This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
I researched a quote via the WP:RX since the quote (used within another quote by Montgomergy) was disputed in the articles on Daisaku Ikeda and Soka Gakkai. As soon as I insist that critical issues should not be deleted I seem to run into a conflict with the same editor. Same occurred on the Toynbee quote.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
At one stage quoted Montgomery pages 186-187 completly. Asked WP:RX to find Murata quote in order to clarify who hit whom.
How do you think we can help?
An end to the constant deletion of sourced material not in favour of advocates of SG/SGI and or Ikeda.
Under the heading "Remarkable deletions", the article's talk page shows a conflict over what is said in two books about an incident in which, it has been claimed in the article, Daisaku Ikeda abused and hit an older priest. The two books in question are David Montgomery, Fire in the lotus: The dynamic Buddhism of Nichiren ( ISBN 1852740914); and Kiyoaki Murata, Japan's new Buddhism: An objective account of Soka Gakkai ( ISBN 978-0834800403). It's not always clear who has seen these books. I have never seen either, have no comment on the reliability of either book, and have never heard of one of the publishers.
A paragraph was summarily removed. This dismayed me. (See the talk page.)
There's a dispute on the talk page between User:Elemential1 (surprisingly, not named above) and User:Catflap08 on the talk page about exactly what Montgomery and Murata wrote. It's an odd dispute. Elemential1 claims that each book says precisely this or that; Catflap08 doesn't seem to agree or disagree but instead seems eager to argue around what the content of cited texts. He also seems to be saying that an objection to parts of a paragraph aren't good reason to remove it in toto.
Catflap08 then presents a long quotation from Montgomery. If it's credible, it certainly shows the thuggishness of the organization that Ikeda would soon head. What it doesn't show is what Ikeda had to do with this. Catflap08 appears to think that Ikeda must have been involved and therefore this belongs in an article about him.
Numerous editors of the page (many of these SPAs) have long been unhappy about quotations from an article Polly Toynbee published about meeting Ikeda. There have been attempts to do away with all of this material, but various editors (including Catflap08 and myself) have opposed these, and none of these attempts has been successful. There have been demands that this journalistic account should be balanced by other journalistic or quasi-journalistic accounts; I have welcomed this idea. At one point I noticed that the article had developed odd descriptions of Toynbee and a book in which she's quoted at length; I brought this up.
The article was protected. Starrynuit suggested changes. As an admin, I accepted some, rejected others. These acceptances and rejections didn't trigger much visible dissatisfaction.
Alarm bells! I have been a participant in the editing of the article and have exercised my administrative superpowers on it. A dodgy combination, and in retrospect I regret this. I'd be happy to recuse myself from either (a) editorial involvement or (b) administrative involvement. Or, better, from both, because my interest in Ikeda is very minor.
Starrynuit added a somewhat hagiographic passage about Ikeda. Seventeen minutes later, Catflap08 removed it, with the edit summary WP:PEACOCK.
I was struck by two things here. First, however vapid parts of the passage might be, they're not covered by WP:PEACOCK. I wrote this up at Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda#Peacock. Secondly and more seriously, Catflap08 seemed indignant when one faulty passage he seemed to like was deleted in toto, but he was quick to delete another faulty passage in toto. Why not approach the two in the same way? I therefore warned Catflap08 about the need for neutrality.
The talk page has now blown up with " Murata reference". Despite learning that Murata says that Toda hit the old priest and not learning that Murata says that Ikeda did, Catflap08 wanted (wants?) the article to continue to cite Murata as saying that Ikeda hit the old priest. (Though sometimes he says that he doesn't care.) -- Hoary ( talk) 05:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, The sentence that I tried to correct and that Hoary ultimately deleted had long -- incorrectly -- cited Murata as saying that Ikeda admitted hitting the priest twice. The text of Murata reads, "Toda [not Ikeda] admitted hitting the priest 'twice' [p. 96] ..." This can be seen at http://books.google.ca/books?id=x8QKAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=hitting
Murata's account of the Ogasawara Incident is disputed but that dispute is another matter; the inaccuracy of that one sentence in the article was the key issue here.
