changed methods and attitudes under Ikeda, and especially since leaving Nichiren Shoshu - what is that if not the result of self reflection? What I'm concerned about is that there are statments about things that perhaps were once true, but are no longer true, being in the intro to the article, stated as if they were still key to understanding the present substance of the subject of the article. That's why I have reverted the changes. --
Daveler16 (
talk)
18:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Ubikwit, I looked at the links you shared. Thank you - I think they actually strengthen my argument. [WP:NOTNEWS]] may not actually be relevant to this entry, but to the extent it is relevant, it states: "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion..." More relevant, I think, to this discussion is the next section: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", which begins: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true or even verifiable does not automatically make something suitable for incllusion in the encyclopedia."
And in WP:RECENTISM we find this, under "Article Imbalance": "Subjects with a long history might be described in purely modern terms, even though they were more significant in the past than they would be today. Even when the topics remain significant, articles can cover the subject as if the most recent events were the salient, defining traits." --~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveler16 ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Shii: As Catflap mentioned above, there is no consensus for removing the three sources. I simply don't have time to look at them at present, so won't contest it until I do.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I took another stab, adding some references and keeping the ones we have been arguing over. I still think some of those should be removed (and some might think some of my new ones should be removed - but I hope not!) So this is, I suspect, a temporary fix. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 18:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Shii It might be useful to cite the full quote as Scientology and SGI do share the same tactics.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 18:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Catflap is just undoing things with no discussion, no justification. I have undone her revert, and I ask that there be a discussion before any changes are made. I as much as invited it (or so I thought) when I made the change - and posted about it here on the Talk page. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 19:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Here are the changes I made to the text of the 2nd paragraph: I replaced a comma with a period. I added a sentence at the end with a citation to a website that I think meets all the requirements for a good reference. Those are the substantive changes. I have seen no arguments at all about either of these things, but one person keeps undoing this work. I also added citations - which are not tied to anything new, and which do not at all change the paragraph itself -- and have seen no argument at all against those - which I indicated above I am happy to discuss. The closest thing to an "discussion" has been an argumentative statement in the Edit Summary, which I have not understood is a substitute for discussion on a Talk page.-- Daveler16 ( talk) 00:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, understood. But NeilN removed the last sentence and I don't see an explanation other that "ask.com is not a RS". I checked the RS page, and don't really saee how he reached that conclusion.-- 70.181.118.149 ( talk) 16:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Changed citations - no Middleway or SG pubs. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 16:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I treasure and use WP very frequently. Many pages (for ex. those related to Physics, Mathematics and the like) are trustworthy – but this is not the case in subject of Religion, in particular here: Nichiren Buddhism and of course SGI. We have 2 kinds of editors: volunteers and paid admin.editors, who make decisions also in DRBoard. The influence of editor’s own religion (and political beliefs in case of Japanese editors) may invariably affect the neutrality of SG article.
But openmindedness of WP leaders, higher than the ‘Department for Religions’ – this openmindedness and their respect to reason, would definitely allow to consider this problem and share in searching for a ‘safety valve’ in the system to ensure neutrality (in particular re. editors who r providing political support to certain sides, who may be generous in their hatred to their opponents).
Disputes in dailylife of society can be resolved through the Legal System, but WP nature is that of a presence in the cyberspace, sharing the field with many other websites on the internet. For this reason, a proper side to judge the neutrality of certain pages can emerge from within WP and from other intellectual institutions, universities, cultural contributors to humanity, Nobel Prize winners, world acknowledged researchers etc… a top gathering of volunteering concerned world figures - who can act as friendly monitors (or as an Arbitrators Board) in the cyberspace which WP shares. WP shares gracefully in developing access to information enhancing culture, education and peace. The view of those concerned about culture, education and humanity is then not contradictory to WP great concept.
In the future, a study in most universities of the world will develope to advise on measures to help in Academic Dispute Resolution. Many professors and their graduates will be interested in ways for examining neutrality of a powerful tool like WP, and can advise on the way to balance opposing views. This “CyberArbitratorBoard” for Neutrality of Information, composed of the highest caliber of educators and human rights leaders in the life of current humanity - can have a positive mark on assuring better reliability of offered information in a certain article. Not all websites will agree, and those for ex. belonging to right wing fascists or the yakuza level websites - will not benefit from this CyberEducatorsBoard, and this is fair enough. Freedom of Expression on the cyberspace should be maintained. For all. But does WP admin editors allow for this Freedom of Expression? This is a disputed matter.
Take for example the noisy title of the Raccoon Monk incident. One editor even imagined - as if dereaming and not thinking - that it is a shame comparable to the impact of the Inquisition of the Catholic Church - in that aspect that SGI wants to disassociate itself from speaking about it. Such a rediculous view does not know that the Incident is proudly taught in SGI literature, detailed in the Human Revolution, vol.1 and that - after all - the monk in concern thanked the SG for their courage to face his inferiority to the military during the war. Freedom of Expression should allow editors to include the SG version of event in the article. And this incident is seen to conform SG commitment to fight against fascist Japanese spirit, which destroyed millions of families during the war.
Another example: a misinformed WP editor implies that Ikeda paid money to meet Gorbachev or to a certain University…. This accusation should be brought to the intellectual mind of the cyberspace. Ikeda met with several kings, head of states, human right activists, world-acknowledged prize winners and they all can be made to be informed on the defamatory implication of their awarding SGI, their lack of merit in awarding SGI, or taking money for medalions, as claimed by WP admin editors. When Ikeda received his award from Oxford University, he was one of over 20 (?) or more other world figures - from different fields of achievements. To imply “buying” award is reflective not on Ikeda, but on Oxford University and all the hundreds of world acknowledged figures who equally as himself received the same award. The same goes for medailions, some of the highest National Honors.
Freedom of Expression to explain these things is suppressed by admin editors. This should be known world wide, as this defamatory inclination is directed towards these Universities and world figures which are implicated in WP of taking money for awards, whether for Ikeda of others.
There is nothing wrong with discussing this matter. It is already on Talk page. This is great. Lets face it. In a future SGI article and under the title AWARDS - a new section should open up: and All the awards will be presented. This is not PR propaganda but a statement of Facts originated by sharing with universities and other humanistic institutions. Facts should not be suppressed. You are free to object to certain awards, and comment thru some sources accusing the awarding University or head of state of taking money and of "lack of merit" in giving SGI awards. This is consistent with the Freedom of expression of the truth and both sides can present their views.
