![]() | 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Movements such as the Right to Knowledge and the Right to Information are growing on community and social organisations levels demanding correct delivery of information. The contents of chemicals in a product you buy can pose a serious health issue and incorrect information about items we purchase can bring the advertiser to court. Such demand for “Transparency” and “honesty in delivering information” and has been growing with the growth of the internet. The internet itself is a source of information and WP is one of its products.
Cyberproducts involve interaction with anonymous contributors, who may also use bullying, threats, defamation and so forth – having their personal agenda. A self-respecting Encyclopedia such as WP can successfully inhibit such trends by adhering to an acknowledged policy. There is nothing in WP policy which encourages defamation or bias of delivered data. As you personally have the Right to Correct Information of a product you purchase, so do Readers of WP, they have the Right to Correct Information – to use the same designation of this human right, or the Right to Unbiased and Neutral delivery of information.
This comes in contrast to current SGI article, edited with an aggressive trend for defamation starting from the INTRO section describing the organisation by the “Opinions” of some observers – not by facts of its real engagement in society. For an independent scholar it is not SGI that is important, but the attitude “priming” the mind of reader, bombarding the mind of reader with one negative word after another, brainwashing reader … It is the attitude of respect to readers and respect to the truth that is in concern in this article.
The Intro should include facts and also controversies. It should include references to factual SGI activities in culture, music and art, its engagement in education, Buddhist humanism and world peace, as well as work with the United Nations and other Human Rights institutes. There are 2 controversies which should also be included: political and religious. The political is about member voting for the Komeito (with both sides views) and the religious controversy is about laybelievers rejecting Nichiren Shoshu priesthood(with both sides views).
When one is attacked, one has the right for a response and clarification. WP does not deny the Right to Expression to put things in their perspectives. Take for ex. The Intro’s aggressive bombardment of the mind of reader with words of militaristic fascistic etc... there must be a response to this. WP is not a blog for gossips and accusations. Response and clarification must also be included to abide by WP policy of balance and neutrality.
WP policy of citing sources of information WP:PSTS clearly allows for Primary Sources to be used (if clarifying events and not clashing with another policy preventing self-praise or PR). How to apply WP policy to protect the article from being a list of Japanese pre-election gossips? It is by accepting what other RS, including PS – have to clarify. In any statement of accusation against SGI or its activities there must be the “ON THE OTHER HAND” response. The Right to Expression on SGI article demands a response – for each levelled accusation, one by one, using RS including PS. To accuse someone of a negative or antisocial attitude and prevent or supress the Right to respond to the accusations – this is a remanent of middleages mentality and is not supported by WP guidelines.
The implications of current article about SGI nature as being anti-social, fascist, militaristic, violent bribing professors and head states to get medals etc... does not work for WP’s benefit. WP integrity does not allow accusing hundreds of University professors who acknowledged SGI to be money collectors (or that meeting Gorbachev or others was arranged through money). But such POV-s also are welcome if there is a response to them. Let the list of Awards be presented in a special section, and opponents can choose and address the Awards they criticise of being without merit. If you “heard that someone said" that a certain Goethe establishment sells awards or that a University board of professors were getting money giving SGI awards with no merit, then fine, that accused side: Goethe as an ex. here, or University Professors etc...can be informed about these accusations of dishonesty and they have the right to their Expression to protect their integrity. Regards, SafwanZabalawi ( talk) 04:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Well the latest edits by Daveler16 just seem to go down the path. Wonder why. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 21:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Safwan, you write: "Cyberproducts involve interaction with anonymous contributors, who may also use bullying, threats, defamation and so forth – having their personal agenda." Threats of legal actuion does not constitute bullying? ["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." -- Safwan] Mark Rogow 08/06/2014
Once again, and finally, I removed comment whereby I incorrectly misattributed removal of my contributions when no removal occured. I apologize for the redundancy of this edit and any confusion it my have caused or continues to cause. 2602:306:CD27:DB49:3C69:E756:6DEC:DADF ( talk) 05:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Mark Rogow 08/08/2014
"D'autres faits restent plus mystérieux : ainsi, la visite d'Ikeda au général et trafiquant de drogue Noriega, quelques semaines avant que les Américains ne le capturent, n'a pas reçu d'explication officielle."
This was added in [ this dif] with the comment "The Le Point article is partially available on Google Books, couldn't find an exact page link though". But the quote is not even partially available, although it does generate a hit that displays a grainy scan of what looks like a magazine table of contents.
The issue, page number, and publisher are unknown. There are no other references on the Internet to this book, if that's what it is, or to this quote. My guess is that this is raw data from Google's unpublished scans of old magazines in university libraries. Nor does the quote say very much. All it does is assert that a mysterious visit occurred, which has not been explained.
This is very far from a verifiable source. It's in French. If there are no objections, I'm going to delete it, along with the associated assertion in the article text. (At least we aren't directly accusing Ikeda of smuggling drugs, although that's the implication.) -- Margin1522 ( talk) 01:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
No objection here. Similar situation with the "dumped safe" - please see below. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 17:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I ask again for editors who use multiple names here to step forward – nor harm done. The history of the article and the talk page shows that there is some severe Sock puppetry going on here. This article has MANY issues but WP:SOC won’t help matters nor the goal that some would like to be achieved. The guideline on Sock puppetry opens the option to make others aware to be using different accounts. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 15:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
In [
this dif], we see Daveler16 trying to add a Christmas tree worth of cites for the statement "The organization has received recognition for its peace activism", and one more cite for the statement "Others have concluded that the SGI doesn not meet the criteria to be called 'a cult'." In other words, he is trying to bring some balance to this article. And we see the additions being dismissively reverted with a curt "Not likely".
Now, I will admit that there were problems with the Christmas tree. We don't need 9 cites to make a single point. One or two is plenty. But Daveler16 is a new editor and maybe he doesn't know that yet. If that's the case, we can discuss it here at the Talk page. We could make suggestions, such as one or two is plenty, or if we really need 9 then perhaps they could be handled better in a single discursive footnote that says something about each book. What we don't need is to revert these cites outright, especially since one was to Seager, who has been cited elsewhere and is one of the basic references for this article.
About the second addition, I see no problem whatsoever, either with the statement or the cite.
Apparently
Catflap08 still feels justified in removing any source connected in any way to SGI, and feels strongly enough it about to ignore any collateral damage. I made an argument against that view yesterday, but
Catflap08 has failed to addressed it here in Talk page. Instead, we're getting the same pattern of aggressive reversions of every attempt to bring some balance into this article. If this continues, I'm afraid I'm going to have to take it up with whatever recourse we have for dealing with disruptive editing. --
Margin1522 (
talk)
01:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hold your breath. In a “good” intro no references whatsoever should be found as it sums up the main article. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 06:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC) And for God’s sage Middleway Press IS SGI how can that not be a primary source! [ [1]] Middleway Press -- Catflap08 ( talk) 06:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC) @ Margin1522 I feel it necessary to delete sources that make the reader believe they are non-primary sopurces.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 06:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
That contains specious and spurious statements that have been debunked above, in particularly, the fallacious assertion that SG is a "sect" of Buddhism. If you have a reliable secondary source to support anything asserted in that primary source, then present it, otherwise, please stop the POV pushing based on the primary source. -- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Soka Gakkai is a modern lay Buddhist movement. It is the largest Buddhist sect in Japan with 8 or more million members and an additional 4 million members in other countries. [8] “Soka Gakkai” translates as “Value-Creation Society.” The organization follows the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin (1222–82), a Japanese monk who crafted a reinterpretation of Buddhism based on the Lotus Sutra. Since its founding in 1930, The Soka Gakkai has been the object of a lot of criticism and even persecution. Unlike other Nichiren sects, Soka Gakkai does not have a class of priests, and its emphasis is on the practitioner rather than dogma.