Thank you for your time. Starrynuit ( talk) 06:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC) @ TransporterMan Thanks for reminding me.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 15:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for coming to DRN, I have been through the specifics of the discussion and am willing to volunteer for this case. I have no prior knowledge of the subject matter but I hope that won't interfere with mediation. I am going to notify Elemential1 as they seem to have been involved in a lot of the discussion. The first thing I would ask is in two or three sentences could you please tell me as specifically as possible what you hope would be different (or the same) in the article after DRN. For comparison please use this version of the article. I ask this in order for us all to see exactly where the nub of the dispute is. Please don't justify these inclusions in this section simply list them for now. SPACKlick ( talk) 21:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Higher protection level of article itself (registered editors only, no IP edits). No hidden or open censorship. End to defamation of authors (including journalists) and denying the existence of their work. No threats against my person or any other editor. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 12:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The fact should be included that according to Murata Toda hit the priest twice and DI was present. Please note that since the dispute started both articles (SGI and the one on DI) have been reedited in large parts. Both the Montgomery AND Murata page 69 quotes should simply be cited in a footnote at least – in full length. The notability of Ms. Toynbee and her account of meeting DI should no longer be disputed nor her reputation as a journalist belittled. And while in the swing of it – no quotes from fictional material (the novel “Human Revolution”) on incidents that happened in real life. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 13:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Please note that at the beginning of the dispute the complete section was once deleted on grounds that no such quote of Toda was recorded. Tough – Murata quote was found. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 20:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
There's a passage within the section on "Books" that talks of the reactions of, and quotes comments by, Polly Toynbee. It's flagged "[relevant?]", "[better source needed]", and "[copyright violation?]". Remove the "[better source needed]", and "[copyright violation?]" flags, as the quotations appear in the article in the Guardian. (This article -- long, fascinating, and published long before everything in the newspaper was routinely uploaded to its website -- has been made available to a small number of editors of the page and I presume could be available to others.) The part flagged for relevance does indeed seem irrelevant to books. But this is not the part of the article where this passage has long resided. Move the passage back where it belongs (some section on Ikeda the person), and its relevance will again be clear. This aside, no particular request. -- Hoary ( talk) 07:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Slightly edited for clarity 05:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Greetings; I do not have any dispute with the article as it is. Thank you very much Starrynuit ( talk) 06:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Greetings,
Thank you kindly for asking.
1) I agree with Hoary’s suggestion about the Polly Toynbee quotations.
2) Re: “The fact should be included that according to Murata Toda hit the priest twice and DI was present.”
a) Murata pages 96-97 are on the subject at hand (not page 69) ( [1])
b) Neither Murata nor Montgomery states that DI (Daisaku Ikeda) was present at this alleged hitting, therefore it is not appropriate to include such a statement in the article.
c) Montgomery states that what happened after Toda encountered Ogasawara is not clear and he describes Murata’s statement about Toda hitting the priest as a “claim”. Montgomery states, “What happened next [after Toda encountered Ogasawara] is not clear. According to Ikeda, Toda reasoned calmly with Ogasawara, demanding an apology, while the old man 'drooled at the mouth' and 'howled like a rabid dog.' But Murata claims that Toda told him in an interview that he struck the priest 'twice' ([Murata, p.] 96).” ([Montgomery ( [2]: 187 )
d) Therefore, given the Neutral Point of View policy not to state seriously contested assertions as facts, it does not seem appropriate to state that Toda hit the priest, and certainly not to state that Ikeda was present at this alleged hitting, for which there is no cited source at all.
Thank you very much again. Starrynuit ( talk) 02:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
It also says that the priest was said to have suffered internal bleeding, and that Toda was taken into custody and held for two days while the incident was investigated.行ってみると、当時の戸田城聖会長を先頭に青年部の屈強な若者がずらりと並んでいた。
呼び出しの理由は簡単にいうと、戦前慈聞師が唱えていた教義解釈が間違っていたのだから謝れというわけだ。師が拒否すると戸田会長が殴った...
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)急を聞きつけて地元消防団がかけつけたため慈聞師は宿坊に帰され、騒ぎは収まったが、このリンチで師は内出血のため四週間も休まなくてはならなかったという。
この事件で戸田会長は警察に二日間拘留され、取調べを受けている。
References
Ok so to summarise the comments above.
Hi all. I'm just butting in here as a somewhat involved editor, and I would be very happy to see @ Shii:, one of our more knowledgable editors in general on Eastern religions, to comment here too. I think the primary things to address here are:
Anyway, that's what comes to mind to me as a reasonable starting point. John Carter ( talk) 18:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
These three, if I'm understanding correctly all refer to the same section of content and are disputed as to what quotes to include, what to say in Wikipedia's voice and what to not say at all. Could each of you summarise your arguments for what to include and where in the article. Again, try and keep it to three or four sentences. Please do not discuss each others contributions before I respond.