Before I will leave you with a tiny fraction of the awards SGI received, there may emarge a possibility for a question on defaming members of the SGI. This is a mass damage because WP article is aggressively implying an anti social character of SGI members, while they are peaceful gentle and upright. How this will take place in the future is beyond my current knowledge. Now a tiny list of those sides lacking merit and taking money for supporting SGI:
Order of Merit of the Italian Republic in the Grade of Grand Officer (2006, Italy); National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (2002, USA); Nelson R. Mandela School of Medicine, University of Natal (2002, South Africa); Tagore Peace Award (1997, India); Knight Grand Cross of Rizal (1996, Philippines); Simon Wiesenthal Center International Tolerance Award (1993, USA); Rosa Parks Humanitarian Award (1993, USA); Order of May for Merit in the Grade of Grand Cross (1990, Argentina); National Order of Southern Cross in the Grade of Commander (1990, Brazil); Humanitarian Award (UNHCR) (1989);
One of WP Admin editors, John Carter, once mentioned that WP is developing and hasn't reached its fullness yet. Very true. We are all work in progress. Regards to all. SafwanZabalawi ( talk) 08:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
What is neutrality and honesty in describing an organization? You are not defined by the opinion of others, you are defined by your engagement and activities in the real world. To summarize SGI in the Lead Section by POV of biased opponents who lived half a century ago, and rejecting SGI real activities and engagement with Human Rights Institutions, Cultural Establishments etc… is a failure in editing and which requires correction.
Although shared activities between SGI and various Cultural Institutions (or Universities) is regarded by some WP Administrative editors as a "propaganda", this very shared activity is also part of the Cultural Institution or University engagement. Pursuing the statement of such impartial institutions, on whether their activities with SGI can be presented on WP – will help WP Admin editor acknowledge rather than reject the activities of these cultural institutions.
Contacting the institutions in concern, presenting the dispute and obtaining their statement - may take a very long time. And the volume of the task is also huge. Someone noted that the Japanese WP article has many sections of scandals etc…so, there is nothing in essence against having many sections citing SGI huge scale of engagement in human rights issues, peace, education, music, cultural festivals, aid to refugees, opposing fascism and teaching world citizenship ....as all these are facts confirmed by official acknowledgements of neutral sides.
The reason for asking independent Institutions and Universities about their approval to cite their activities with SGI (which admin editors reject) on this WP page - is intended to support WP neutrality. The same institutions and universities were also approached by WP to include their pages. There is a conflict of interest between neutrality of these universities and rejection of editors of their activities with SGI.
WP offers a mechanism of self-correction through the Dispute R B. But the DRB is not capable of solving disputes. Experience provides the actual proof. A board involving the same Admin editors who are part of the dispute and/or editors who misunderstand WP guidelines - is academically ineffective and has no scholastic capacity.
Some editors on that Board show lack of interest in voicing their input (or become unwilling to be involved) - possibly out of clash with the opinion of other influential editors. In any case a reliable and impartial scholastic authority is the most reasonable side to present the dispute to.
A third party, a neutral scholastic and impartial side is necessary to make the proper feedback to WP. I think WP - being open and neutral - would welcome scholastic authorities impartial statements about a dispute involving a scholastic or historical account.
Don’t forget that one of WP Founders, Mr. Richard Stallman himself stated (email: 9 Jan 12) to me, about the failure of the DRB: “Your experience parallels mine. I tried to find an editor willing to lead a dispute resolution process about the question of what name Wikipedia should use for the system which was made by combining GNU and Linux, and was unable to. It seems to me that Wikipedia needs to reform this process because the process does not in practice function. But I have little influence in Wikipedia. Dr Richard Stallman, President, Free Software Foundation”.
This is a proof which justifies and supports the move to engage scholars who are also responsible about the neutrality of references in mass media in general - or with their own engagement with SGI - to help solve disputes which the DB is incapable of.
The concept of supporting WP’s neutrality has in fact another aspect in addition to the above. The other aspect pertains to legal matters, but this will be presented later because of the currently limited time.
Let’s view the mentioned avenue (of supporting WP neutrality) without hasty replies because this is an avenue for the future and requires exploration of its impact. Regards to all. SafwanZabalawi ( talk) 07:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
"The concept of supporting WP’s neutrality has in fact another aspect in addition to the above. The other aspect pertains to legal matters, but this will be presented later because of the currently limited time." A thinly veiled threat Safwan? Not even Wikipedia wants to tangle with the Soka Gakkai multi-billion dollar multi-national religious corporation and its battery of lawyers. Some of us say, lets get it on. Mark Rogow 08/06/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD27:DB49:845F:E6B2:FE26:FB17 ( talk) 02:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
About the neutrality of this article, the Soka Gakkai is a controversial organization. The Japanese version of this article is a massive article with three separate sections and thousands of words detailing the various scandals, exposés, incidents, and negative publicity surrounding the Soka Gakkai. But at least that content is factored out into separate sections. In this article, the negative tone seems to pervade the entire article. The word "cult" is used at least five times. I would like to suggest that this material (the "dumped safe", the "aggressive proselytizing", the "raccoon dog festival" incident and so on) be moved to its own section or sections. I'm not suggesting that it be deleted, or "balanced" with counterarguments. Simply that most sections of the article would benefit from a more neutral tone. -- Margin1522 ( talk) 16:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I struck my addition about my comments being edited out, not realizing the existence of the archives. 2602:306:CD27:DB49:3C69:E756:6DEC:DADF ( talk) 05:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Mark Rogow 08/08/2014
I didn't see it. From your description it sounds like you were engaged in original research, namely offering your own interpretation of "primary sources" in the normal sense of "the very words". At Wikipedia, we don't do that. -- Margin1522 ( talk) 03:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I offer, for the most part, little commentary, preferring to let the reader come to his or her own conclusions from these mens' words alone [primary sources]. It is true, however, I juxtapose their words to make a point. My bad. I also highlighted several common knowledge facts, for example, Soka Gakkai's relationship to the Mitsubishi corporation. SGI's and Mitsubishi's relationship is important in light of the nature of Mitsubishi's products and activities and SGI's peace rhetoric. This topic requires further development, in my opinion. Mark Rogow 08/06/2014 [again, I deleted the first sentence of this paragraph, having lamented "removal of my contributions" when no removal occured]. 2602:306:CD27:DB49:3C69:E756:6DEC:DADF ( talk) 05:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Mark Rogow 08/08/2014
Catflap—RE: mentorship section: I don't understand why the publisher of a book supersedes the credibility of an author.
Strand has been published by several firms. He is who he is. What's the deal?