Personally I do not really care who is on what List. If Wikipedia is not up to date – so be it. Middleway Press is owned by SGI – just look up the homepage. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 20:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Also I do not object primary sources – but what I do object to is making them look like a non-primary sources. If beliefs are described – fine they should know best what or what not they believe in. If it comes to controversial matters things are quite different. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 20:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
FWIW: Over at the WP entry for Nichiren Shoshu. there are 17 citations. Numbers 1,2 and 4 are to the website "Nichiren Shoshu Myokan-ko Official Website". Number 3 is to the "Nichiren Shoshu Temple" website. Numbers 5 through 9 are to various archives of the "NSglobalnet" website. So over half of the entry is based on Nichiren Shoshu's own writings - not subsidiaries of NS, mind you, but the actual subject of the article itself. Don't know if this is illuminating for this discussion, but it doesn seem interesting. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 05:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I see. So, in your estimation, every school chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo gets to pretty much write their own entry, except the SG. I think perhaps you are missing something: just because some characterize SG as only a "lay movement" does cannot obsure the fact that it has a religious underpinning. It has a liturgy. It has a religious practice. It has religious beliefs based on the writings of a particular religious sage. Perhaps the confusion comes from its belief that these things - practice, faith, etc - should have positive effects in the real workd and so it is committed to action beyond ritual and dogma. So if it is "natural" to "to cite primary sources as they should know best what there teachings are about" for other religions, why is there so much push against that very thing for the SG? -- Daveler16 ( talk) 17:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The notice at the top of this page says that it is being archived, but that bot doesn't work anymore. Is this page actually being archived? The history goes back to 2005, but the page itself starts in 2014. -- Margin1522 ( talk) 01:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I too just discovered the archives. Interesting reads. 2602:306:CD27:DB49:3C69:E756:6DEC:DADF ( talk) 05:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Mark Rogow 08/08/2014
The first citation for this section about an event in 1989 Yokohama, is to a history of the French revolution by Steven L. Kaplan, whose Wikipedia entry says "His primary fields of expertise are French history and the history of food, specifically the history of bread." The 2nd citation is to a July 1989 NY Times article, about which more in a second. The final footnote is to "Kokumin Seiji Nenkan, Nihon Shakaitō Kikanshikyoku. 1990. p. 1066". It's evidently available only in Japanese, but does seem to be preserved in the Hathi Trust Digital Library. I searched the 1990 edition for both "Soka Gakkai" and "Haruo Nakanishi" (the safe's owner) and came up empty both times.
That leaves the NYT article, quoted in the WP entry. The article says "The police seem to suspect that the money in the safe was part of a larger slush fund, stashed away for a needy political cause." Which was probably true on July 20, 1989, when the article was written.
However: on October 16th of that year, the Japan Economic Newswire reported that the police had been satisfied with Mr. Nakanishi's story -- "Police quoted Nakanishi as saying that he stored the money in a safe and kept it in a Seikyo Shimbun underground warehouse and forgot about it. Police checked up on Nakanishi’s claim in detail and decided to return the money, officials said. "
So 2 of the footnotes are questionable, and the third merely recounts "speculation" that was later found to be groundless. Now, I can just add "the accusations proved to be untrue" and cite the Japan Economic Newswire. But that seems a waste of space, saying, essentially, "The SG was accused of something it turned out to be innocent of". Or, "Nothing happened" So instead I intend to delete the section. I will wait a couple of days for discussion,if any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveler16 ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Did it. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 15:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
In a German Blog on Buddhism I learned the German offspring of SGI (SGI-D, with an official number of adherents of 6.000) seems to be dismantling. One reason given was the growing influence of what some call “Ikedaism” which turn large numbers away. Any reliable resources on that also internationally?-- Catflap08 ( talk) 18:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's go over again my proposals for the lead paragraph. They are largely syntactical in form. As an outsider I feel I can bring some accommodation and be of help.
1- "Soka Gakkai (Japanese: 創価学会?Italic text) is a movement based on Nichiren Buddhism, headquartered in Japan; its umbrella organization, the Soka Gakkai Internationsl (SGI) claims a membership of 12 million members in 192 countries and territories around the world."
Explanation: I am trying to get rid of the question mark after the kanji characters in the transliteration. I cannot understand why and how a question mark appeared here. In the phrase "movement based on Nichiren Buddhism"--I am trying to accommodate Ubikwit's objections. It is a movement and its publications and online presence defines itself as being based on Nichiren Buddhism. Whether it correctly interprets Nichiren Buddhism is a discussion that belongs in another subsection. Likewise, the issue of whether it is a sect of Buddhism can, should, and must be dealt with later, perhaps in a new section.
2- "It is one of the largest and most successful New Religious Movements (NRM) in the world."
Explanation: I feel this is an essential point. Ubikwit, for example, points out that a "lay group" must be affiliated with a temple. Against the backdrop of traditional religions, this makes sense. Against the backdrop of NRMs, this doesn't hold. Since NRMs are on a dramatic rise, associating the Soka Gakkai with this phenomenon is crucial.
3- "As a lay organization it breaks with Nichiren lineages and schools where priests play the central roles."
Explanation: I believe the wording of this sentence would satisfy Ubikwit who voiced concerns about "surreptitiously" placing SG on the same level as established Nichiren schools. It might not satisfy Catflap08 who insists that lay be associated with democratic (I am preparing a response to this point for another posting). But it is lay and WP readers deserve to read it upfront. By the way, the SG is not unique as a religious lay organization that is structured hierarchically. For example Mormons call their Church officers branch presidents, bishops, or stake presidents but they serve as laypersons, not as professionally trained and licensed clergy. Mormons refer to a priesthood but it consists of everyone (rather, all males) who voluntarily choose to be ordained. So it remains as a hierarchical lay organization.
4- "Members of the Soka Gakkai revere the Lotus Sutra and chant its title as the core of their religious practice."
Explanation: No one seems to have objected to this. It is simply an essential fact. FetullahFan ( talk) 11:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
FetullahFan: those changes seem reasonable to me. If balance is what we're striving for, I don't really get the objections at all. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 16:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@
Shii: Please see
this in relation to further discussion of the "lay movement" characterization.