Nowhere in the quotes is it stated that Ikeda hit the priest. Whoever included that later is none of my business and if sources exist who say so include them. The Montgomery source simply states that Ikeda was in the mob. I was the one who made the Murata quotes available, as some suggested the Montgomery quote would be wrong. I have the full Montgomery quote and would include it in full length as a footnote just like the Murata one. Please note that in the beginning of this discussion the complete reference to the incident was deleted. We have so far established that the Murata quote exists, which was disputed, and that Ikeda according to sources was present. The “incident” as such is not limited to Toda hitting the priest – that was the climax – but the incident is about finding the priest, pulling off his robes, etc. etc. … the issue here is that the incident took place. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 16:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
In the first item, is "Murata Toda" a typo for "Murata says that Toda" (or similar), for "Toda", or for something else? Anyway, I'm unimpressed by somebody's mere presence at a violent event. If there's evidence that this happened, and that Ikeda played an important role, then say what the incident was and what his role was in it; if there isn't, then don't. Whatever is said in the article about this (if anything), source it well: in the relevant footnote(s)/reference(s), quote [I think you mean "quote" rather than "cite"] as much from Murata or Montgomery or both as to establish this, and no more. -- Hoary ( talk) 11:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, Suggest that the Polly Toynbee quotations be moved to a new Controversies section in the article. Given the Neutral Point of View policy not to state seriously contested assertions as facts and given the cited statement from Montgomery that “What happened next [after Toda encountered Ogasawara] is not clear.”, it does not seem appropriate to state that Toda hit the priest, and certainly not to state that Ikeda was present at this alleged hitting, since there is no cited source for the latter statement. Thank you again, Starrynuit ( talk) 06:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a dispute here but maybe I'm misreading someone. The section currently reads
The 1976 publication of Choose Life: A Dialogue (in Japanese, Nijusseiki e no taiwa) is the published record of dialogues and correspondences that began in 1971 between Ikeda and British historian Arnold J. Toynbee about the “convergence of East and West”[137] on contemporary as well as perennial topics ranging from the human condition to the role of religion and the future of human civilization. Toynbee’s 12-volume A Study of History had been translated into Japanese, which along with his lecture tours and periodical articles about social, moral and religious issues gained him popularity in Japan. To an expat’s letter critical of Toynbee’s association with Ikeda and Soka Gakkai, Toynbee wrote back: “I agree with Soka Gakkai on religion as the most important thing in human life, and on opposition to militarism and war."[138] To another letter critical of Ikeda, Toynbee responded: “Mr. Ikeda’s personality is strong and dynamic and such characters are often controversial. My own feeling for Mr. Ikeda is one of great respect and sympathy.”[139] British journalist and political commentator Polly Toynbee, an avowed atheist, was invited to meet Ikeda in 1984 in memory of her grandfather. (According to Peter Popham, writing about Tokyo architecture and culture, Ikeda "was hoping to tighten the public connection between himself and Polly Toynbee's famous grandfather, Arnold Toynbee, the prophet of the rise of the East."[140]) Polly Toynbee described Ikeda as "a short, round man with slicked down hair, wearing a sharp Western suit"; they talked from "throne-like" chairs in "an enormous room" reached via "corridors of bowing girls dressed in white".[141][relevant? – discuss] She wrote "I have met many powerful men--prime ministers, leaders of all kinds--but I have never in my life met anyone who exudes such an aura of absolute power as Mr. Ikeda."[142] In The Guardian on May 19, 1984, she also voiced the wish that her grandfather would not have endorsed their dialogue, Choose Life: A Dialogue. She wrote, "I telephoned a few people round the world who had been visited by Ikeda. There was a certain amount of discomfort at being asked, and an admission by several that they felt they had been drawn into endorsing him."[143][better source needed][copyright violation?]