Ltdan43 (
talk)
19:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Margin1522: Sorry there is no beating around the bush on this one – aggressive proselytising has been part of the organisation for most part of its history. This continued well into the 1980’s . It has reached its peak in terms of growth as most observers would agree upon. When having a history section in the article this amongst other issues has to be mentioned. It has moved to the fringe of Buddhism in general and indeed even within Nichiren Buddhism. Even though out of print I would strongly recommend reading “Fire in the Lotus” by Montgomery which to my mind is at this point the only books that gives a neutral overview on Nichiren Buddhism. I would also recommend to set aside some time in reading the article’s history.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 21:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Catflap—OK, you got me now. How come Wikipedia uses SGI sources on the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren entries? Are they valid or not? Do we have to vet every credible expert based on who publishes their works? Since when are respectable sources defined by their publisher? Ltdan43 ( talk) 22:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The National Enguirer too is notorious for irresponsible journalism, yet, the Enquirer broke nearly a dozen major stories proven to be true. Each story should be taken on its own merit. Where have I heard that before, Margin1522? Mark Rogow 08/06/2014
Rather to quote the demon "shukanshi" were their article proven true than the New York Times were their article proven false. This is my assertion. An example is the "shukanshi" breaking the true story of Junya Yano https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren/XUt8n-CnUyY while professor Elkevizth of the Department of Religion of Duke University was all wrong in his thesis concerning SGI and Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution: http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/5430/Elkevizth_duke_0066N_11216.pdf?sequence=1 2602:306:CD27:DB49:845F:E6B2:FE26:FB17 ( talk) 05:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Mark Rogow 08/07/2014
Just a couple of things. Shi, the "raccoon dog festival" is hardly "one of its most important events". It's not commemorated in the SG, it's not taught, it's not held up as an example of how to practice. As I understand it, the priest in question ended up a great supporter of Toda, and while there may have been some immediate disciplinary action, Toda spent the ensuing years embraced and supported by the priesthood: it was something that happened, was resolved, and had no lasting effect on any of the parties involved. None of this, of course, would be chronicled in a 3rd party publication - "Nothing of consequence happened", it would have to say - so I don't know how to resolve the citation issue without using either an SG source, or just common sense.
On Noriega (a similar situation, I think), here is exactly what Seagar says: "On Web sites styled as cult alerts with obscure, presumably unofficial links to Nichiren Shoshu, they cite, for instance, his acquaintance with Manuel Noriega, whom he met in 1974 during a stopover in Panama, and with Fidel Castro...Such spurious charges distort the meaning of Ikeda's networking and the resulting dialogues with (list of academics and Nobel laureates). These meetings serve a number of constructive ends, most basically that of satisfying Ikeda's passion for self education. They have played a crusial role in his journey into cosmopolitan complexity, becoming both pilgrimage and mission..." (p. 115). It may not call the allegations concerning Noriega "nonsensical", but it certainly undermines their importance and credibility; and it appears to me he did "look into it" himself, as he was aware of the websites he mentioned and their source, and rather than "take the SGI's word for it", he drew his own conclusions - and stated them clearly. Just my observation, fwiw. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 19:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
No wonder the "raccoon dog festival" is not remembered in SGI – what a surprise that would be. There are quite a few things in SGI that are not remembered and thaught. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 06:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said? Someone called the "Raccoon Dog" think "a significant" event. I said it was not - yes, from the SG perspective, but I also said "As I understand it, the priest in question ended up a great supporter of Toda, and while there may have been some immediate disciplinary action, Toda spent the ensuing years embraced and supported by the priesthood: it was something that happened, was resolved, and had no lasting effect on any of the parties involved. None of this, of course, would be chronicled in a 3rd party publication - "Nothing of consequence happened", it would have to say - so I don't know how to resolve the citation issue without using either an SG source, or just common sense." You left that part out when you answered me. Do you have a constructive suggestion for addressing that problem?
And Shi, I understand WP does not do PR for organizations. Does it do PR for an organizations enemies? Again, re: the incident in question, no one was hurt, everyone ended up as friends (at least for a while). By what stretch of the imagination is that comparable to the Inquisition? I would like a solution to the problem of balance, if y0u have one. And on Noriega, color it as you will, but Seagar did find that the negativity was coming from web sites connected to Nichiren Shoshu. I assume I can put that in the article? -- Daveler16 ( talk) 04:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm asking for suggestions on how to achieve balance. You seem mainly interested in keeping things negative. Again: something negatve may be covered by a 3rd party, but its resolution (unless somehow sensationalized, which this one wasn't) hardly ever is, and that's the case with the "Raccoon Dog". How do we address this? -- Daveler16 ( talk) 17:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I think this has been controversial, but I am removing the quote "We must make our children thoroughly understand that loyal service to their sovereign is synonymous with love of country." and replacing it with a new description of Makiguchi's educational theories. He may well have said this. But this is the kind of thing that you had to say in prewar Japan if you wanted to teach. It's hardly accurate to single out this one quote. As we note ourselves later in the article, he died in prison for insisting that the Emperor was human. -- Margin1522 ( talk) 15:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, SG refused to install the talisman according to State Shinto that was about it – SG never ever was a resistance movement – the conflicts were on religious but not political grounds. And as I explained earlier Makiguchi was indeed involved with Kokuchūkai. As we look at the organisation’s history one should also quote the founders thoughts. That they may have changed over the years – fine. But no brushing under the carpet please! How SGI views those early years, how it portrays itself can by all means be mentioned – but white washing is a no go and deleting quotes that some may find uncomfortable is not on. Simple as that. And again one quote describes SGI’s split from Nichiren Shoshu as a move of democratisation – fine so it may be, but as a reader I would like to see evidence of SGI being an organisation with democratic structures. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 18:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The translation I suggested also is problematic because it over-defines "value", but using value by itself sounds awkward, and "association" might be better than society. Here is a multi-page list of hits from an online dictionary for 学会.The Soka Gakkai (literally, "Society for the Creation of Value")
The following quote is placed quite prominently within the “Separation from the Shōshū priesthood” section: “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 Shōshū and the lay-based, globalized SGI". Could anyone provide, especially secondary tertiary, sources which underlines the fact that such a democratisation process took and takes place within SGI? The only process I was aware of within SGI-UK was crushed.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 18:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Personally I am not do bothered about the quote per se but rather the claim that it makes. Is SGI a democratically structured organisation or not? I guess it is not on that basis I find that quote should be deleted as it would be a POV.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 20:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Even though I did mention it earlier on I would like to highlight the following guideline : WP:SOC-- Catflap08 ( talk) 22:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC) I am really thinking of filing a complaint as I feel that there is some sock puppetry going on in here.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 21:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Some of current editors of this article seem to misunderstand the guideline for citing Sources. Go to: WP:PSTS, and read: “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources”. Apparently, the wording of this clear guideline does not completely (or utterly) exclude Primary Sources. A PSource can refer to a neutral fact. On the other hand it is reasonable to reject a PS if its essence is propaganda; this is fair because Wikipedia does not do PR for organizations.
