![]() | 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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
I want to thank everyone for their contributions and teamwork. I think the lede is vastly improved. I can only work on this project for another week or two before I have to pull back due to work. If there is anything I can do, please let me know.
In the meanwhile, here are a few seeds for thought.
1- Can we reduce the use of subordinating prepositions, for example in the sentence, "While Ikeda has been successful in moving the group towards mainstream acceptance in some areas, it is still widely viewed with suspicion in Japan." There is an implicit value in the grammatical structure because with clauses of concession the subordinate clause ("While Ikeda...") is usually deemed less significant than the independent clause ("it is still widely viewed..."). The solution is simple: change this into two independent and verifiable stand-alone sentences. Readers will have to decide for themselves which carry more weight. Ditto for "While the movement is publicly involved in peace activism, education and politics, it has also been at the center of controversies."
2- Do we really need to have three references to "cult" in a single lede? To me it strikes of overkill and gives "cult" much too much weight. One mention should be sufficient in the lede and perhaps an extended discussion could happen in a new subsection. If I had a choice I would immediately eliminate "brainwashing cult" since it does not appear in the article and both the APA and courts have questioned the scientific validity of the concept.
3- I believe the lede understates the significance of Makiguchi, Toda, and Ikeda to the core beliefs of the organization. On Tuesday I visited the New York SGI Center's bookstore and had the opportunity to interview five members, a preliminary to the article I am conceiving. I am convinced that "a Japanese new religious movement informed by the teachings of Nichiren" is insufficient. I need to research this more and for now suggest that we consider this for the next rewrite.
With your permission I would like to at least take a whack at #1.
FetullahFan ( talk) 19:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry the personality cult must and should be mentioned in the article. Some may like some may not. Fact is that outside observers attest this too – it’s obvious, it’s in one’s face and its currently one of the primary reasons that drives many adherents away. One can certainly cover all that up with so called peace activities of which I see no serious proof of. SGI never speaks up against human rights violations may this be in China, Russia or where ever. The lamentation of being apparently “persecuted” during World War II is reflected with an astonishing silence when facing religious persecutions that takes place all over the world right now – not even of Buddhist persecution that takes place in Tibet – zero, nada, nothing. For an organisation that prides itself with UN-activities that is a sad if not miserable state of affairs. The concept of Karuṇā seems to play no role.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 16:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not believe in creating sections and subsections over and over again as I do not believe in working on one cult issue making another cult look better.Which of the sources are the ones you deem shaky on brainwashing? -- Catflap08 ( talk) 18:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with FetullaFan, the use of “cult” in the opening paragraph is deeply problematic. The references used to support this label were taken entirely out of context.
First, this sentence: "Some anti-cult authors have included the Soka Gakkai on their lists of cults.[10]"
The reference is from a book called "The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions"...deducing that is a cult just from being mentioned in this book is misleading as it is not exclusively about cults. Furthermore, nowhere in the section on the Soka Gakkai it is labeled a "cult."
Furthermore writing "some anti-cult authors" is also deceptive as only one author is referenced. There are far more authors that routinely argue that SGI is not a cult such as Oxford Professor Bryan Wilson in his article " The British Movement and its Members"(Global Citizens, page 370, Oxford University Press)
In regards to the "brainwashing cult" reference, it seems the purpose of this paragraph is to claim the group is controversial and the term "brainwashing cult" is haphazardly thrown in there riding on the coat tails of the research that argues that the Soka Gakkai struggles with a somewhat negative public perception in Japan. Many of the references for this statement make no claim of the group being a "brainwashing cult."
Reference # 5. Why this reference was used is very puzzling.
Wellman, Jr., James K.; Lombardi, Clark B. (eds.). Religion and human security : a global perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 272. ISBN 978-0199827756. "When I conducted a survey of 235 Doshisha University students a few years ago asking their opinions about the Gakkai and how much they knew about its peace education programs, over 80 percent responded that they had a negative image of the movement and about 60 percent thought that its "peace movement" is little more than promotional propaganda. the few respondents with a positive image were either Soka Gakkai members, were related members, or were friends of members."