--
Ubikwit
連絡
見学/迷惑
17:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Daveler16: The objections are some factual errors which is not what we are striving for. And even though No. 4 is not wrong it should be extended to the fact that the teachings of the three presidents are held in just as high esteem as the ones by Nichiren. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 17:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Put back "revitalizing lives of its members". We had discussed it, it is backed up with citations, and it presages the article. Also changed "originally associated with Nichiren Buddhism" to "originally associated with Nichirten Shoshu Buddhism:, which is more specifically accurate.-- Daveler16 ( talk) 05:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Daveler16:I would suggest to read up on citations, quotation and paraphrases. The short sentence conatining the words „revitalizing the lives of its members“ is anything but neutral and is followed by SIX footnotes. If I were to write being a member of SGI has devastated many people’s lives you’d be up in arms if I would not be able to substantiate this remark. So to put in the proper quote would be the appropriate method. WP:CS , WP:QUOTE, WP:POV, WP:WTW , WP:WEASEL-- Catflap08 ( talk) 08:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@ FetullahFan: You said about yourself “new student of Nichiren Buddhism “. It might be a good idea to get to know some facts and issues on Buddhism in general and Nichiren Buddhism before editing issues that might need some more insight and knowledge. Generally one would expect editors to have a certain expertise in the area they are editing as yours might be Fethullah Gülen and the Gülen movement. Again you seem to confuse cause and effect here and also including a POV. So to say that SGI “disavows” is somewhat misleading in the sense that it looks as if it always took that stance – which is not the case. Since the priesthood kicked SGI out and SGI was miffed it had to change its teachings. I would also suggest to read up on the member versus adherent issue. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 08:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The Soka Gakkai Buddhist movement in the World
are totally unacceptable because they are simply a promotional POV seeking to advocate some status for SG that it doesn't have and never will. This article is not about "opinions" but about a topic described on the basis of statements published in reliable sources. The opinions I've expressed are based on academic sources on Japanese Buddhism. I would imagine, incidentally, that people coming into contact with SG that continue to cultivate an interest in Buddhism will eventually read some English studies on Nichiren Buddhism, etc., and come to understand SG in context as a new religious movement that developed from a Nichiren lay organization. Nichiren Buddhism is itself a single school among several schools of Mahayana Buddhism that took shape in Japan during the Kamakura period.the terms "Buddhism-influenced" and "originally associated with Nichiren Buddhism" (with the insinuation that there is no longer an association). I know you have strong opinions about these matters. However there are millions of people who probably feel just as strongly that the SG merits the appellation of Buddhism, best represents Nichiren Buddhism, and perhaps is even the future of Buddhism as a whole.
@ FetullahFan: We are not here to set trends and even if they sometimes annoy us – we do have guidelines that this community has set for itself. It does therefore help to study the guidelines. Concerning the Gulen Movement I have enough controversial articles to work on – and one cult like organisation is enough to watch out for. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 13:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC) @ FetullahFan: I will have to look at the book, but am decidedly not impressed with the "reformation" analogy, which the authors appear to be deriving from Protestantism. No serious student of Japanese Buddhism would give that any credence. Buddhism and Christianity are two very different religions, whether one thinks they are both humanistic or not. The fact that SG claims this or that about the priest-disciple relationship or the sangha, drawing on the history of Protestantism in Christianity, does not a religious doctrine make. It's specious, dubious ploy, the way I see it.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like to add a sociological perspective to the opening sentence. It once read "sect" and now reads "movement." This downgrades the religious significance of the Soka Gakkai. In addition, the following sentence states it is "associated" with Nichiren Buddhism, which I think many would regard as a gross understatement.
I would like to suggest the addition of one sentence to the lead: "Soka Gakkai (Japanese: 創価学会?) is a Japanese lay Nichiren Buddhist movement with, according to its own account, 12 million members in 192 countries and territories around the world. It is one of the largest and most successful New Religious Movements in the world. As a lay group based on Nichiren Buddhism..."
The addition is based on several sociological works but especially one that I believe everyone should read: Lorne L. Dawson, "The Cultural Significance of New Religious Movements: The Case of Soka Gakkai," Sociology of Religion (2001) 62 (3): 337-364.(accessible at http://wwrn.org/articles/12196/?§ion=other-nrms).
I am trying to defang here what I regard as a dead-end discussion about to-be-or-not-to-be-a-sect. For example on June 21st Ubikwit stated, most categorically, "SGK is not a sect of Buddhism. It is classified as a 'Japanese New Religion' by some scholars, at most. Show me an academic source that describes them as a 'sect' of Buddhism." On July 11th s/he reiterated, "the Sokka (sic) Gakkai is not a sect, it is a lay movement," followed on July 21st with "....calling the Sokka (sic) Gakkai a "sect" of Buddhism would be a gross misrepresentation," August 2nd, "the fallacious assertion that SG is a "sect" of Buddhism" and August 3rd, "SG is not a "sect" of Buddhism, for example, not matter what they or their misinformed members try to tell the public about themselves. Can I make that any more clear?"
I find his/her statements very harsh. Of course we can look at his/her earlier statement: "In relation to Buddhism, my understanding of the use of sect in religious studies is used to refer to a group that formed in relation to either the adaptation of a new interpretation of a sacred text or focus on a form of practice by a prominent teacher, a new teaching by a teacher that has risen to prominence." From what I have gathered, the Soka Gakkai, it can be argued, meets these requirements.
Most sociologists find the "sect" discussion as value-laden. The use of words such as "sects" and "cults" is a huge problem from a sociological perspective because of their implicit values (e.g., "sect"=good, "cult"=bad). Largely as a result New Religious Movements (NRM) has become a major field in sociology. It has produced nuanced typologies to blunt tool nomenclatures such as cult or sect. Even the WP article on sect defines it as "a subgroup of a religious, political or philosophical belief system, usually an offshoot of a larger religious group" which is largely descriptive of any NRM.
I believed my proposed edit sidesteps the "sect" debate. It leaves WP readers with a clear understanding that it is a religious movement, and part of a very profound post-modern realignment of religions which should be seen as part of the greater NRM phenomenon.
Please provide feedback to my suggestions. I will delay making any edits until there is feedback. FetullahFan ( talk) 16:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but the democratic issue has been brought in by the quotes. Again an absence of priest just does not fulfil a lay movement. Who elects the leaders? Lays? Who is in charge? Lays? Please provide proof for a lay movement? How is lay defined within SGI? What democratic aspects can be accounted for within SGI?? Please define the “lay” apart from the absence of priest are lays “dilettantes”? Please define the lay within lay movement and the decision making process of lays involved.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 19:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
There may have been an attempt to merge all sects of Nichirenshu, but not to put them under control of Shinto....the military government of Japan sought to suppress the movement, arresting its leaders for their refusal to co-operate with the government's plans to merge all Nichiren sects and place them under the control of the imperial religion of state Shintoism
Note that the article is not by a prominent scholar and I have shown that it has limitations, but it is useful to demonstrate support of a couple of points.Soka Gakkai's religious practices are based on the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin (1222-1282), the prophetic founder of a sect of the Tendai school of Mahayana Buddhism, which itself was imported to Japan from China in the eighth century. Nichiren Shoshu is one of several sects that emerged from Nichiren's teachings. Like the other sects of Tendai, Nichiren taught that the true essence of Buddhism is revealed in the Lotus Sutra...As can be seen, the beliefs and practices of SGI differ quite sharply from other kinds of Buddhism, whether Theravadin, Mahayanist, Tibetan, Pure Land or Zen. In its practice SGI is more parsimonious, and its mode of salvation more immediate and accessible.