However, some of WP Administrative editors seem to misunderstand what PR is. A citation of Self-praise is one thing – and citing impartial verifiable facts is completely another. To explain: there is a difference between a PS saying : “SGI is working for world peace”, an apparent self-judgement by SGI, and between “SGI president published proposals for peace”, or “ SGI held meetings with Gorbachev”, etc… which describe Facts. Note that the noise made about Noriega in the article uses an undeniable Fact (but the conclusion of making a “link” a ridiculous POV). Discerning Facts from POV is important. Facts that impartially reveal SGI activities in meeting Castro, Noriega, Mandela, Kissinger etc…belong to the same category – and hence should be equally mentioned even by PS - as these Facts are shared with world figures. Facts are not fabricated POVs. And any reasonable person would accept that Facts are different from PR, such as internal statement by SGI about itself (and which would have been otherwise a PR).
Neutral editing should refer to SGI link with Goethe Institute, Martin Luther King Jr chapel …etc… in the very same way other Facts should be presented with honesty and without fear from the truth. Wikipedia guidelines do not reject a reliable and traceable PS (SGI Quarter for example detailing a meeting between SGI and Simon Wisenthal Centre) – because this is a mere Fact describing a real SGI shared activity. Some editors, however, do not agree because they do not understand WP guidelines (and which does not consider PS as utterly unacceptable – as these editors mistakenly think).
This means that PS can be used if presented Facts relate to events which are shared with world institutions. The idea that PS are absolutely unacceptable in WP is simply incorrect. Nevertheless, with the current misunderstanding of Administrative editors of the margin of using PS – there seem to be no other way than to present this matter to the opinion of the cultural institutions (whose shared activities with SGI is rejected by WP Admin Editors).
Engaging cultural establishments, universities, human rights institutions in the subject of editing citing facts about these establishments and cultural institutions - is beneficial for neutral editing, and would protect Wikipedia from bias. Yes, there is a solution to the problem of WP editors misunderstanding WP guidelines, which is found in the following post on the Necessity to Help Wikipedia’s neutrality. Regards to all. SafwanZabalawi ( talk) 07:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Well the thing on the medal issue was that Mr.Ikeda never ever was a recipient of the Goethe Medal issued by the Goethe-Institut which next to medals like the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany is one of the highest merits on can receive in the FRG. He presumably got a recognition of some sort by the Goethe-Gesellschaft which is far less known and prestigious. An observation that is interesting is that Mr. Ikeda received a whole lot of recognitions by either universities that depend most on external financing or/and countries which are not known to have true democratic structures (i.e. China). -- Catflap08 ( talk) 20:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Shi: Need some clarification. We have been discussing a new intro for quite some time, and last week you seemed to be accepting the one I proposed, to wit: "I think this is mostly good, and I'll see if we can try to replace the current lead." I wasn't sure if you would change it or if I should, so I waited almost a week, looked up what I could find about "semi-protected" status, and got the impression that I could do the edit. So the other night - nearly a week after your last comment - decided to go ahead and post it. Immediately the previous has been restored, so, thinking I had made a mistake, I tried again. My cjhange was removed again, so I checked View History. The first cancellation,apparently, was by someone named NeilN; he is a "master editor", but I can't figure out how to communicate directly with him. The second change was restored by you, with the comment "please continue to discuss these edits on the talk page". So my questions are: For how long must we discuss it? And with whom? Besides you and me, in over a week only one other person has commented and, judging from his or her previous posts, that person is a member of a rival sect (please correct me if I'm wrong, Ubikwit). When can the change be made?
Related: I made a mnor edit in a the History section, and I see that is gone too. I changed "... Nichiren Shoshu, by that time a small and obscure Nichiren Buddhist sect" to "AT that time...", since "by" gives the impression it had been larger and dwindled, so I think "at" is more accurate (and, coincidentally, more complimentary to Nichiren Shoshu).
I want to make changes that are positive, consistent with Wikipedia policy, and that will stick, so if you could clarify what the situation is in this particular case, I would appreciate it. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 19:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is outrageous. I can't make changes we discussed, but Ubikwit gets to go in and eliminate "puffery" - his very use of that word ought to be a tip off to his antagonism towards the SG - and make the intro even MORE critical - with no discussion? Why is that?-- Daveler16 ( talk) 05:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, more than one person has now suggested that, before the intro be changed, we go through the entire entry and make changes. I can see how that makes sense - then the intro can be fitted to the changes, is that the idea-- Daveler16 ( talk) 15:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)?
NeilN: It is not my intention to get into a "I edit-someone reverts-they edit-I revert" fight. The whole thing needs a re-write,, as it is in fact a "Criticism of the SG" page and in no way describes what the Soka Gakkai is. I would like this to be more like the Nichiren Shoshu entry, which has not a word about the sect's past history of losing the property of its head temple, or changing its prayers to placate the militarist government, or any other dirt; the first 11 (of 17) footnotes on it's entry go to Nichiren Shoshu primary sources (except one to a dictionary), and that's fine with me - it allows to entry to be about what Nichiren Shoshu is and teaches - not what it's critics hate about it or think it should teach. I thought I would start at the top and work down, but there seems to be a consensus that the body of the entry be changed before to intro can be changed - am I correct? -- Daveler16 ( talk) 19:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Having had some time, Shi, I must revisit something: when I posted a new intro here as a proposal, you said it seemed pretty good and could possibly be used. After I actually posted it, the excuse for taking it down seems to be: it doesn't reflect the rest of the entry. I'm wondering why that wasn't mentioned earlier, when we were discussing it as a proposal? --
Daveler16 (
talk)
22:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I am removing the words “fascist” and “quasi fascist” from the lead’s second paragraph as well as the source [1] from which these labels are being drawn. The source is a fake reference as per [[ WP:FAKE] (“A fictitious reference is a source that is listed within an article that an editor has added to support specific text within an article, or to support a claim of notability for the article's topic, while in reality that source does not exist, has nothing to do with the article and/or the information that the source is supposed to support, or otherwise does not support the content.”) Here is the complete quote in the Aruga article this label of "fascism" is probably pulled from: “On the one hand, this ‘reformist stance’ [of the Soka Gakkai] had a refreshing appeal to those citizens who were dissatisfied with the existing order [of post-war Japanese society]. On the other hand, when this image was combined with an exclusivist religious nature, a large number of people sensed a kind of fascism in the Soka Gakkai. However, when one takes into account the uniquely Japanese traits of the Soka Gakkai, one can see that there was never really a threat that it would move toward fascism” (p. 104). So the cited "asource" actually says the SG is NOT fascist. Nor is there any citation of “fascism” in the index of Machaceck/Wilson. Therefore, I am purging the second paragraph of this source as well as the references to “fascism” and “quasi-fascism” which were allegedly drawn from this source. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 01:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Shii and Ubikwit, thank you for your support. Just a cursory exam leads me to believe that dibious sources are peppered throughout the entire entry. But for now, I'll concentrate on the intro.