Are there any disputed phrases and are there any suggestions as to where in the article which bits should go? Please feel free to discuss this, please remember to be civil and discuss the content not the contributor SPACKlick ( talk) 14:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't find any remaining quotes from the book. Is this still under dispute? Please feel free to discuss this, please remember to be civil and discuss the content not the contributor SPACKlick ( talk) 14:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Please halt discussion until a new moderator takes up this case. SPACKlick has indicated on the DRN talk page that he/she is unable to continue with this case. I'm therefore marking it as NEEDS ATTENTTION in the hopes another DRN volunteer will pick it up.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
24 Hour Closing Notice -- Unless there is significant indication in the next 24 hrs that a moderated dispute resolution discussion is underway, I'm going to make a long overdue close of this very stale case. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
24 hour warning: This case has passed its expiration date which means the bot will auto-archive the case/thread if a 24 hour period passes with no comments. Which at this point, in my opinion, is a good thing. This case has lost its momentum and does not appear to be going anywhere. Just sayin.........-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Since a month has gone by the task of following the incident is indeed difficult. I would however like this to be sorted it out -- Catflap08 ( talk) 20:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Removal of the material was clearly proper under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. See my closing note in the collapsed section, below, for details. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 13:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Although clarifications were made based upon WP guidelines, there was no clear resolution and the issue has been referred to WP:AfD for further community input. Please see my closing comments at the bottom of this case for a full explanation. — Keithbob • Talk • 20:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. Though there was some discussion about this topic several months ago, there's been no discussion between the filing editor and Zacwill16 on the article talk page. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Futile. In light of the degree to which RGloucester has been a primary participant in this dispute, his/her refusal to participate here — which is his/her right, no one is ever required to participate in dispute resolution — dooms any possibility of success here. I have made some extensive comments about this listing and this dispute in my closing notes, set out below at the bottom of the collapsed section. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Conduct dispute. DRN does not handle matters which are primarily conduct disputes, speak to an administrator or file at AN or ANI for conduct disputes. I'll also note that even if this did focus only on content issues, however, that there hasn't been any extensive talk page discussion, as required by DRN and all other forms of moderated content dispute resolution, since October or November of 2014 and this would almost certainly be closed for that reason. The filing editor has made comments on the article talk page, perhaps discussion will result. If an editor will not discuss, but continues to revert, consider the suggestions which I make here. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here, though seeking semi-page protection may also or alternatively be needed in this case. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Conduct dispute. DRN does not handle disputes which are primarily conduct disputes. Speak to an administrator or file at ANI for conduct disputes. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Lack of adequate participation. The editors who have declined were the ones not in agreement with the filer, the editors who haven't responded or have added comments appear to be in agreement with the filer. Kharkiv07 Talk 15:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editors will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as premature - Not fully discussed on the article's talk page. In fact, no discussion was made at all. On Padenton's talk page a quick exchange took place, which essentially amounted to him saying "Just take it to the DRN". Please discuss with each other first before coming here. For more information look at TransporterMan's essay here. Kharkiv07 Talk 19:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
This dispute is being submitted to a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC) In view of the fact that the disputants have not been taking part in the RFC Survey, but have only been arguing in the Threaded Discussion in the RFC, I am changing the status of this thread to Failed. This doesn't have any effect on the RFC, which will continue running, only on any metrics of DRN success. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closing due to no discussion by other parties to case after three days. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as premature. Like all other dispute resolution at Wikipedia, you need to have extensive talk page discussion before coming here. For more information check out TransporterMan's essay here. Also, we don't have the power to protect pages, to do that you must go to WP:RfPP. Kharkiv07 Talk 00:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
This case is being closed for two reasons. First, there is an open RFC, and this noticeboard is not a forum to request that RFCs be withdrawn. Second, there are conduct issues involved. The parties are directed to arbitration enforcement or WP:ANI. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. At this point it doesn't even appear that there is a dispute over the talk page edits. And even if there were, it would be much more likely a conduct matter which does not belong here. If you want to ask whether or not what you did was acceptable, you might ask at Editor assistance. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
It appears that the issue of whether to redirect the title or to leave the stub in place was resolved by agreement to leave the stub in place, and the other parties have not objected. Closing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Lack of adequate participation, none of the named parties are willing to participate. Two of the three named parties also stated that this is a conduct issue, which this board is not the proper place for. Kharkiv07 Talk 02:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
You should wait to see the result of the AfD discussion before you bring this here to discuss merging it. Kharkiv07 Talk 21:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Not within the scope of this noticeboard. See Deletion Review for procedures involving article deletion. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Lack of constructive response from the editors either here or on talk pages. The editors should be aware that if non-constructive discussion on talk pages continues, they may be blocked from editing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Stale and/or futile. Listed for a week with no volunteer willing to take the case and with two nonresponsive parties. Consider a request for comments. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Futile due to insufficient acceptance by parties. See additional comments at bottom of the collapsed section. Consider a request for comments if dispute resolution is still desired. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
I researched a quote via the WP:RX since the quote (used within another quote by Montgomergy) was disputed in the articles on Daisaku Ikeda and Soka Gakkai. As soon as I insist that critical issues should not be deleted I seem to run into a conflict with the same editor. Same occurred on the Toynbee quote.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
At one stage quoted Montgomery pages 186-187 completly. Asked WP:RX to find Murata quote in order to clarify who hit whom.