I will respond to Catflap08's comments on the relationship of the "lay" category/democracy and Ubikwit's comments on sects/NRMs in a followup post. For now I want to help improve your article in a practical way.
The lead paragraph as it currently stands has several problems: 1- redundancy--does the word "lay" need to appear twice in two succeeding paragraphs? Ditto "Nichiren Buddhism." 2- inconsistency within lead sentence--how can it be identified as a "Japanese" movement when members exist in 192 countries. 3- incorrect verb usage--"associated" just doesn't seem the right choice of words. Nichiren Buddhism, from what I gather, is comprised of many lineages and schools. In this context "associated" does not work. 4- vagueness-- "though it occasionally breaks with Nichiren tradition, especially on issues of priesthood." "Occasionally" is vague. What is the Nichiren tradition and who defines it? 5- syntax-- "issues of priesthood" is an awkward phrasing. 6- problems with subject/object agreement-- "the Soka Gakkai reveres" is incorrect; an organization cannot revere--that is something only people can do (not withstanding Citizens United). 7- translation problem-- someone should be able to resolve the Japanese transliteration (Japanese: 創価学会?). Why should there be a question mark?
May I suggest, sentence by sentence, the following: 1- "Soka Gakkai (Japanese: 創価学会?) is a Nichiren Buddhist movement, headquartered in Japan, with, according to its own account, 12 million members in 192 countries and territories around the world." 2- (Based on one of my previous suggestions and is designed to sidestep the "sect" controversy yet clearly indicate that this movement is religious in nature) "It is one of the largest and most successful New Religious Movements (NRM) in the world." (Ubikwit has objected to the Dawson citation but as I am familiarizing myself with the subject I am finding multiple other sources to support this statement by sociologists and religionists which I would be happy to supply). 3- "As a lay organization it breaks with other Nichiren lineages and schools where clergy play the central roles." 4- (Here I am trying to provide consistency with the Nichiren Buddhism article), "Members of the Soka Gakkai revere the Lotus Sutra and chant its title as their religious practice." FetullahFan ( talk) 16:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
FetullahFan ( talk) 22:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The people who practice a religion are never "the religion." The members of the SGI practice Nichiren Buddhism just as people in a Catholic church practice Catholicism. BTW, the section Ikeda 1960 requested more information and I posted a quote from a reliable source and it was removed. Why? Ltdan43 ( talk) 21:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Well finally we are talking some definition issues. Again and again it has to be looked at who SGI’s members are. The number of “members” in most western countries is per country not more than a few dozen. This is due to its legal and formal structure SGI has decided to adapt and which is also legally the reason why it’s so called “members” have in effect no say in SGIs workings. To this effect when referring to the millions it would be reasonable to supplement the word member in the article with adherent or follower. This also partly answer the question – in a logical manner – why SGI lacks democratic structures. In other words only as a citizen of a country or with residential status one would be eligible to vote, but SGI-land has only a very small population. Having this in mind I find some of the so called sociological studies, also dashed out in SGI’s bookshops, to be somewhat problematic, as they look at active adherents, not members, and the exclusion of not so active adherents is not looked at at all. I also know for a fact the author of the German study had a strong affiliation to the group. So doing some background research on the authors might not be a bad idea. In the end publications and authors in “support” do tend to be either affiliated or financed by SGI, which I find to be quite problematic. So if an affiliation is known then it should be noted. Also I have never heard that the term "Nichiren Buddhist movement" is a protected term … at least not in the English language … I find the term “lay” to be far more problematic and confusing. The only term that would come to my mind would be “Shū” and a “Nichiren Shū” already exists. Also keeping in mind that the term “Shū” is mostly used to describe a School of thought in the traditional sense. On issues of ownership I completely agree nobody owns this article same goes for the soapbox issue though. At one stage the article read as if it was authored by the SGI PR department and we also do have some guideline on advertisement. I am an academic myself and although I would not like to see articles to be read like academic works Wikipedia’s guidelines generally reflect an academic approach. I remember once I tried to explain that to an adherent of the group which resulted that the editor lashed out against academics – so much for education in SGI’s goals.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 09:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Ubikwit: The citation needed paragraph in the Ikeda 1960 section is not mine. Mine was correctly referenced. I was just wondering why the section requested more info and then deleted my attempt to post more info. Ltdan43 ( talk) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
SGI does have priests, in countries in which priests are both an integral part of the culture and highly esteemed, in Singapore and Ghana, for example. http://sokaspirit.org/world-tribune/what-about-what-are-the-reformist-priests-doing/ 2602:306:CD27:DB49:212C:59C:9794:A3EF ( talk) 03:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Mark Rogow 08/13/2014
@Ubikwit, I am appealing for you to change "Buddhist-derived" to "Buddhist" in the lead paragraph. I believe you acted unilaterally on the "Buddhist-derived" label. I believe this is an example of disruptive editing. You alone introduced this labeling of the SG as "Buddhist-derived." My apologies, but I do not remember seeing this term before either on the main page or the talk page. I can think of no greater downgrade to the Soka Gakkai's status than to reduce it from "Buddhist" to "Buddhist-derived"--and, no less, on the very lead sentence. This is unfair.
You stated on August 10th, "Formally speaking, SG members do not practice Nichiren Buddhism; they practice a Nichiren Buddhism-influenced new religion." This is a POV, not a fact. Certainly the citation you provided yesterday, the paper delivered by Leslie Kawamura in 1978, does not support your contention. Dr. Kawamura points to references of the 1960's and early 1970's to form his research. Distinguished as Dr. Kawamura was, let us be clear that we are discussing here 40-year-old research. In addition, your point about "Buddhist-derived" is drawn from a footnote, not the actual text.
The actual text leaves quite a different impression:
"We have seen that Sõka Gakkai, a representative type of the new religions, came into popularity in postwar Japan, a period marked by socio-political upheaval, and catered to the needs of the masses by identifying itself with the causes of the masses. But the reader will now notice that this paper contains some contradictions. First, it identified Sõka Gakkai as an integral entity of the Japanese Buddhist tradition, representing the bodhisattva doctrine, but at the same time it has criticized Soka Gakkai. This contradiction is inevitable, for the bodhisattva doctrine is the ‘ideal, not the ‘real. Soka Gakkai is a historically established religious institution, a sahgha, which like any other Buddhist institution is striving, through improvising skill-in-means, to realize the ideal bodhisattva principle" (p. 215).
This quotation not only identifies the SG as "an integral entity of the Japanese tradition" but also as "a historically established religious institution, a sahgha."
Since we are both reading "Global Citizens," in my next posting I will provide additional citations to cast light on "Buddhist-derived" vs. "Buddhist." I hope on the basis of this source we can develop a consensus to restore "Buddhist" to the lead. FetullahFan ( talk) 11:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to delete everything in this section, because it isn't true. To wit:
In place of this stuff, I'm going to move to here some of the more colorful stories from earlier in the article, like Toda on his white horse. Those things did happen, and arguably contributed to public perception of SG.-- Margin1522 ( talk) 10:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Removed the "Leadership" section. besides having no citation whatsoever, it read like somebody's complaint about how an organization chooses to conduct its own business, and added nothing to an understanding of the subject.-- Daveler16 ( talk) 16:54, 14 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Movements such as the Right to Knowledge and the Right to Information are growing on community and social organisations levels demanding correct delivery of information. The contents of chemicals in a product you buy can pose a serious health issue and incorrect information about items we purchase can bring the advertiser to court. Such demand for “Transparency” and “honesty in delivering information” and has been growing with the growth of the internet. The internet itself is a source of information and WP is one of its products.