I point to the violation of WP:FAKE in source #2, Seager’s Encountering the Dharma [2]. It appears that this source was used to justify the words “militant” and “overzealous” in the second paragraph. The two page numbers (69 and 207) listed for this reference are bogus. The contents of both pages actually contest the allegations of “militant” and “overzealous.” On page 69 Seager critiques an 1963 article in Look Magazine about the Soka Gakkai and then a 1965 NY Times Magazine article. First of all--in a lead for an article designed for 2014 readers--why do third-hand sources written when JFK and LBJ were presidents deserve mention? I wouldn’t be so concerned if they were buried in the Josei Toda section--but in the intro?
Secondly, Seager vehemently denies the virulent claims of the Look and Times sources. Look at how clearly he makes his point: “Much of the [Look] article consists of testimonies by Gakkai rivals and old-line scholars, who together characterized the movement as superficial, pathologically intolerant, and highly materialistic. Makiguchi is not principled but ‘pugnacious ‘; strong convictions are ‘fanatical egotism.’ Daimoku is described as a ‘hypnotic drone’ said to mean ‘I am the Supreme Power.’ The main point to be taken--that neither the Japanese nor Ikeda are entirely to be trusted--is made clear in the quote framing the article: ‘Japanese people either want to be a leader or want to be led. Soka Gakkai guarantees fulfillment for both the shepherd and the sheep…or a Hitler and the hordes.'” (p69). The 1965 Times article, according to Seager, examines “the political implications that this [movement] may have on American policy,” ones “potentially more important than the anti-Western neutralism propagated by the saffron-robed monks of South Vietnam.” (With the advantage of fifty years of hindsight I think we can all agree that the Times worried needlessly on this matter.) Seager continues: “The Times intelligently handled Makiguchi, the Gakkai’s ability to address the malaise of the postwar years, and its ongoing electoral successes. It noted political bywords then current in the movement such as ‘neo-socialism,’ ‘a third culture’ neither capitalist nor socialist, ‘global nationalism,’ and ‘Buddhist democracy.’” The Times article did describe the Gakkai as a “militant society” of lay Buddhists whose most overzealous members have occasionally become violent,” but, according to Seager it “also dismissed charges that the Gakkai was fascist or even right wing.” Its main concern, Seager notes, was that further advance of the Komei Party might “favor a more independent and neutralist course for the United States’ principal ally in the Far East.”
Page 207 uses the words "militant" and “overzealous”, but here is the context: "By and large, the Gakkai's reputation as an overzealous, militant movement, deserved or not, is a thing of the past, although now and again the old skewed view of both it and Ikeda surfaces." This is no justification for using the words “overzealous” and “militant.”
So I've removed that source and the words it was used to validate, and replaced them with the phrase “at the center of controversies.” To this the Seager article can be cited, “Since its founding in the 1930s, the Soka Gakkai has repeatedly found itself at the center of controversies” (p. xii). And I've inserted that citation. I think there might be a place for 50 year old sources (r older), but certianly not in the intro. Don't you think? -- Daveler16 ( talk) 02:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I am glad to see that someone removed the term “manipulationist” from this article. I am quite sure that 99.9% of WP readers would look at this term in the article and say, “Oh my, the Soka Gakkai must be well-known for manipulating its members or the public.”
People familiar with field of sociology and religion would know otherwise. “Manipulationist” is a word coined by Bryan R. Wilson, a pioneer scholar in the study of newly emerging religions and how religious sects transform to denominations. After resarching many such groups he created a typology of sects and manipulationist was one of his seven categories. "Manipulationist" has become the common abbreviated reference to Wilson’s original term “gnostic-manipulationist.”
Actually manipulationist is a highly evolved form o So..f sects. It recognizes society as is rather than asking followers to deny, withdraw, or focus primarily on a utopian vision. It looks as salvation not as something private or other-worldly; rather salvation is seen as something possible in the current times if people find a means to overcome existing evil. Members of manipulationist sects tend to seek means and techniques to deal with their problems and in so doing they can become agents of social change.
Thus, Wilson’s term has no association with “being manipulated” or “manipulation.” It is wrong to associate the work of Bryan Wilson with criticism of the Soka Gakkai. I believe that both Wallis and Glock and Bellah were all operating from the Wilson framework. FetullahFan ( talk) 11:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Here it says "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." So now I'm removing the sources for Wallis, Glock and Kitigawa. Wallis's book is about Scientology, not the Soka Gakkai. Glock is writing about Satanism, and mentions the words "Soka Gakkai" only in passing. Kitigawa's book was not written in 1968, and only published in paperback in 1990 - with no changes, according to the author himself in the preface to the 1990 edition; so old a book is a questionable source in any case, but I think especially in the intro.-- Daveler16 ( talk) 21:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I must disagree with Ubikwit's description of the Kitagawa source as worthy for the lead.
[3] The reliability of this source--for the lad--must be questioned because it is almost 50 years old. The citation which lists 1990 as the publishing date is misleading. As is, readers would see it as relatively contemporary source but in reality this book was originally printed in 1966—back when LBJ was president. It was reprinted in 1990 as a paperback, without revisions as per the author in the Preface to the Paperback Edition:
“I must admit that I have mixed feelings at the prospect of having a paperback edition of Religion in Japanese History. On the one hand, I am naturally delighted to learn that the volume has met, at least to a certain extent, the needs of readers since its publication. On the other hand, I know only too well that a variety of illuminating new studies on various phases of Japanese religion have appeared over the past two decades, even though a thorough revision of the contents of this volume in light of these new studies is not a feasible option at this time. Thus, the paperback edition is substantially the same as the hardcover volume, except of course for the addition of a very brief account to update it on recent developments.”
Perhaps the Kitagawa source could be used in the Josei Toda section to chronicle the reactions of Western scholars to the emerging Soka Gakkai movement. I don’t think so, however. Kitagawa’s lens was tainted by his times: rocked with Cold War mentality, labor unrest, and crude viewpoints about Civil Rights. A sample of his bias can be seen in his reporting of the Yubari Coal Miners incident of 1957 in which the coal miners union attempted to coerce Soka Gakkai members to renounce their faith because it could seemingly interfere with a perceived need to present a solid front. Today such a stance would be seen as an egregious violation of conscience. Kitagawa holds, however: “It is understandable, however, that the Japanese Federation of Coal Miners in its annual conference in 1957 made the following declaration: “Unless some action is taken against the new religions, they will increasingly disrupt the unity of the workers and play into the hands of management” (300).
No, I think the Kitagawa source should be ruled out for this article's lead. Again, I would not object to it somewhere else in the article.