How do you think we can help?
An end to the constant deletion of sourced material not in favour of advocates of SG/SGI and or Ikeda.
Under the heading "Remarkable deletions", the article's talk page shows a conflict over what is said in two books about an incident in which, it has been claimed in the article, Daisaku Ikeda abused and hit an older priest. The two books in question are David Montgomery, Fire in the lotus: The dynamic Buddhism of Nichiren ( ISBN 1852740914); and Kiyoaki Murata, Japan's new Buddhism: An objective account of Soka Gakkai ( ISBN 978-0834800403). It's not always clear who has seen these books. I have never seen either, have no comment on the reliability of either book, and have never heard of one of the publishers.
A paragraph was summarily removed. This dismayed me. (See the talk page.)
There's a dispute on the talk page between User:Elemential1 (surprisingly, not named above) and User:Catflap08 on the talk page about exactly what Montgomery and Murata wrote. It's an odd dispute. Elemential1 claims that each book says precisely this or that; Catflap08 doesn't seem to agree or disagree but instead seems eager to argue around what the content of cited texts. He also seems to be saying that an objection to parts of a paragraph aren't good reason to remove it in toto.
Catflap08 then presents a long quotation from Montgomery. If it's credible, it certainly shows the thuggishness of the organization that Ikeda would soon head. What it doesn't show is what Ikeda had to do with this. Catflap08 appears to think that Ikeda must have been involved and therefore this belongs in an article about him.
Numerous editors of the page (many of these SPAs) have long been unhappy about quotations from an article Polly Toynbee published about meeting Ikeda. There have been attempts to do away with all of this material, but various editors (including Catflap08 and myself) have opposed these, and none of these attempts has been successful. There have been demands that this journalistic account should be balanced by other journalistic or quasi-journalistic accounts; I have welcomed this idea. At one point I noticed that the article had developed odd descriptions of Toynbee and a book in which she's quoted at length; I brought this up.
The article was protected. Starrynuit suggested changes. As an admin, I accepted some, rejected others. These acceptances and rejections didn't trigger much visible dissatisfaction.
Alarm bells! I have been a participant in the editing of the article and have exercised my administrative superpowers on it. A dodgy combination, and in retrospect I regret this. I'd be happy to recuse myself from either (a) editorial involvement or (b) administrative involvement. Or, better, from both, because my interest in Ikeda is very minor.
Starrynuit added a somewhat hagiographic passage about Ikeda. Seventeen minutes later, Catflap08 removed it, with the edit summary WP:PEACOCK.
I was struck by two things here. First, however vapid parts of the passage might be, they're not covered by WP:PEACOCK. I wrote this up at Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda#Peacock. Secondly and more seriously, Catflap08 seemed indignant when one faulty passage he seemed to like was deleted in toto, but he was quick to delete another faulty passage in toto. Why not approach the two in the same way? I therefore warned Catflap08 about the need for neutrality.
The talk page has now blown up with " Murata reference". Despite learning that Murata says that Toda hit the old priest and not learning that Murata says that Ikeda did, Catflap08 wanted (wants?) the article to continue to cite Murata as saying that Ikeda hit the old priest. (Though sometimes he says that he doesn't care.) -- Hoary ( talk) 05:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, The sentence that I tried to correct and that Hoary ultimately deleted had long -- incorrectly -- cited Murata as saying that Ikeda admitted hitting the priest twice. The text of Murata reads, "Toda [not Ikeda] admitted hitting the priest 'twice' [p. 96] ..." This can be seen at http://books.google.ca/books?id=x8QKAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=hitting
Murata's account of the Ogasawara Incident is disputed but that dispute is another matter; the inaccuracy of that one sentence in the article was the key issue here.