Cyberproducts involve interaction with anonymous contributors, who may also use bullying, threats, defamation and so forth – having their personal agenda. A self-respecting Encyclopedia such as WP can successfully inhibit such trends by adhering to an acknowledged policy. There is nothing in WP policy which encourages defamation or bias of delivered data. As you personally have the Right to Correct Information of a product you purchase, so do Readers of WP, they have the Right to Correct Information – to use the same designation of this human right, or the Right to Unbiased and Neutral delivery of information.
This comes in contrast to current SGI article, edited with an aggressive trend for defamation starting from the INTRO section describing the organisation by the “Opinions” of some observers – not by facts of its real engagement in society. For an independent scholar it is not SGI that is important, but the attitude “priming” the mind of reader, bombarding the mind of reader with one negative word after another, brainwashing reader … It is the attitude of respect to readers and respect to the truth that is in concern in this article.
The Intro should include facts and also controversies. It should include references to factual SGI activities in culture, music and art, its engagement in education, Buddhist humanism and world peace, as well as work with the United Nations and other Human Rights institutes. There are 2 controversies which should also be included: political and religious. The political is about member voting for the Komeito (with both sides views) and the religious controversy is about laybelievers rejecting Nichiren Shoshu priesthood(with both sides views).
When one is attacked, one has the right for a response and clarification. WP does not deny the Right to Expression to put things in their perspectives. Take for ex. The Intro’s aggressive bombardment of the mind of reader with words of militaristic fascistic etc... there must be a response to this. WP is not a blog for gossips and accusations. Response and clarification must also be included to abide by WP policy of balance and neutrality.
WP policy of citing sources of information WP:PSTS clearly allows for Primary Sources to be used (if clarifying events and not clashing with another policy preventing self-praise or PR). How to apply WP policy to protect the article from being a list of Japanese pre-election gossips? It is by accepting what other RS, including PS – have to clarify. In any statement of accusation against SGI or its activities there must be the “ON THE OTHER HAND” response. The Right to Expression on SGI article demands a response – for each levelled accusation, one by one, using RS including PS. To accuse someone of a negative or antisocial attitude and prevent or supress the Right to respond to the accusations – this is a remanent of middleages mentality and is not supported by WP guidelines.
The implications of current article about SGI nature as being anti-social, fascist, militaristic, violent bribing professors and head states to get medals etc... does not work for WP’s benefit. WP integrity does not allow accusing hundreds of University professors who acknowledged SGI to be money collectors (or that meeting Gorbachev or others was arranged through money). But such POV-s also are welcome if there is a response to them. Let the list of Awards be presented in a special section, and opponents can choose and address the Awards they criticise of being without merit. If you “heard that someone said" that a certain Goethe establishment sells awards or that a University board of professors were getting money giving SGI awards with no merit, then fine, that accused side: Goethe as an ex. here, or University Professors etc...can be informed about these accusations of dishonesty and they have the right to their Expression to protect their integrity. Regards, SafwanZabalawi ( talk) 04:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Well the latest edits by Daveler16 just seem to go down the path. Wonder why. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 21:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Safwan, you write: "Cyberproducts involve interaction with anonymous contributors, who may also use bullying, threats, defamation and so forth – having their personal agenda." Threats of legal actuion does not constitute bullying? ["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." -- Safwan] Mark Rogow 08/06/2014
Once again, and finally, I removed comment whereby I incorrectly misattributed removal of my contributions when no removal occured. I apologize for the redundancy of this edit and any confusion it my have caused or continues to cause. 2602:306:CD27:DB49:3C69:E756:6DEC:DADF ( talk) 05:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Mark Rogow 08/08/2014
"D'autres faits restent plus mystérieux : ainsi, la visite d'Ikeda au général et trafiquant de drogue Noriega, quelques semaines avant que les Américains ne le capturent, n'a pas reçu d'explication officielle."
This was added in [ this dif] with the comment "The Le Point article is partially available on Google Books, couldn't find an exact page link though". But the quote is not even partially available, although it does generate a hit that displays a grainy scan of what looks like a magazine table of contents.
The issue, page number, and publisher are unknown. There are no other references on the Internet to this book, if that's what it is, or to this quote. My guess is that this is raw data from Google's unpublished scans of old magazines in university libraries. Nor does the quote say very much. All it does is assert that a mysterious visit occurred, which has not been explained.
This is very far from a verifiable source. It's in French. If there are no objections, I'm going to delete it, along with the associated assertion in the article text. (At least we aren't directly accusing Ikeda of smuggling drugs, although that's the implication.) -- Margin1522 ( talk) 01:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
No objection here. Similar situation with the "dumped safe" - please see below. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 17:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I ask again for editors who use multiple names here to step forward – nor harm done. The history of the article and the talk page shows that there is some severe Sock puppetry going on here. This article has MANY issues but WP:SOC won’t help matters nor the goal that some would like to be achieved. The guideline on Sock puppetry opens the option to make others aware to be using different accounts. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 15:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
In [
this dif], we see Daveler16 trying to add a Christmas tree worth of cites for the statement "The organization has received recognition for its peace activism", and one more cite for the statement "Others have concluded that the SGI doesn not meet the criteria to be called 'a cult'." In other words, he is trying to bring some balance to this article. And we see the additions being dismissively reverted with a curt "Not likely".
Now, I will admit that there were problems with the Christmas tree. We don't need 9 cites to make a single point. One or two is plenty. But Daveler16 is a new editor and maybe he doesn't know that yet. If that's the case, we can discuss it here at the Talk page. We could make suggestions, such as one or two is plenty, or if we really need 9 then perhaps they could be handled better in a single discursive footnote that says something about each book. What we don't need is to revert these cites outright, especially since one was to Seager, who has been cited elsewhere and is one of the basic references for this article.
About the second addition, I see no problem whatsoever, either with the statement or the cite.
Apparently
Catflap08 still feels justified in removing any source connected in any way to SGI, and feels strongly enough it about to ignore any collateral damage. I made an argument against that view yesterday, but
Catflap08 has failed to addressed it here in Talk page. Instead, we're getting the same pattern of aggressive reversions of every attempt to bring some balance into this article. If this continues, I'm afraid I'm going to have to take it up with whatever recourse we have for dealing with disruptive editing. --
Margin1522 (
talk)
01:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Hold your breath. In a “good” intro no references whatsoever should be found as it sums up the main article. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 06:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC) And for God’s sage Middleway Press IS SGI how can that not be a primary source! [ [1]] Middleway Press -- Catflap08 ( talk) 06:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC) @ Margin1522 I feel it necessary to delete sources that make the reader believe they are non-primary sopurces.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 06:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
That contains specious and spurious statements that have been debunked above, in particularly, the fallacious assertion that SG is a "sect" of Buddhism. If you have a reliable secondary source to support anything asserted in that primary source, then present it, otherwise, please stop the POV pushing based on the primary source. -- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Soka Gakkai is a modern lay Buddhist movement. It is the largest Buddhist sect in Japan with 8 or more million members and an additional 4 million members in other countries. [8] “Soka Gakkai” translates as “Value-Creation Society.” The organization follows the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin (1222–82), a Japanese monk who crafted a reinterpretation of Buddhism based on the Lotus Sutra. Since its founding in 1930, The Soka Gakkai has been the object of a lot of criticism and even persecution. Unlike other Nichiren sects, Soka Gakkai does not have a class of priests, and its emphasis is on the practitioner rather than dogma.