After a long absence, BrandenburgG ( talk) 22:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Ubikwit, it's not merely that it's old; but that it's old and in the intro. Yes, maybe it could be used in another section. But just the part you linked to says that SG is part of Nichiren Shoshu (no longer true); that the SG does not recognize Shakyamuni as Buddha (I think it's view is more nuanced than that simple statement now), and mistranslates (in the text, though not in the footnote) the word "shakubuku". And his use of the word "unscrupulous" betrays a bias, doesn't it? Why should it be one of the first things one encounters in an 2014 article about the Soka Gakkai? And by what stretch of the imagination are books about Scientology and Satanism relevant enough to be included in the lead? -- Daveler16 ( talk) 22:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
FetullahFan ( talk) 10:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry even within SGI long term members will not negate that past propagation methods have been rather rude and at times even violent. And this is not that long ago. Again I resist tendencies of white washing SGI’s past and present. Also anyone who denies that Shakyamuni Buddhas’s role is inferior compared to other Nichiren Buddhist schools or even other Buddhist schools in general should go back to the drawing board. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 11:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
My comment was more directed towards the evaluation made on Kitagawa. He is a reliable and acknowledged source. Some do not see that secondary and even tertiary sources will always tend to have a critical view on issues – but some mistake being critical with criticising – especially when in an organisation where a critical self-reflection is not fostered. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 15:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
To some this might be of use: WP:SECONDARY, WP:SOURCE-- Catflap08 ( talk) 16:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
This is Exactly the period where the conversion methods where most ferocious right through the 1970’s and 1980’s. I see NO consensus here whatsoever. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 17:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I think keeping that the SG is "a subject of controversy" in the intro is sufficient - it conveys thatthere are issues (hence foreshadowing the rest of the entry) while remaining neutral about them. Neutrality is, after all, one of the core tenets of Wikipedia, and as it says
here: "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts...prefer non judgmental language..indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". I believe including the Kitigawa source in the lead violates all three of these principles: That the SG is part of Nichiren Shoshu (a Kitigawa assertion) and that it uses "forced conversion" is certainly"seriously contested" and can hardly be deemed "non judgmental"; and any statement about what something was like 50 years ago should certainly not be given the same prominence (i.e., inclusion in the lead) as more current statements on the same subject. On page 67 of Encountering the Dharma, Seagar says: "Soon I'm devoting days to the academic literature on the movement and am intrigued to see a meaningful pattern emerge. Newer scholarship, such as Global Citizens...praises the movement for its prgressive values and its members' sense of civic duty. Older articles and books, by contrast, are consistently preoccupied with an array of virulent charges". And Catflap, no one is saying the SG doesn't self-reflect -- in fact I have said some of this stuff may be appropriate in the history sections of the article.As many of these articles and books point out, the SG changed methods and attitudes under Ikeda, and especially since leaving Nichiren Shoshu - what is that if not the result of self reflection? What I'm concerned about is that there are statments about things that perhaps were once true, but are no longer true, being in the intro to the article, stated as if they were still key to understanding the present substance of the subject of the article. That's why I have reverted the changes. --
Daveler16 (
talk)
18:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Ubikwit, I looked at the links you shared. Thank you - I think they actually strengthen my argument. [WP:NOTNEWS]] may not actually be relevant to this entry, but to the extent it is relevant, it states: "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion..." More relevant, I think, to this discussion is the next section: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", which begins: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true or even verifiable does not automatically make something suitable for incllusion in the encyclopedia."
And in WP:RECENTISM we find this, under "Article Imbalance": "Subjects with a long history might be described in purely modern terms, even though they were more significant in the past than they would be today. Even when the topics remain significant, articles can cover the subject as if the most recent events were the salient, defining traits." --~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveler16 ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Shii: As Catflap mentioned above, there is no consensus for removing the three sources. I simply don't have time to look at them at present, so won't contest it until I do.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I took another stab, adding some references and keeping the ones we have been arguing over. I still think some of those should be removed (and some might think some of my new ones should be removed - but I hope not!) So this is, I suspect, a temporary fix. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 18:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Shii It might be useful to cite the full quote as Scientology and SGI do share the same tactics.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 18:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Catflap is just undoing things with no discussion, no justification. I have undone her revert, and I ask that there be a discussion before any changes are made. I as much as invited it (or so I thought) when I made the change - and posted about it here on the Talk page. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 19:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Here are the changes I made to the text of the 2nd paragraph: I replaced a comma with a period. I added a sentence at the end with a citation to a website that I think meets all the requirements for a good reference. Those are the substantive changes. I have seen no arguments at all about either of these things, but one person keeps undoing this work. I also added citations - which are not tied to anything new, and which do not at all change the paragraph itself -- and have seen no argument at all against those - which I indicated above I am happy to discuss. The closest thing to an "discussion" has been an argumentative statement in the Edit Summary, which I have not understood is a substitute for discussion on a Talk page.-- Daveler16 ( talk) 00:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, understood. But NeilN removed the last sentence and I don't see an explanation other that "ask.com is not a RS". I checked the RS page, and don't really saee how he reached that conclusion.-- 70.181.118.149 ( talk) 16:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Changed citations - no Middleway or SG pubs. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 16:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I treasure and use WP very frequently. Many pages (for ex. those related to Physics, Mathematics and the like) are trustworthy – but this is not the case in subject of Religion, in particular here: Nichiren Buddhism and of course SGI. We have 2 kinds of editors: volunteers and paid admin.editors, who make decisions also in DRBoard. The influence of editor’s own religion (and political beliefs in case of Japanese editors) may invariably affect the neutrality of SG article.
But openmindedness of WP leaders, higher than the ‘Department for Religions’ – this openmindedness and their respect to reason, would definitely allow to consider this problem and share in searching for a ‘safety valve’ in the system to ensure neutrality (in particular re. editors who r providing political support to certain sides, who may be generous in their hatred to their opponents).
Disputes in dailylife of society can be resolved through the Legal System, but WP nature is that of a presence in the cyberspace, sharing the field with many other websites on the internet. For this reason, a proper side to judge the neutrality of certain pages can emerge from within WP and from other intellectual institutions, universities, cultural contributors to humanity, Nobel Prize winners, world acknowledged researchers etc… a top gathering of volunteering concerned world figures - who can act as friendly monitors (or as an Arbitrators Board) in the cyberspace which WP shares. WP shares gracefully in developing access to information enhancing culture, education and peace. The view of those concerned about culture, education and humanity is then not contradictory to WP great concept.
In the future, a study in most universities of the world will develope to advise on measures to help in Academic Dispute Resolution. Many professors and their graduates will be interested in ways for examining neutrality of a powerful tool like WP, and can advise on the way to balance opposing views. This “CyberArbitratorBoard” for Neutrality of Information, composed of the highest caliber of educators and human rights leaders in the life of current humanity - can have a positive mark on assuring better reliability of offered information in a certain article. Not all websites will agree, and those for ex. belonging to right wing fascists or the yakuza level websites - will not benefit from this CyberEducatorsBoard, and this is fair enough. Freedom of Expression on the cyberspace should be maintained. For all. But does WP admin editors allow for this Freedom of Expression? This is a disputed matter.