Thank you for your time. Starrynuit ( talk) 06:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC) @ TransporterMan Thanks for reminding me.-- Catflap08 ( talk) 15:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for coming to DRN, I have been through the specifics of the discussion and am willing to volunteer for this case. I have no prior knowledge of the subject matter but I hope that won't interfere with mediation. I am going to notify Elemential1 as they seem to have been involved in a lot of the discussion. The first thing I would ask is in two or three sentences could you please tell me as specifically as possible what you hope would be different (or the same) in the article after DRN. For comparison please use this version of the article. I ask this in order for us all to see exactly where the nub of the dispute is. Please don't justify these inclusions in this section simply list them for now. SPACKlick ( talk) 21:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Higher protection level of article itself (registered editors only, no IP edits). No hidden or open censorship. End to defamation of authors (including journalists) and denying the existence of their work. No threats against my person or any other editor. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 12:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The fact should be included that according to Murata Toda hit the priest twice and DI was present. Please note that since the dispute started both articles (SGI and the one on DI) have been reedited in large parts. Both the Montgomery AND Murata page 69 quotes should simply be cited in a footnote at least – in full length. The notability of Ms. Toynbee and her account of meeting DI should no longer be disputed nor her reputation as a journalist belittled. And while in the swing of it – no quotes from fictional material (the novel “Human Revolution”) on incidents that happened in real life. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 13:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Please note that at the beginning of the dispute the complete section was once deleted on grounds that no such quote of Toda was recorded. Tough – Murata quote was found. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 20:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
There's a passage within the section on "Books" that talks of the reactions of, and quotes comments by, Polly Toynbee. It's flagged "[relevant?]", "[better source needed]", and "[copyright violation?]". Remove the "[better source needed]", and "[copyright violation?]" flags, as the quotations appear in the article in the Guardian. (This article -- long, fascinating, and published long before everything in the newspaper was routinely uploaded to its website -- has been made available to a small number of editors of the page and I presume could be available to others.) The part flagged for relevance does indeed seem irrelevant to books. But this is not the part of the article where this passage has long resided. Move the passage back where it belongs (some section on Ikeda the person), and its relevance will again be clear. This aside, no particular request. -- Hoary ( talk) 07:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Slightly edited for clarity 05:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Greetings; I do not have any dispute with the article as it is. Thank you very much Starrynuit ( talk) 06:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Greetings,
Thank you kindly for asking.
1) I agree with Hoary’s suggestion about the Polly Toynbee quotations.
2) Re: “The fact should be included that according to Murata Toda hit the priest twice and DI was present.”
a) Murata pages 96-97 are on the subject at hand (not page 69) ( [1])
b) Neither Murata nor Montgomery states that DI (Daisaku Ikeda) was present at this alleged hitting, therefore it is not appropriate to include such a statement in the article.
c) Montgomery states that what happened after Toda encountered Ogasawara is not clear and he describes Murata’s statement about Toda hitting the priest as a “claim”. Montgomery states, “What happened next [after Toda encountered Ogasawara] is not clear. According to Ikeda, Toda reasoned calmly with Ogasawara, demanding an apology, while the old man 'drooled at the mouth' and 'howled like a rabid dog.' But Murata claims that Toda told him in an interview that he struck the priest 'twice' ([Murata, p.] 96).” ([Montgomery ( [2]: 187 )
d) Therefore, given the Neutral Point of View policy not to state seriously contested assertions as facts, it does not seem appropriate to state that Toda hit the priest, and certainly not to state that Ikeda was present at this alleged hitting, for which there is no cited source at all.
Thank you very much again. Starrynuit ( talk) 02:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
It also says that the priest was said to have suffered internal bleeding, and that Toda was taken into custody and held for two days while the incident was investigated.行ってみると、当時の戸田城聖会長を先頭に青年部の屈強な若者がずらりと並んでいた。
呼び出しの理由は簡単にいうと、戦前慈聞師が唱えていた教義解釈が間違っていたのだから謝れというわけだ。師が拒否すると戸田会長が殴った...
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)急を聞きつけて地元消防団がかけつけたため慈聞師は宿坊に帰され、騒ぎは収まったが、このリンチで師は内出血のため四週間も休まなくてはならなかったという。
この事件で戸田会長は警察に二日間拘留され、取調べを受けている。
References
Ok so to summarise the comments above.
Hi all. I'm just butting in here as a somewhat involved editor, and I would be very happy to see @ Shii:, one of our more knowledgable editors in general on Eastern religions, to comment here too. I think the primary things to address here are:
Anyway, that's what comes to mind to me as a reasonable starting point. John Carter ( talk) 18:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
These three, if I'm understanding correctly all refer to the same section of content and are disputed as to what quotes to include, what to say in Wikipedia's voice and what to not say at all. Could each of you summarise your arguments for what to include and where in the article. Again, try and keep it to three or four sentences. Please do not discuss each others contributions before I respond.