Personally I do not really care who is on what List. If Wikipedia is not up to date – so be it. Middleway Press is owned by SGI – just look up the homepage. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 20:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Also I do not object primary sources – but what I do object to is making them look like a non-primary sources. If beliefs are described – fine they should know best what or what not they believe in. If it comes to controversial matters things are quite different. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 20:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
FWIW: Over at the WP entry for Nichiren Shoshu. there are 17 citations. Numbers 1,2 and 4 are to the website "Nichiren Shoshu Myokan-ko Official Website". Number 3 is to the "Nichiren Shoshu Temple" website. Numbers 5 through 9 are to various archives of the "NSglobalnet" website. So over half of the entry is based on Nichiren Shoshu's own writings - not subsidiaries of NS, mind you, but the actual subject of the article itself. Don't know if this is illuminating for this discussion, but it doesn seem interesting. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 05:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I see. So, in your estimation, every school chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo gets to pretty much write their own entry, except the SG. I think perhaps you are missing something: just because some characterize SG as only a "lay movement" does cannot obsure the fact that it has a religious underpinning. It has a liturgy. It has a religious practice. It has religious beliefs based on the writings of a particular religious sage. Perhaps the confusion comes from its belief that these things - practice, faith, etc - should have positive effects in the real workd and so it is committed to action beyond ritual and dogma. So if it is "natural" to "to cite primary sources as they should know best what there teachings are about" for other religions, why is there so much push against that very thing for the SG? -- Daveler16 ( talk) 17:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The notice at the top of this page says that it is being archived, but that bot doesn't work anymore. Is this page actually being archived? The history goes back to 2005, but the page itself starts in 2014. -- Margin1522 ( talk) 01:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I too just discovered the archives. Interesting reads. 2602:306:CD27:DB49:3C69:E756:6DEC:DADF ( talk) 05:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Mark Rogow 08/08/2014
The first citation for this section about an event in 1989 Yokohama, is to a history of the French revolution by Steven L. Kaplan, whose Wikipedia entry says "His primary fields of expertise are French history and the history of food, specifically the history of bread." The 2nd citation is to a July 1989 NY Times article, about which more in a second. The final footnote is to "Kokumin Seiji Nenkan, Nihon Shakaitō Kikanshikyoku. 1990. p. 1066". It's evidently available only in Japanese, but does seem to be preserved in the Hathi Trust Digital Library. I searched the 1990 edition for both "Soka Gakkai" and "Haruo Nakanishi" (the safe's owner) and came up empty both times.
That leaves the NYT article, quoted in the WP entry. The article says "The police seem to suspect that the money in the safe was part of a larger slush fund, stashed away for a needy political cause." Which was probably true on July 20, 1989, when the article was written.
However: on October 16th of that year, the Japan Economic Newswire reported that the police had been satisfied with Mr. Nakanishi's story -- "Police quoted Nakanishi as saying that he stored the money in a safe and kept it in a Seikyo Shimbun underground warehouse and forgot about it. Police checked up on Nakanishi’s claim in detail and decided to return the money, officials said. "
So 2 of the footnotes are questionable, and the third merely recounts "speculation" that was later found to be groundless. Now, I can just add "the accusations proved to be untrue" and cite the Japan Economic Newswire. But that seems a waste of space, saying, essentially, "The SG was accused of something it turned out to be innocent of". Or, "Nothing happened" So instead I intend to delete the section. I will wait a couple of days for discussion,if any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveler16 ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Did it. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 15:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
In a German Blog on Buddhism I learned the German offspring of SGI (SGI-D, with an official number of adherents of 6.000) seems to be dismantling. One reason given was the growing influence of what some call “Ikedaism” which turn large numbers away. Any reliable resources on that also internationally?-- Catflap08 ( talk) 18:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's go over again my proposals for the lead paragraph. They are largely syntactical in form. As an outsider I feel I can bring some accommodation and be of help.
1- "Soka Gakkai (Japanese: 創価学会?Italic text) is a movement based on Nichiren Buddhism, headquartered in Japan; its umbrella organization, the Soka Gakkai Internationsl (SGI) claims a membership of 12 million members in 192 countries and territories around the world."
Explanation: I am trying to get rid of the question mark after the kanji characters in the transliteration. I cannot understand why and how a question mark appeared here. In the phrase "movement based on Nichiren Buddhism"--I am trying to accommodate Ubikwit's objections. It is a movement and its publications and online presence defines itself as being based on Nichiren Buddhism. Whether it correctly interprets Nichiren Buddhism is a discussion that belongs in another subsection. Likewise, the issue of whether it is a sect of Buddhism can, should, and must be dealt with later, perhaps in a new section.
2- "It is one of the largest and most successful New Religious Movements (NRM) in the world."
Explanation: I feel this is an essential point. Ubikwit, for example, points out that a "lay group" must be affiliated with a temple. Against the backdrop of traditional religions, this makes sense. Against the backdrop of NRMs, this doesn't hold. Since NRMs are on a dramatic rise, associating the Soka Gakkai with this phenomenon is crucial.
3- "As a lay organization it breaks with Nichiren lineages and schools where priests play the central roles."
Explanation: I believe the wording of this sentence would satisfy Ubikwit who voiced concerns about "surreptitiously" placing SG on the same level as established Nichiren schools. It might not satisfy Catflap08 who insists that lay be associated with democratic (I am preparing a response to this point for another posting). But it is lay and WP readers deserve to read it upfront. By the way, the SG is not unique as a religious lay organization that is structured hierarchically. For example Mormons call their Church officers branch presidents, bishops, or stake presidents but they serve as laypersons, not as professionally trained and licensed clergy. Mormons refer to a priesthood but it consists of everyone (rather, all males) who voluntarily choose to be ordained. So it remains as a hierarchical lay organization.
4- "Members of the Soka Gakkai revere the Lotus Sutra and chant its title as the core of their religious practice."
Explanation: No one seems to have objected to this. It is simply an essential fact. FetullahFan ( talk) 11:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
FetullahFan: those changes seem reasonable to me. If balance is what we're striving for, I don't really get the objections at all. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 16:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@
Shii: Please see
this in relation to further discussion of the "lay movement" characterization.