Again, makes no mention of Ikeda as a “brainwashing cult leader” and seems totally unrelated to this statement in the article.
Reference: LA Times
This article hardly labels the gakkai as a brainwashing cult or Ikeda as a cult leader. It does explore the both positive and negative aspects of Ikeda’s public perception, however claiming this backs the notion that Ikeda is a “cult leader” is a gross oversimplification. The article says:
“Ikeda also has started a political party, education system, art museum and cultural programs that have taken him to 50 countries--deeds that will establish his legacy as one of modern Japan's most remarkable religious leaders, said Shin Anzai, a Roman Catholic scholar.”
The “cult” references in the lead is wholly misleading. The references used to back this claim is very sloppy if not completely dishonest. The use of the word “cult” should be completely taken out of the lead.
Lionpride82 ( talk) 21:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
FetullahFan ( talk) 22:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ubikwit, I mentioned my concerns about the Yanatori source several times on the talk page. I personally invited you to comment and you failed to do so. I took your silence to mean a passive consent and I removed this source. I was surprised then to see you revert it. Once again, my concern is not Yanatori's scholarship since I do not read Japanese and can therefore have no informed opinion. He had published his article in 1977 when Jimmy Carter's presidency had just started. A lot has changed in the intervening years, don't you agree? This source just should not be used to describe current perceptions of the Japanese public about the SG. Who could have ever predicted then, for example, that New Komeito would be a junior partner with an LPD government?
The new academic year swings into full motion right after Labor Day and I will not be present here henceforth. As a courtesy please respond soon to my point on Yanatori so we can reach a consensus while I am still active on this board. Thank you, FetullahFan ( talk) 00:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I am going to try to incrementally re-do the "Beliefs and Practices" section so that it more closely reflects the beliefs and practices of the Soka Gakkai, less how the bs&ps of the SG differ from what other sects believe and practice. I think some SG practices have underpinnings rooted in beliefs, which are not really addressed in the current version. I also think this section should include certain organizational activities, as they are part of the SG religious practice. This might help iron out some of the controversies about the intro, also. Opinions? -- Daveler16 ( talk) 03:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I understand there are protocols and such to watch out for. I will do a small part of it, and we'll see what people think. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 19:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Added a new opening. The points it raises will be expanded in the section as I get to it. SGI practices other than chanting to the Gohonzon are part of its religiosity (a few authors say this in different ways), and I think they will be included. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 03:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
For reasons unexplained, Ubikwit deleted the sentence I added. As this sentence is accurate and documented with citarti9ns no one has disputed, I unded the delete. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 18:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how "Toda's commitment to shakubuku" qualifies as "humanism", but maybe you can explain that. I haven't read the chapter on "Soka Gakkai and Its Nichiren Humanism" yet.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Ikeda’s writings convey the same ardor for character found among members of SGI like Johnson, together with a strong commitment to Nichiren Buddhism. He has written widely and in depth on Mahayana Buddhism, Nichiren, and the Lotus Sutra, and has undoubtedly recast many of the doctrines central to the orthodoxy of Nichiren Shoshu. But in his writings and speeches designed for the broader world, Ikeda has called, in very plain language, for nothing less than a new Buddhist humanism that can revolutionize the twenty-first century through the inner transformation of the individual and the reordering of an increasingly interdependent global society. This call is a modern restatement of Nichiren’s visions of kosen-rufu, which he first articulated in the thirteenth century. But it also reflects Ikeda’s vision of world peace, Josei Toda’s commitment to shakubuku, and Tsunesaburo Makaguchi’s passion for progressive education.