Nowhere in the quotes is it stated that Ikeda hit the priest. Whoever included that later is none of my business and if sources exist who say so include them. The Montgomery source simply states that Ikeda was in the mob. I was the one who made the Murata quotes available, as some suggested the Montgomery quote would be wrong. I have the full Montgomery quote and would include it in full length as a footnote just like the Murata one. Please note that in the beginning of this discussion the complete reference to the incident was deleted. We have so far established that the Murata quote exists, which was disputed, and that Ikeda according to sources was present. The “incident” as such is not limited to Toda hitting the priest – that was the climax – but the incident is about finding the priest, pulling off his robes, etc. etc. … the issue here is that the incident took place. -- Catflap08 ( talk) 16:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
In the first item, is "Murata Toda" a typo for "Murata says that Toda" (or similar), for "Toda", or for something else? Anyway, I'm unimpressed by somebody's mere presence at a violent event. If there's evidence that this happened, and that Ikeda played an important role, then say what the incident was and what his role was in it; if there isn't, then don't. Whatever is said in the article about this (if anything), source it well: in the relevant footnote(s)/reference(s), quote [I think you mean "quote" rather than "cite"] as much from Murata or Montgomery or both as to establish this, and no more. -- Hoary ( talk) 11:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, Suggest that the Polly Toynbee quotations be moved to a new Controversies section in the article. Given the Neutral Point of View policy not to state seriously contested assertions as facts and given the cited statement from Montgomery that “What happened next [after Toda encountered Ogasawara] is not clear.”, it does not seem appropriate to state that Toda hit the priest, and certainly not to state that Ikeda was present at this alleged hitting, since there is no cited source for the latter statement. Thank you again, Starrynuit ( talk) 06:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a dispute here but maybe I'm misreading someone. The section currently reads
The 1976 publication of Choose Life: A Dialogue (in Japanese, Nijusseiki e no taiwa) is the published record of dialogues and correspondences that began in 1971 between Ikeda and British historian Arnold J. Toynbee about the “convergence of East and West”[137] on contemporary as well as perennial topics ranging from the human condition to the role of religion and the future of human civilization. Toynbee’s 12-volume A Study of History had been translated into Japanese, which along with his lecture tours and periodical articles about social, moral and religious issues gained him popularity in Japan. To an expat’s letter critical of Toynbee’s association with Ikeda and Soka Gakkai, Toynbee wrote back: “I agree with Soka Gakkai on religion as the most important thing in human life, and on opposition to militarism and war."[138] To another letter critical of Ikeda, Toynbee responded: “Mr. Ikeda’s personality is strong and dynamic and such characters are often controversial. My own feeling for Mr. Ikeda is one of great respect and sympathy.”[139] British journalist and political commentator Polly Toynbee, an avowed atheist, was invited to meet Ikeda in 1984 in memory of her grandfather. (According to Peter Popham, writing about Tokyo architecture and culture, Ikeda "was hoping to tighten the public connection between himself and Polly Toynbee's famous grandfather, Arnold Toynbee, the prophet of the rise of the East."[140]) Polly Toynbee described Ikeda as "a short, round man with slicked down hair, wearing a sharp Western suit"; they talked from "throne-like" chairs in "an enormous room" reached via "corridors of bowing girls dressed in white".[141][relevant? – discuss] She wrote "I have met many powerful men--prime ministers, leaders of all kinds--but I have never in my life met anyone who exudes such an aura of absolute power as Mr. Ikeda."[142] In The Guardian on May 19, 1984, she also voiced the wish that her grandfather would not have endorsed their dialogue, Choose Life: A Dialogue. She wrote, "I telephoned a few people round the world who had been visited by Ikeda. There was a certain amount of discomfort at being asked, and an admission by several that they felt they had been drawn into endorsing him."[143][better source needed][copyright violation?]
