Talk:Soka Gakkai

Flag

The flag shown is the wrong flag. This: Sanshokuki2 Is the proper flag. I can't make the edit because it locked

Sections of this article read like they were written by someone with personal involvement

This applies to other sections, but the most prominent one in my mind is the one that reads:

"Soka Gakkai has long been a subject of criticism in the Japanese weekly tabloid news/magazine press. Press criticism of the Soka Gakkai should be seen against the backdrop of negative press coverage of new religious movements in general. It is important to understand that Japanese journalism is unlike that of the West. Scholars point out that less than two percent of journalists in Japan have degrees in journalism. That plus feeble libel laws leave little recourse for the victims of malicious defamation. Associate Professor of Religion at Hamilton College, Richard Seager writes that it is time to cease being overly intrigued by the Soka Gakkai’s history of controversy. “Over the course of a relatively short period, the Soka Gakkai moved from the margins of Japanese society into its mainstream.”"

This seems like way too much analysis for an encyclopedia entry. I'd trim this down to something like:

"Soka Gakkai has been subject to criticism in Japanese weekly tabloid news/magazine press, but current scholarship shows them being more in the mainstream of Japanese society than in its margins."

Bigfreakingkelleher (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bigfreakingkelleher and LaunchOctopus: Go ahead and edit. Be an "excellent citizen". WP:WEASEL, WP:FLUFF, WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFIABILITY all look like they're highly applicable throughout this article. You can contribute to "humanistic progress and continuous improvement" of this article by improving its "vision and structure" in line with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Let the source, culture and education be with you! But please don't violate WP:RELTIME by writing about "current scholarship". Date the scholarship to whenever it was done. It's unlikely that you're going to edit this particular article to update it for new scholarship every year for the next 20 or 30 years. Boud (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems nothing was ever done about this, so I've added the NPOV tag. Given the vast amount of criticism out there about Soka Gakkai, its one tiny mention of "cult appellation" amongst _tons_ of laudatory fluff is entirely NPOV. -Etoile ✩ (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

About Seikyo Shimbun

The information about the SG's newspaper Seikyo Shimbun is unofficial and deserves to be corrected. The newspaper claims 5,5 millions copies in circulation, but this account is made by the Sôka gakkai itself, and it is disputed. The Seikyo Shimbun is not sold at newsstands in Japan, only through subscription, made by members of the SG. Thus, it is not correct to claim it is the 3rd japanese newspaper. Raoul Mishima (talk) 11:47, 19 november 2023 (UTC)

I add a line about Seikyo Shimbun not a member of japanese official newspapers circulation authorities / impossible to verify it's claimed 5,5 millions copies. Raoul Mishima (talk) 02:49, march 12th 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2024

Third paragraph, last line: “After the war, it's expansion was led by its former third president Daisaku Ikeda.”

Change the it’s -> its 2607:1C80:4B:92E4:21AD:F345:EE85:DD0A (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Finance, school network, political party

Hello @Anachronist

You seem not aware that SG has a school network, founded a political party, and has a consequent financial power. I will re-publish those informations in the introduction. If it lacks sources, please say it and don't delete everything without discussing here, thanks. Raoul mishima (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BURDEN. Add sources, or don't add it.

And, you stil haven't addressed the COI issue. If you have a COI you shouldn't be making substantive changes to the article at all, especially unsourced ones.

I gave you a block warning. Ignore it if you don't mind the consequences. Consider this a final warning. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the WP:OWNership issues and lack of WP:RSs, Raoul is small potatoes compared to the cadre (3+) of self-admitted SGI members who consistently edit the page. Actually, I don't even know if WP:COI is applicable here, seems like Raoul just has a bone to pick with SGI (WP:NPOV). It's important to note that the person who raised the COI issue with Raoul in the first place is an SGI member who is concerned with editors "denigrating" the SGI. wound theology◈ 06:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Raoul has repeatedly avoided answering any question about COI. I have tagged the article accordingly for now. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear Anachronist,

I did not avoid anything. COI : not an issue for me. It's kinda funny you focus on my edits and not on the laudatory and promotional paragraphs that have been added to this page. Also, this page quotes a lot of primary sources, and we've not been hearing from you about that. Raoul mishima (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Not an issue? Are you associated in any way with Sokka Gakkai? I am asking you directly. You have avoided addressing this on your talk page multiple times. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring and such

@Kelvintjy: The page you keep reverting was built by multiple editors which you rolled back on the 13th of August, hence why you keep having your edits reverted by other editors who are uninvolved. The WP:MOS is not debatable. Read MOS:HEADINGS and WP:CITEKILL. wound theology◈ 06:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)