That it is a "new Buddhist humanism" is a belief, and it gives a religious underpinning to the supra-ritualistic activities, such as meetings, cultural activities, etc. You night say "those are not Buddhist practices", but the point of :new: is that they are, indeed, and the "new" part recognizes that the SG may beunique in this way, but that its activities are valid as religious practice and belief.-- Daveler16 ( talk) 02:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Is it "Beliefs and Practices" of the Soka Gakkai? Or "Beliefs and Practices other schools of Buddhism think the Soka Gakkai should have"? If it is "of the Soka Gakkai", then if the Soka Gakkai believes its practices are religious, they belong here. I don't think you can argue, on the one hand, that it's okay to use sources that say "SG is not a cult" to argue that "some say SG is a cult"; while on the other hand arguing that say "discussion meetings are part of the religious practice of the SG" can't be used to say discussion meetings are part of the religious practice of the SG". I like the idea of a "Humanism" subsection of the "B&P" section. But I think the first paragraph of that section should be a general summary of SG beliefs and practices, as opposed to what it is now, which is "SG in relation to Nichiren Shoshu", which in turn is a rehash of the section immediately preceding it. That's really all I'm trying to do. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 17:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
"Since the foundation of the Soka Gakkai, its history and tradition have been rewritten and refomatted to fit with the perceived reality of those writing it. That rewriting and rationalizing has generally been undertaken by the presidents of Soka Gakkai who succeeded the founder Makiguchi Tsunesaburo, namely Toda Josei, and Ikeda Daisaku. Both of these leaders have rewritten history, not only that of the Soka Gakkai, but of Nichiren Shoshu, the Buddhist group from which Sbka Gakkai originates, as well as the entirety of Buddhism. In doing so, they have succeeded in defining a world-view for millions of SÔka Gakkai adherents." [source, Dominating Tradition: Soka Gakkai and the Creation of History by Levi McLaughlin http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk1/tape11/PQDD_0006/MQ45445.pdf
Therefore, since they rewrite over and over again their history, for example, Human Revolution, New Human Revolution, New New Human Revolution, etc., their principles and practices are as amorphous and ever changing as the shape of an ameoba. It is fruitless to try and pin them down on anything regarding doctrine, principles, and beliefs. 2602:306:CD27:DC29:68E6:A29A:1983:F2E9 ( talk) 18:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Mark R. Rogow 09/01/2014
My crazy work semester starts this afternoon and I will have to pull away from this article for a good spell but I will remain active on the Gulen articles. Thank you for being good partners. Special thanks to Ubikwit who taught me a lot about editing and WP protocols.
The final contribution I would like to make is reworking the last two paragraphs of the lede. Right now they lack a coherent organization. There's a bit of controversy in one, then controversy in the other. Likewise cult here and cult there.
My suggestion is to organize one paragraph around the SG's growth, moderation, and controversy. The second paragraph will be specifically about public perception ("brainwashing cult" and "cult of personality"). I will aim for WP:DUE in both paragraphs. FetullahFan ( talk) 12:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Shi: changes to the body of the article are being met with un-discussed reverts. I too feel (after you and others mentioned it) that improving the article allows for an improved introduction. But those improvements have to be allowed to happen.-- Daveler16 ( talk) 16:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@FetullahFan, I went into your sandbox and I liked your proposed two paragraphs. I know there will be inevitable tweaking to set the balance to achieve WP:DUE. However, what I like is the organization. You got the growth sentences in one paragraph and the cult/public perception stuff in the second. Reads very smoothly. BrandenburgG ( talk) 13:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
BrandenburgG ( talk) 10:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Ubikwit, that t not true at all. There are sourced statements that support both sides, and this new edit includes them all. Not everything that sheds a little positive light is self-serving or subjective, any more than things that shed a negative light. What is the argument against balance? -- Daveler16 ( talk) 18:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Which sources are you objecting to? It seems to me there were plenty of secondary sources. And I know there has been an ongoing discussion of Middleway, but I did not know it had been resolved - even if it's labelled as being affiliated with the SGI. Has it? Or is that a unilateral decision? And I'm aware of undue weight - specifically, giving equal or more weight to 30 and 40 year old books over more recent studies of the same subject. And why is the Watanabe LA Times story used substantiate "cult of personality" when it gives equal space to describing Ikeda as "a crusader for common folk who unflinchingly fights the oppressive establishment", and describes anti-Ikedaism as an "industry" that has "blurred the lines between suspicion and fact, imagination and reality"? Does the use of that article constitute "undue weight"? -- Daveler16 ( talk) 23: 45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