Are there any disputed phrases and are there any suggestions as to where in the article which bits should go? Please feel free to discuss this, please remember to be civil and discuss the content not the contributor SPACKlick ( talk) 14:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't find any remaining quotes from the book. Is this still under dispute? Please feel free to discuss this, please remember to be civil and discuss the content not the contributor SPACKlick ( talk) 14:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Please halt discussion until a new moderator takes up this case. SPACKlick has indicated on the DRN talk page that he/she is unable to continue with this case. I'm therefore marking it as NEEDS ATTENTTION in the hopes another DRN volunteer will pick it up.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
24 Hour Closing Notice -- Unless there is significant indication in the next 24 hrs that a moderated dispute resolution discussion is underway, I'm going to make a long overdue close of this very stale case. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
24 hour warning: This case has passed its expiration date which means the bot will auto-archive the case/thread if a 24 hour period passes with no comments. Which at this point, in my opinion, is a good thing. This case has lost its momentum and does not appear to be going anywhere. Just sayin.........-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Since a month has gone by the task of following the incident is indeed difficult. I would however like this to be sorted it out -- Catflap08 ( talk) 20:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Removal of the material was clearly proper under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. See my closing note in the collapsed section, below, for details. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 13:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Although clarifications were made based upon WP guidelines, there was no clear resolution and the issue has been referred to WP:AfD for further community input. Please see my closing comments at the bottom of this case for a full explanation. — Keithbob • Talk • 20:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. Though there was some discussion about this topic several months ago, there's been no discussion between the filing editor and Zacwill16 on the article talk page. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Futile. In light of the degree to which RGloucester has been a primary participant in this dispute, his/her refusal to participate here — which is his/her right, no one is ever required to participate in dispute resolution — dooms any possibility of success here. I have made some extensive comments about this listing and this dispute in my closing notes, set out below at the bottom of the collapsed section. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Conduct dispute. DRN does not handle matters which are primarily conduct disputes, speak to an administrator or file at AN or ANI for conduct disputes. I'll also note that even if this did focus only on content issues, however, that there hasn't been any extensive talk page discussion, as required by DRN and all other forms of moderated content dispute resolution, since October or November of 2014 and this would almost certainly be closed for that reason. The filing editor has made comments on the article talk page, perhaps discussion will result. If an editor will not discuss, but continues to revert, consider the suggestions which I make here. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here, though seeking semi-page protection may also or alternatively be needed in this case. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Conduct dispute. DRN does not handle disputes which are primarily conduct disputes. Speak to an administrator or file at ANI for conduct disputes. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Lack of adequate participation. The editors who have declined were the ones not in agreement with the filer, the editors who haven't responded or have added comments appear to be in agreement with the filer. Kharkiv07 Talk 15:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editors will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as premature - Not fully discussed on the article's talk page. In fact, no discussion was made at all. On Padenton's talk page a quick exchange took place, which essentially amounted to him saying "Just take it to the DRN". Please discuss with each other first before coming here. For more information look at TransporterMan's essay here. Kharkiv07 Talk 19:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
This dispute is being submitted to a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC) In view of the fact that the disputants have not been taking part in the RFC Survey, but have only been arguing in the Threaded Discussion in the RFC, I am changing the status of this thread to Failed. This doesn't have any effect on the RFC, which will continue running, only on any metrics of DRN success. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closing due to no discussion by other parties to case after three days. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Closed as premature. Like all other dispute resolution at Wikipedia, you need to have extensive talk page discussion before coming here. For more information check out TransporterMan's essay here. Also, we don't have the power to protect pages, to do that you must go to WP:RfPP. Kharkiv07 Talk 00:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
This case is being closed for two reasons. First, there is an open RFC, and this noticeboard is not a forum to request that RFCs be withdrawn. Second, there are conduct issues involved. The parties are directed to arbitration enforcement or WP:ANI. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. At this point it doesn't even appear that there is a dispute over the talk page edits. And even if there were, it would be much more likely a conduct matter which does not belong here. If you want to ask whether or not what you did was acceptable, you might ask at Editor assistance. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
It appears that the issue of whether to redirect the title or to leave the stub in place was resolved by agreement to leave the stub in place, and the other parties have not objected. Closing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Lack of adequate participation, none of the named parties are willing to participate. Two of the three named parties also stated that this is a conduct issue, which this board is not the proper place for. Kharkiv07 Talk 02:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
You should wait to see the result of the AfD discussion before you bring this here to discuss merging it. Kharkiv07 Talk 21:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Not within the scope of this noticeboard. See Deletion Review for procedures involving article deletion. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Lack of constructive response from the editors either here or on talk pages. The editors should be aware that if non-constructive discussion on talk pages continues, they may be blocked from editing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Stale and/or futile. Listed for a week with no volunteer willing to take the case and with two nonresponsive parties. Consider a request for comments. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Futile due to insufficient acceptance by parties. See additional comments at bottom of the collapsed section. Consider a request for comments if dispute resolution is still desired. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|