Take for example the noisy title of the Raccoon Monk incident. One editor even imagined - as if dereaming and not thinking - that it is a shame comparable to the impact of the Inquisition of the Catholic Church - in that aspect that SGI wants to disassociate itself from speaking about it. Such a rediculous view does not know that the Incident is proudly taught in SGI literature, detailed in the Human Revolution, vol.1 and that - after all - the monk in concern thanked the SG for their courage to face his inferiority to the military during the war. Freedom of Expression should allow editors to include the SG version of event in the article. And this incident is seen to conform SG commitment to fight against fascist Japanese spirit, which destroyed millions of families during the war.
Another example: a misinformed WP editor implies that Ikeda paid money to meet Gorbachev or to a certain University…. This accusation should be brought to the intellectual mind of the cyberspace. Ikeda met with several kings, head of states, human right activists, world-acknowledged prize winners and they all can be made to be informed on the defamatory implication of their awarding SGI, their lack of merit in awarding SGI, or taking money for medalions, as claimed by WP admin editors. When Ikeda received his award from Oxford University, he was one of over 20 (?) or more other world figures - from different fields of achievements. To imply “buying” award is reflective not on Ikeda, but on Oxford University and all the hundreds of world acknowledged figures who equally as himself received the same award. The same goes for medailions, some of the highest National Honors.
Freedom of Expression to explain these things is suppressed by admin editors. This should be known world wide, as this defamatory inclination is directed towards these Universities and world figures which are implicated in WP of taking money for awards, whether for Ikeda of others.
There is nothing wrong with discussing this matter. It is already on Talk page. This is great. Lets face it. In a future SGI article and under the title AWARDS - a new section should open up: and All the awards will be presented. This is not PR propaganda but a statement of Facts originated by sharing with universities and other humanistic institutions. Facts should not be suppressed. You are free to object to certain awards, and comment thru some sources accusing the awarding University or head of state of taking money and of "lack of merit" in giving SGI awards. This is consistent with the Freedom of expression of the truth and both sides can present their views.
Before I will leave you with a tiny fraction of the awards SGI received, there may emarge a possibility for a question on defaming members of the SGI. This is a mass damage because WP article is aggressively implying an anti social character of SGI members, while they are peaceful gentle and upright. How this will take place in the future is beyond my current knowledge. Now a tiny list of those sides lacking merit and taking money for supporting SGI:
Order of Merit of the Italian Republic in the Grade of Grand Officer (2006, Italy); National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (2002, USA); Nelson R. Mandela School of Medicine, University of Natal (2002, South Africa); Tagore Peace Award (1997, India); Knight Grand Cross of Rizal (1996, Philippines); Simon Wiesenthal Center International Tolerance Award (1993, USA); Rosa Parks Humanitarian Award (1993, USA); Order of May for Merit in the Grade of Grand Cross (1990, Argentina); National Order of Southern Cross in the Grade of Commander (1990, Brazil); Humanitarian Award (UNHCR) (1989);
One of WP Admin editors, John Carter, once mentioned that WP is developing and hasn't reached its fullness yet. Very true. We are all work in progress. Regards to all. SafwanZabalawi ( talk) 08:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
What is neutrality and honesty in describing an organization? You are not defined by the opinion of others, you are defined by your engagement and activities in the real world. To summarize SGI in the Lead Section by POV of biased opponents who lived half a century ago, and rejecting SGI real activities and engagement with Human Rights Institutions, Cultural Establishments etc… is a failure in editing and which requires correction.
Although shared activities between SGI and various Cultural Institutions (or Universities) is regarded by some WP Administrative editors as a "propaganda", this very shared activity is also part of the Cultural Institution or University engagement. Pursuing the statement of such impartial institutions, on whether their activities with SGI can be presented on WP – will help WP Admin editor acknowledge rather than reject the activities of these cultural institutions.
Contacting the institutions in concern, presenting the dispute and obtaining their statement - may take a very long time. And the volume of the task is also huge. Someone noted that the Japanese WP article has many sections of scandals etc…so, there is nothing in essence against having many sections citing SGI huge scale of engagement in human rights issues, peace, education, music, cultural festivals, aid to refugees, opposing fascism and teaching world citizenship ....as all these are facts confirmed by official acknowledgements of neutral sides.
The reason for asking independent Institutions and Universities about their approval to cite their activities with SGI (which admin editors reject) on this WP page - is intended to support WP neutrality. The same institutions and universities were also approached by WP to include their pages. There is a conflict of interest between neutrality of these universities and rejection of editors of their activities with SGI.
WP offers a mechanism of self-correction through the Dispute R B. But the DRB is not capable of solving disputes. Experience provides the actual proof. A board involving the same Admin editors who are part of the dispute and/or editors who misunderstand WP guidelines - is academically ineffective and has no scholastic capacity.
Some editors on that Board show lack of interest in voicing their input (or become unwilling to be involved) - possibly out of clash with the opinion of other influential editors. In any case a reliable and impartial scholastic authority is the most reasonable side to present the dispute to.
A third party, a neutral scholastic and impartial side is necessary to make the proper feedback to WP. I think WP - being open and neutral - would welcome scholastic authorities impartial statements about a dispute involving a scholastic or historical account.
Don’t forget that one of WP Founders, Mr. Richard Stallman himself stated (email: 9 Jan 12) to me, about the failure of the DRB: “Your experience parallels mine. I tried to find an editor willing to lead a dispute resolution process about the question of what name Wikipedia should use for the system which was made by combining GNU and Linux, and was unable to. It seems to me that Wikipedia needs to reform this process because the process does not in practice function. But I have little influence in Wikipedia. Dr Richard Stallman, President, Free Software Foundation”.
This is a proof which justifies and supports the move to engage scholars who are also responsible about the neutrality of references in mass media in general - or with their own engagement with SGI - to help solve disputes which the DB is incapable of.
The concept of supporting WP’s neutrality has in fact another aspect in addition to the above. The other aspect pertains to legal matters, but this will be presented later because of the currently limited time.