--
Ubikwit
連絡
見学/迷惑
17:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Daveler16: The objections are some factual errors which is not what we are striving for. And even though No. 4 is not wrong it should be extended to the fact that the teachings of the three presidents are held in just as high esteem as the ones by Nichiren. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 17:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Put back "revitalizing lives of its members". We had discussed it, it is backed up with citations, and it presages the article. Also changed "originally associated with Nichiren Buddhism" to "originally associated with Nichirten Shoshu Buddhism:, which is more specifically accurate.-- Daveler16 ( talk) 05:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Daveler16:I would suggest to read up on citations, quotation and paraphrases. The short sentence conatining the words „revitalizing the lives of its members“ is anything but neutral and is followed by SIX footnotes. If I were to write being a member of SGI has devastated many people’s lives you’d be up in arms if I would not be able to substantiate this remark. So to put in the proper quote would be the appropriate method. WP:CS , WP:QUOTE, WP:POV, WP:WTW , WP:WEASEL-- Catflap08 ( talk) 08:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@ FetullahFan: You said about yourself “new student of Nichiren Buddhism “. It might be a good idea to get to know some facts and issues on Buddhism in general and Nichiren Buddhism before editing issues that might need some more insight and knowledge. Generally one would expect editors to have a certain expertise in the area they are editing as yours might be Fethullah Gülen and the Gülen movement. Again you seem to confuse cause and effect here and also including a POV. So to say that SGI “disavows” is somewhat misleading in the sense that it looks as if it always took that stance – which is not the case. Since the priesthood kicked SGI out and SGI was miffed it had to change its teachings. I would also suggest to read up on the member versus adherent issue. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 08:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The Soka Gakkai Buddhist movement in the World
are totally unacceptable because they are simply a promotional POV seeking to advocate some status for SG that it doesn't have and never will. This article is not about "opinions" but about a topic described on the basis of statements published in reliable sources. The opinions I've expressed are based on academic sources on Japanese Buddhism. I would imagine, incidentally, that people coming into contact with SG that continue to cultivate an interest in Buddhism will eventually read some English studies on Nichiren Buddhism, etc., and come to understand SG in context as a new religious movement that developed from a Nichiren lay organization. Nichiren Buddhism is itself a single school among several schools of Mahayana Buddhism that took shape in Japan during the Kamakura period.the terms "Buddhism-influenced" and "originally associated with Nichiren Buddhism" (with the insinuation that there is no longer an association). I know you have strong opinions about these matters. However there are millions of people who probably feel just as strongly that the SG merits the appellation of Buddhism, best represents Nichiren Buddhism, and perhaps is even the future of Buddhism as a whole.
@ FetullahFan: We are not here to set trends and even if they sometimes annoy us – we do have guidelines that this community has set for itself. It does therefore help to study the guidelines. Concerning the Gulen Movement I have enough controversial articles to work on – and one cult like organisation is enough to watch out for. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 13:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC) @ FetullahFan: I will have to look at the book, but am decidedly not impressed with the "reformation" analogy, which the authors appear to be deriving from Protestantism. No serious student of Japanese Buddhism would give that any credence. Buddhism and Christianity are two very different religions, whether one thinks they are both humanistic or not. The fact that SG claims this or that about the priest-disciple relationship or the sangha, drawing on the history of Protestantism in Christianity, does not a religious doctrine make. It's specious, dubious ploy, the way I see it.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like to add a sociological perspective to the opening sentence. It once read "sect" and now reads "movement." This downgrades the religious significance of the Soka Gakkai. In addition, the following sentence states it is "associated" with Nichiren Buddhism, which I think many would regard as a gross understatement.
I would like to suggest the addition of one sentence to the lead: "Soka Gakkai (Japanese: 創価学会?) is a Japanese lay Nichiren Buddhist movement with, according to its own account, 12 million members in 192 countries and territories around the world. It is one of the largest and most successful New Religious Movements in the world. As a lay group based on Nichiren Buddhism..."
The addition is based on several sociological works but especially one that I believe everyone should read: Lorne L. Dawson, "The Cultural Significance of New Religious Movements: The Case of Soka Gakkai," Sociology of Religion (2001) 62 (3): 337-364.(accessible at http://wwrn.org/articles/12196/?§ion=other-nrms).
I am trying to defang here what I regard as a dead-end discussion about to-be-or-not-to-be-a-sect. For example on June 21st Ubikwit stated, most categorically, "SGK is not a sect of Buddhism. It is classified as a 'Japanese New Religion' by some scholars, at most. Show me an academic source that describes them as a 'sect' of Buddhism." On July 11th s/he reiterated, "the Sokka (sic) Gakkai is not a sect, it is a lay movement," followed on July 21st with "....calling the Sokka (sic) Gakkai a "sect" of Buddhism would be a gross misrepresentation," August 2nd, "the fallacious assertion that SG is a "sect" of Buddhism" and August 3rd, "SG is not a "sect" of Buddhism, for example, not matter what they or their misinformed members try to tell the public about themselves. Can I make that any more clear?"
I find his/her statements very harsh. Of course we can look at his/her earlier statement: "In relation to Buddhism, my understanding of the use of sect in religious studies is used to refer to a group that formed in relation to either the adaptation of a new interpretation of a sacred text or focus on a form of practice by a prominent teacher, a new teaching by a teacher that has risen to prominence." From what I have gathered, the Soka Gakkai, it can be argued, meets these requirements.
Most sociologists find the "sect" discussion as value-laden. The use of words such as "sects" and "cults" is a huge problem from a sociological perspective because of their implicit values (e.g., "sect"=good, "cult"=bad). Largely as a result New Religious Movements (NRM) has become a major field in sociology. It has produced nuanced typologies to blunt tool nomenclatures such as cult or sect. Even the WP article on sect defines it as "a subgroup of a religious, political or philosophical belief system, usually an offshoot of a larger religious group" which is largely descriptive of any NRM.
I believed my proposed edit sidesteps the "sect" debate. It leaves WP readers with a clear understanding that it is a religious movement, and part of a very profound post-modern realignment of religions which should be seen as part of the greater NRM phenomenon.
Please provide feedback to my suggestions. I will delay making any edits until there is feedback. FetullahFan ( talk) 16:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but the democratic issue has been brought in by the quotes. Again an absence of priest just does not fulfil a lay movement. Who elects the leaders? Lays? Who is in charge? Lays? Please provide proof for a lay movement? How is lay defined within SGI? What democratic aspects can be accounted for within SGI?? Please define the “lay” apart from the absence of priest are lays “dilettantes”? Please define the lay within lay movement and the decision making process of lays involved.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 19:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
There may have been an attempt to merge all sects of Nichirenshu, but not to put them under control of Shinto....the military government of Japan sought to suppress the movement, arresting its leaders for their refusal to co-operate with the government's plans to merge all Nichiren sects and place them under the control of the imperial religion of state Shintoism
Note that the article is not by a prominent scholar and I have shown that it has limitations, but it is useful to demonstrate support of a couple of points.Soka Gakkai's religious practices are based on the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin (1222-1282), the prophetic founder of a sect of the Tendai school of Mahayana Buddhism, which itself was imported to Japan from China in the eighth century. Nichiren Shoshu is one of several sects that emerged from Nichiren's teachings. Like the other sects of Tendai, Nichiren taught that the true essence of Buddhism is revealed in the Lotus Sutra...As can be seen, the beliefs and practices of SGI differ quite sharply from other kinds of Buddhism, whether Theravadin, Mahayanist, Tibetan, Pure Land or Zen. In its practice SGI is more parsimonious, and its mode of salvation more immediate and accessible.