BrandenburgG ( talk) 10:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I have now investigated this more fully and I find it dubious to put this in the Gakkai article. Certainly it is a scandal in Ikeda's life, but to pin the blame on the Gakkai seems to me guilt by association. Furthermore the article has a lot to cover and this is not a major event in its history. Shii (tock) 17:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. I don't know why it has to be anywhere at all -- he met with tons of people, one turned out to be a criminal -- but if it does have to be somewhere, that place is not the SG page. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 16:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, he was a head of state. Thatcher was, too, and Mandela, and Chou was all but. There is no reference for the alleged visits to Taisekiji, and the sentence "they praised each other in public statements" is meaningless - if Ikeda had praised Noriega's criminal activities, then you'd have a point. But he didn't. Shi is right, and this has nothing to do with the SG (folks on the Ikeda page can argue it's relevance there). --
Daveler16 (
talk)
15:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The online site was [ this one], at WBM? Apparently it's the page of User jqpublic, from the Cult Watcher Network, at an Internet provider in Indiana. It has pictures of Ikeda with figures like Nicolae Ceausescu, Noriega, and Fidel Castro. I guess sometimes you get your photos where you can find them. My link to the text of the Look magazine article was to a user page at a Jehovah's Witnesses site. But, unlike us, the dissertation provides some context and an analysis of what these photos mean. She offers a list of admirable or influential figures that Ikeda has met, and then says that this penchant for jetting around the globe to meet world leaders has also led to some embarassing moments. The word she uses is faux pas. This is certainly true. You give a "humanitarian" award to Ceausescu and he turns out to be one of the greatest monsters of the 20th century. That's embarassing. So, since she has provided this context and interpretation, why don't we use it? Just cite the dissertation. In the Ikeda article, since it's about him. I will volunteer to do that, and then delete Noriega from this article, per the consensus among editors. Unless we can see a better argument as to why it belongs here (better than "He visited Taisekiji."). -- Margin1522 ( talk) 05:06, 7 September 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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
I want to thank everyone for their contributions and teamwork. I think the lede is vastly improved. I can only work on this project for another week or two before I have to pull back due to work. If there is anything I can do, please let me know.
In the meanwhile, here are a few seeds for thought.
1- Can we reduce the use of subordinating prepositions, for example in the sentence, "While Ikeda has been successful in moving the group towards mainstream acceptance in some areas, it is still widely viewed with suspicion in Japan." There is an implicit value in the grammatical structure because with clauses of concession the subordinate clause ("While Ikeda...") is usually deemed less significant than the independent clause ("it is still widely viewed..."). The solution is simple: change this into two independent and verifiable stand-alone sentences. Readers will have to decide for themselves which carry more weight. Ditto for "While the movement is publicly involved in peace activism, education and politics, it has also been at the center of controversies."
2- Do we really need to have three references to "cult" in a single lede? To me it strikes of overkill and gives "cult" much too much weight. One mention should be sufficient in the lede and perhaps an extended discussion could happen in a new subsection. If I had a choice I would immediately eliminate "brainwashing cult" since it does not appear in the article and both the APA and courts have questioned the scientific validity of the concept.
3- I believe the lede understates the significance of Makiguchi, Toda, and Ikeda to the core beliefs of the organization. On Tuesday I visited the New York SGI Center's bookstore and had the opportunity to interview five members, a preliminary to the article I am conceiving. I am convinced that "a Japanese new religious movement informed by the teachings of Nichiren" is insufficient. I need to research this more and for now suggest that we consider this for the next rewrite.
With your permission I would like to at least take a whack at #1.