Let’s view the mentioned avenue (of supporting WP neutrality) without hasty replies because this is an avenue for the future and requires exploration of its impact. Regards to all. SafwanZabalawi ( talk) 07:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
"The concept of supporting WP’s neutrality has in fact another aspect in addition to the above. The other aspect pertains to legal matters, but this will be presented later because of the currently limited time." A thinly veiled threat Safwan? Not even Wikipedia wants to tangle with the Soka Gakkai multi-billion dollar multi-national religious corporation and its battery of lawyers. Some of us say, lets get it on. Mark Rogow 08/06/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD27:DB49:845F:E6B2:FE26:FB17 ( talk) 02:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
About the neutrality of this article, the Soka Gakkai is a controversial organization. The Japanese version of this article is a massive article with three separate sections and thousands of words detailing the various scandals, exposés, incidents, and negative publicity surrounding the Soka Gakkai. But at least that content is factored out into separate sections. In this article, the negative tone seems to pervade the entire article. The word "cult" is used at least five times. I would like to suggest that this material (the "dumped safe", the "aggressive proselytizing", the "raccoon dog festival" incident and so on) be moved to its own section or sections. I'm not suggesting that it be deleted, or "balanced" with counterarguments. Simply that most sections of the article would benefit from a more neutral tone. -- Margin1522 ( talk) 16:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I struck my addition about my comments being edited out, not realizing the existence of the archives. 2602:306:CD27:DB49:3C69:E756:6DEC:DADF ( talk) 05:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Mark Rogow 08/08/2014
I didn't see it. From your description it sounds like you were engaged in original research, namely offering your own interpretation of "primary sources" in the normal sense of "the very words". At Wikipedia, we don't do that. -- Margin1522 ( talk) 03:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I offer, for the most part, little commentary, preferring to let the reader come to his or her own conclusions from these mens' words alone [primary sources]. It is true, however, I juxtapose their words to make a point. My bad. I also highlighted several common knowledge facts, for example, Soka Gakkai's relationship to the Mitsubishi corporation. SGI's and Mitsubishi's relationship is important in light of the nature of Mitsubishi's products and activities and SGI's peace rhetoric. This topic requires further development, in my opinion. Mark Rogow 08/06/2014 [again, I deleted the first sentence of this paragraph, having lamented "removal of my contributions" when no removal occured]. 2602:306:CD27:DB49:3C69:E756:6DEC:DADF ( talk) 05:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Mark Rogow 08/08/2014
Catflap—RE: mentorship section: I don't understand why the publisher of a book supersedes the credibility of an author.
Strand has been published by several firms. He is who he is. What's the deal?
Ltdan43 (
talk)
19:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Margin1522: Sorry there is no beating around the bush on this one – aggressive proselytising has been part of the organisation for most part of its history. This continued well into the 1980’s . It has reached its peak in terms of growth as most observers would agree upon. When having a history section in the article this amongst other issues has to be mentioned. It has moved to the fringe of Buddhism in general and indeed even within Nichiren Buddhism. Even though out of print I would strongly recommend reading “Fire in the Lotus” by Montgomery which to my mind is at this point the only books that gives a neutral overview on Nichiren Buddhism. I would also recommend to set aside some time in reading the article’s history.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 21:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Catflap—OK, you got me now. How come Wikipedia uses SGI sources on the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren entries? Are they valid or not? Do we have to vet every credible expert based on who publishes their works? Since when are respectable sources defined by their publisher? Ltdan43 ( talk) 22:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The National Enguirer too is notorious for irresponsible journalism, yet, the Enquirer broke nearly a dozen major stories proven to be true. Each story should be taken on its own merit. Where have I heard that before, Margin1522? Mark Rogow 08/06/2014
Rather to quote the demon "shukanshi" were their article proven true than the New York Times were their article proven false. This is my assertion. An example is the "shukanshi" breaking the true story of Junya Yano https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren/XUt8n-CnUyY while professor Elkevizth of the Department of Religion of Duke University was all wrong in his thesis concerning SGI and Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution: http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/5430/Elkevizth_duke_0066N_11216.pdf?sequence=1 2602:306:CD27:DB49:845F:E6B2:FE26:FB17 ( talk) 05:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Mark Rogow 08/07/2014
Just a couple of things. Shi, the "raccoon dog festival" is hardly "one of its most important events". It's not commemorated in the SG, it's not taught, it's not held up as an example of how to practice. As I understand it, the priest in question ended up a great supporter of Toda, and while there may have been some immediate disciplinary action, Toda spent the ensuing years embraced and supported by the priesthood: it was something that happened, was resolved, and had no lasting effect on any of the parties involved. None of this, of course, would be chronicled in a 3rd party publication - "Nothing of consequence happened", it would have to say - so I don't know how to resolve the citation issue without using either an SG source, or just common sense.
On Noriega (a similar situation, I think), here is exactly what Seagar says: "On Web sites styled as cult alerts with obscure, presumably unofficial links to Nichiren Shoshu, they cite, for instance, his acquaintance with Manuel Noriega, whom he met in 1974 during a stopover in Panama, and with Fidel Castro...Such spurious charges distort the meaning of Ikeda's networking and the resulting dialogues with (list of academics and Nobel laureates). These meetings serve a number of constructive ends, most basically that of satisfying Ikeda's passion for self education. They have played a crusial role in his journey into cosmopolitan complexity, becoming both pilgrimage and mission..." (p. 115). It may not call the allegations concerning Noriega "nonsensical", but it certainly undermines their importance and credibility; and it appears to me he did "look into it" himself, as he was aware of the websites he mentioned and their source, and rather than "take the SGI's word for it", he drew his own conclusions - and stated them clearly. Just my observation, fwiw. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 19:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
No wonder the "raccoon dog festival" is not remembered in SGI – what a surprise that would be. There are quite a few things in SGI that are not remembered and thaught. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 06:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said? Someone called the "Raccoon Dog" think "a significant" event. I said it was not - yes, from the SG perspective, but I also said "As I understand it, the priest in question ended up a great supporter of Toda, and while there may have been some immediate disciplinary action, Toda spent the ensuing years embraced and supported by the priesthood: it was something that happened, was resolved, and had no lasting effect on any of the parties involved. None of this, of course, would be chronicled in a 3rd party publication - "Nothing of consequence happened", it would have to say - so I don't know how to resolve the citation issue without using either an SG source, or just common sense." You left that part out when you answered me. Do you have a constructive suggestion for addressing that problem?
And Shi, I understand WP does not do PR for organizations. Does it do PR for an organizations enemies? Again, re: the incident in question, no one was hurt, everyone ended up as friends (at least for a while). By what stretch of the imagination is that comparable to the Inquisition? I would like a solution to the problem of balance, if y0u have one. And on Noriega, color it as you will, but Seagar did find that the negativity was coming from web sites connected to Nichiren Shoshu. I assume I can put that in the article? -- Daveler16 ( talk) 04:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm asking for suggestions on how to achieve balance. You seem mainly interested in keeping things negative. Again: something negatve may be covered by a 3rd party, but its resolution (unless somehow sensationalized, which this one wasn't) hardly ever is, and that's the case with the "Raccoon Dog". How do we address this? -- Daveler16 ( talk) 17:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)