I will respond to Catflap08's comments on the relationship of the "lay" category/democracy and Ubikwit's comments on sects/NRMs in a followup post. For now I want to help improve your article in a practical way.
The lead paragraph as it currently stands has several problems: 1- redundancy--does the word "lay" need to appear twice in two succeeding paragraphs? Ditto "Nichiren Buddhism." 2- inconsistency within lead sentence--how can it be identified as a "Japanese" movement when members exist in 192 countries. 3- incorrect verb usage--"associated" just doesn't seem the right choice of words. Nichiren Buddhism, from what I gather, is comprised of many lineages and schools. In this context "associated" does not work. 4- vagueness-- "though it occasionally breaks with Nichiren tradition, especially on issues of priesthood." "Occasionally" is vague. What is the Nichiren tradition and who defines it? 5- syntax-- "issues of priesthood" is an awkward phrasing. 6- problems with subject/object agreement-- "the Soka Gakkai reveres" is incorrect; an organization cannot revere--that is something only people can do (not withstanding Citizens United). 7- translation problem-- someone should be able to resolve the Japanese transliteration (Japanese: 創価学会?). Why should there be a question mark?
May I suggest, sentence by sentence, the following: 1- "Soka Gakkai (Japanese: 創価学会?) is a Nichiren Buddhist movement, headquartered in Japan, with, according to its own account, 12 million members in 192 countries and territories around the world." 2- (Based on one of my previous suggestions and is designed to sidestep the "sect" controversy yet clearly indicate that this movement is religious in nature) "It is one of the largest and most successful New Religious Movements (NRM) in the world." (Ubikwit has objected to the Dawson citation but as I am familiarizing myself with the subject I am finding multiple other sources to support this statement by sociologists and religionists which I would be happy to supply). 3- "As a lay organization it breaks with other Nichiren lineages and schools where clergy play the central roles." 4- (Here I am trying to provide consistency with the Nichiren Buddhism article), "Members of the Soka Gakkai revere the Lotus Sutra and chant its title as their religious practice." FetullahFan ( talk) 16:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
FetullahFan ( talk) 22:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The people who practice a religion are never "the religion." The members of the SGI practice Nichiren Buddhism just as people in a Catholic church practice Catholicism. BTW, the section Ikeda 1960 requested more information and I posted a quote from a reliable source and it was removed. Why? Ltdan43 ( talk) 21:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Well finally we are talking some definition issues. Again and again it has to be looked at who SGI’s members are. The number of “members” in most western countries is per country not more than a few dozen. This is due to its legal and formal structure SGI has decided to adapt and which is also legally the reason why it’s so called “members” have in effect no say in SGIs workings. To this effect when referring to the millions it would be reasonable to supplement the word member in the article with adherent or follower. This also partly answer the question – in a logical manner – why SGI lacks democratic structures. In other words only as a citizen of a country or with residential status one would be eligible to vote, but SGI-land has only a very small population. Having this in mind I find some of the so called sociological studies, also dashed out in SGI’s bookshops, to be somewhat problematic, as they look at active adherents, not members, and the exclusion of not so active adherents is not looked at at all. I also know for a fact the author of the German study had a strong affiliation to the group. So doing some background research on the authors might not be a bad idea. In the end publications and authors in “support” do tend to be either affiliated or financed by SGI, which I find to be quite problematic. So if an affiliation is known then it should be noted. Also I have never heard that the term "Nichiren Buddhist movement" is a protected term … at least not in the English language … I find the term “lay” to be far more problematic and confusing. The only term that would come to my mind would be “Shū” and a “Nichiren Shū” already exists. Also keeping in mind that the term “Shū” is mostly used to describe a School of thought in the traditional sense. On issues of ownership I completely agree nobody owns this article same goes for the soapbox issue though. At one stage the article read as if it was authored by the SGI PR department and we also do have some guideline on advertisement. I am an academic myself and although I would not like to see articles to be read like academic works Wikipedia’s guidelines generally reflect an academic approach. I remember once I tried to explain that to an adherent of the group which resulted that the editor lashed out against academics – so much for education in SGI’s goals.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 09:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Ubikwit: The citation needed paragraph in the Ikeda 1960 section is not mine. Mine was correctly referenced. I was just wondering why the section requested more info and then deleted my attempt to post more info. Ltdan43 ( talk) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
SGI does have priests, in countries in which priests are both an integral part of the culture and highly esteemed, in Singapore and Ghana, for example. http://sokaspirit.org/world-tribune/what-about-what-are-the-reformist-priests-doing/ 2602:306:CD27:DB49:212C:59C:9794:A3EF ( talk) 03:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Mark Rogow 08/13/2014
@Ubikwit, I am appealing for you to change "Buddhist-derived" to "Buddhist" in the lead paragraph. I believe you acted unilaterally on the "Buddhist-derived" label. I believe this is an example of disruptive editing. You alone introduced this labeling of the SG as "Buddhist-derived." My apologies, but I do not remember seeing this term before either on the main page or the talk page. I can think of no greater downgrade to the Soka Gakkai's status than to reduce it from "Buddhist" to "Buddhist-derived"--and, no less, on the very lead sentence. This is unfair.
You stated on August 10th, "Formally speaking, SG members do not practice Nichiren Buddhism; they practice a Nichiren Buddhism-influenced new religion." This is a POV, not a fact. Certainly the citation you provided yesterday, the paper delivered by Leslie Kawamura in 1978, does not support your contention. Dr. Kawamura points to references of the 1960's and early 1970's to form his research. Distinguished as Dr. Kawamura was, let us be clear that we are discussing here 40-year-old research. In addition, your point about "Buddhist-derived" is drawn from a footnote, not the actual text.
The actual text leaves quite a different impression:
"We have seen that Sõka Gakkai, a representative type of the new religions, came into popularity in postwar Japan, a period marked by socio-political upheaval, and catered to the needs of the masses by identifying itself with the causes of the masses. But the reader will now notice that this paper contains some contradictions. First, it identified Sõka Gakkai as an integral entity of the Japanese Buddhist tradition, representing the bodhisattva doctrine, but at the same time it has criticized Soka Gakkai. This contradiction is inevitable, for the bodhisattva doctrine is the ‘ideal, not the ‘real. Soka Gakkai is a historically established religious institution, a sahgha, which like any other Buddhist institution is striving, through improvising skill-in-means, to realize the ideal bodhisattva principle" (p. 215).
This quotation not only identifies the SG as "an integral entity of the Japanese tradition" but also as "a historically established religious institution, a sahgha."
Since we are both reading "Global Citizens," in my next posting I will provide additional citations to cast light on "Buddhist-derived" vs. "Buddhist." I hope on the basis of this source we can develop a consensus to restore "Buddhist" to the lead. FetullahFan ( talk) 11:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to delete everything in this section, because it isn't true. To wit:
In place of this stuff, I'm going to move to here some of the more colorful stories from earlier in the article, like Toda on his white horse. Those things did happen, and arguably contributed to public perception of SG.-- Margin1522 ( talk) 10:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Removed the "Leadership" section. besides having no citation whatsoever, it read like somebody's complaint about how an organization chooses to conduct its own business, and added nothing to an understanding of the subject.-- Daveler16 ( talk) 16:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)