FetullahFan ( talk) 19:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry the personality cult must and should be mentioned in the article. Some may like some may not. Fact is that outside observers attest this too – it’s obvious, it’s in one’s face and its currently one of the primary reasons that drives many adherents away. One can certainly cover all that up with so called peace activities of which I see no serious proof of. SGI never speaks up against human rights violations may this be in China, Russia or where ever. The lamentation of being apparently “persecuted” during World War II is reflected with an astonishing silence when facing religious persecutions that takes place all over the world right now – not even of Buddhist persecution that takes place in Tibet – zero, nada, nothing. For an organisation that prides itself with UN-activities that is a sad if not miserable state of affairs. The concept of Karuṇā seems to play no role.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 16:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not believe in creating sections and subsections over and over again as I do not believe in working on one cult issue making another cult look better.Which of the sources are the ones you deem shaky on brainwashing? -- Catflap08 ( talk) 18:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with FetullaFan, the use of “cult” in the opening paragraph is deeply problematic. The references used to support this label were taken entirely out of context.
First, this sentence: "Some anti-cult authors have included the Soka Gakkai on their lists of cults.[10]"
The reference is from a book called "The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions"...deducing that is a cult just from being mentioned in this book is misleading as it is not exclusively about cults. Furthermore, nowhere in the section on the Soka Gakkai it is labeled a "cult."
Furthermore writing "some anti-cult authors" is also deceptive as only one author is referenced. There are far more authors that routinely argue that SGI is not a cult such as Oxford Professor Bryan Wilson in his article " The British Movement and its Members"(Global Citizens, page 370, Oxford University Press)
In regards to the "brainwashing cult" reference, it seems the purpose of this paragraph is to claim the group is controversial and the term "brainwashing cult" is haphazardly thrown in there riding on the coat tails of the research that argues that the Soka Gakkai struggles with a somewhat negative public perception in Japan. Many of the references for this statement make no claim of the group being a "brainwashing cult."
Reference # 5. Why this reference was used is very puzzling.
Wellman, Jr., James K.; Lombardi, Clark B. (eds.). Religion and human security : a global perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 272. ISBN 978-0199827756. "When I conducted a survey of 235 Doshisha University students a few years ago asking their opinions about the Gakkai and how much they knew about its peace education programs, over 80 percent responded that they had a negative image of the movement and about 60 percent thought that its "peace movement" is little more than promotional propaganda. the few respondents with a positive image were either Soka Gakkai members, were related members, or were friends of members."
Again, makes no mention of Ikeda as a “brainwashing cult leader” and seems totally unrelated to this statement in the article.
Reference: LA Times
This article hardly labels the gakkai as a brainwashing cult or Ikeda as a cult leader. It does explore the both positive and negative aspects of Ikeda’s public perception, however claiming this backs the notion that Ikeda is a “cult leader” is a gross oversimplification. The article says:
“Ikeda also has started a political party, education system, art museum and cultural programs that have taken him to 50 countries--deeds that will establish his legacy as one of modern Japan's most remarkable religious leaders, said Shin Anzai, a Roman Catholic scholar.”
The “cult” references in the lead is wholly misleading. The references used to back this claim is very sloppy if not completely dishonest. The use of the word “cult” should be completely taken out of the lead.
Lionpride82 ( talk) 21:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
FetullahFan ( talk) 22:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ubikwit, I mentioned my concerns about the Yanatori source several times on the talk page. I personally invited you to comment and you failed to do so. I took your silence to mean a passive consent and I removed this source. I was surprised then to see you revert it. Once again, my concern is not Yanatori's scholarship since I do not read Japanese and can therefore have no informed opinion. He had published his article in 1977 when Jimmy Carter's presidency had just started. A lot has changed in the intervening years, don't you agree? This source just should not be used to describe current perceptions of the Japanese public about the SG. Who could have ever predicted then, for example, that New Komeito would be a junior partner with an LPD government?
The new academic year swings into full motion right after Labor Day and I will not be present here henceforth. As a courtesy please respond soon to my point on Yanatori so we can reach a consensus while I am still active on this board. Thank you, FetullahFan ( talk) 00:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I am going to try to incrementally re-do the "Beliefs and Practices" section so that it more closely reflects the beliefs and practices of the Soka Gakkai, less how the bs&ps of the SG differ from what other sects believe and practice. I think some SG practices have underpinnings rooted in beliefs, which are not really addressed in the current version. I also think this section should include certain organizational activities, as they are part of the SG religious practice. This might help iron out some of the controversies about the intro, also. Opinions? -- Daveler16 ( talk) 03:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I understand there are protocols and such to watch out for. I will do a small part of it, and we'll see what people think. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 19:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Added a new opening. The points it raises will be expanded in the section as I get to it. SGI practices other than chanting to the Gohonzon are part of its religiosity (a few authors say this in different ways), and I think they will be included. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 03:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
For reasons unexplained, Ubikwit deleted the sentence I added. As this sentence is accurate and documented with citarti9ns no one has disputed, I unded the delete. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 18:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how "Toda's commitment to shakubuku" qualifies as "humanism", but maybe you can explain that. I haven't read the chapter on "Soka Gakkai and Its Nichiren Humanism" yet.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Ikeda’s writings convey the same ardor for character found among members of SGI like Johnson, together with a strong commitment to Nichiren Buddhism. He has written widely and in depth on Mahayana Buddhism, Nichiren, and the Lotus Sutra, and has undoubtedly recast many of the doctrines central to the orthodoxy of Nichiren Shoshu. But in his writings and speeches designed for the broader world, Ikeda has called, in very plain language, for nothing less than a new Buddhist humanism that can revolutionize the twenty-first century through the inner transformation of the individual and the reordering of an increasingly interdependent global society. This call is a modern restatement of Nichiren’s visions of kosen-rufu, which he first articulated in the thirteenth century. But it also reflects Ikeda’s vision of world peace, Josei Toda’s commitment to shakubuku, and Tsunesaburo Makaguchi’s passion for progressive education.
That it is a "new Buddhist humanism" is a belief, and it gives a religious underpinning to the supra-ritualistic activities, such as meetings, cultural activities, etc. You night say "those are not Buddhist practices", but the point of :new: is that they are, indeed, and the "new" part recognizes that the SG may beunique in this way, but that its activities are valid as religious practice and belief.-- Daveler16 ( talk) 02:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Is it "Beliefs and Practices" of the Soka Gakkai? Or "Beliefs and Practices other schools of Buddhism think the Soka Gakkai should have"? If it is "of the Soka Gakkai", then if the Soka Gakkai believes its practices are religious, they belong here. I don't think you can argue, on the one hand, that it's okay to use sources that say "SG is not a cult" to argue that "some say SG is a cult"; while on the other hand arguing that say "discussion meetings are part of the religious practice of the SG" can't be used to say discussion meetings are part of the religious practice of the SG". I like the idea of a "Humanism" subsection of the "B&P" section. But I think the first paragraph of that section should be a general summary of SG beliefs and practices, as opposed to what it is now, which is "SG in relation to Nichiren Shoshu", which in turn is a rehash of the section immediately preceding it. That's really all I'm trying to do. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 17:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
"Since the foundation of the Soka Gakkai, its history and tradition have been rewritten and refomatted to fit with the perceived reality of those writing it. That rewriting and rationalizing has generally been undertaken by the presidents of Soka Gakkai who succeeded the founder Makiguchi Tsunesaburo, namely Toda Josei, and Ikeda Daisaku. Both of these leaders have rewritten history, not only that of the Soka Gakkai, but of Nichiren Shoshu, the Buddhist group from which Sbka Gakkai originates, as well as the entirety of Buddhism. In doing so, they have succeeded in defining a world-view for millions of SÔka Gakkai adherents." [source, Dominating Tradition: Soka Gakkai and the Creation of History by Levi McLaughlin http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk1/tape11/PQDD_0006/MQ45445.pdf
Therefore, since they rewrite over and over again their history, for example, Human Revolution, New Human Revolution, New New Human Revolution, etc., their principles and practices are as amorphous and ever changing as the shape of an ameoba. It is fruitless to try and pin them down on anything regarding doctrine, principles, and beliefs. 2602:306:CD27:DC29:68E6:A29A:1983:F2E9 ( talk) 18:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Mark R. Rogow 09/01/2014
My crazy work semester starts this afternoon and I will have to pull away from this article for a good spell but I will remain active on the Gulen articles. Thank you for being good partners. Special thanks to Ubikwit who taught me a lot about editing and WP protocols.
The final contribution I would like to make is reworking the last two paragraphs of the lede. Right now they lack a coherent organization. There's a bit of controversy in one, then controversy in the other. Likewise cult here and cult there.
My suggestion is to organize one paragraph around the SG's growth, moderation, and controversy. The second paragraph will be specifically about public perception ("brainwashing cult" and "cult of personality"). I will aim for WP:DUE in both paragraphs. FetullahFan ( talk) 12:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Shi: changes to the body of the article are being met with un-discussed reverts. I too feel (after you and others mentioned it) that improving the article allows for an improved introduction. But those improvements have to be allowed to happen.-- Daveler16 ( talk) 16:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@FetullahFan, I went into your sandbox and I liked your proposed two paragraphs. I know there will be inevitable tweaking to set the balance to achieve WP:DUE. However, what I like is the organization. You got the growth sentences in one paragraph and the cult/public perception stuff in the second. Reads very smoothly. BrandenburgG ( talk) 13:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
BrandenburgG ( talk) 10:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Ubikwit, that t not true at all. There are sourced statements that support both sides, and this new edit includes them all. Not everything that sheds a little positive light is self-serving or subjective, any more than things that shed a negative light. What is the argument against balance? -- Daveler16 ( talk) 18:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Which sources are you objecting to? It seems to me there were plenty of secondary sources. And I know there has been an ongoing discussion of Middleway, but I did not know it had been resolved - even if it's labelled as being affiliated with the SGI. Has it? Or is that a unilateral decision? And I'm aware of undue weight - specifically, giving equal or more weight to 30 and 40 year old books over more recent studies of the same subject. And why is the Watanabe LA Times story used substantiate "cult of personality" when it gives equal space to describing Ikeda as "a crusader for common folk who unflinchingly fights the oppressive establishment", and describes anti-Ikedaism as an "industry" that has "blurred the lines between suspicion and fact, imagination and reality"? Does the use of that article constitute "undue weight"? -- Daveler16 ( talk) 23: 45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
BrandenburgG ( talk) 10:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I have now investigated this more fully and I find it dubious to put this in the Gakkai article. Certainly it is a scandal in Ikeda's life, but to pin the blame on the Gakkai seems to me guilt by association. Furthermore the article has a lot to cover and this is not a major event in its history. Shii (tock) 17:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. I don't know why it has to be anywhere at all -- he met with tons of people, one turned out to be a criminal -- but if it does have to be somewhere, that place is not the SG page. -- Daveler16 ( talk) 16:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, he was a head of state. Thatcher was, too, and Mandela, and Chou was all but. There is no reference for the alleged visits to Taisekiji, and the sentence "they praised each other in public statements" is meaningless - if Ikeda had praised Noriega's criminal activities, then you'd have a point. But he didn't. Shi is right, and this has nothing to do with the SG (folks on the Ikeda page can argue it's relevance there). --
Daveler16 (
talk)
15:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The online site was [ this one], at WBM? Apparently it's the page of User jqpublic, from the Cult Watcher Network, at an Internet provider in Indiana. It has pictures of Ikeda with figures like Nicolae Ceausescu, Noriega, and Fidel Castro. I guess sometimes you get your photos where you can find them. My link to the text of the Look magazine article was to a user page at a Jehovah's Witnesses site. But, unlike us, the dissertation provides some context and an analysis of what these photos mean. She offers a list of admirable or influential figures that Ikeda has met, and then says that this penchant for jetting around the globe to meet world leaders has also led to some embarassing moments. The word she uses is faux pas. This is certainly true. You give a "humanitarian" award to Ceausescu and he turns out to be one of the greatest monsters of the 20th century. That's embarassing. So, since she has provided this context and interpretation, why don't we use it? Just cite the dissertation. In the Ikeda article, since it's about him. I will volunteer to do that, and then delete Noriega from this article, per the consensus among editors. Unless we can see a better argument as to why it belongs here (better than "He visited Taisekiji."). -- Margin1522 ( talk) 05:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)