Talk:Soka Gakkai/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

The Right to Correct Information

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)

WP:NOTSOAPBOX --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Safwan has been soapboxing here for literally years now. It's not clear to me whether he has ever contributed beneficially to the article. I was here around 2012 when he did attempt to edit the article and the results were not good. Shii (tock) 17:48, 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)

@Daveler16: Your latest edit inserted "revitalizing the lives of its members" as a benefit of Soka Gakkai. This is not something I usually see in articles about specific religious groups (as opposed to generic articles like [[Religion and happiness]) and your source that this is a notable part of SGI is a whole book. You need to (1) provide page numbers and quotes, as before and (2) explain why this is something special that is more worthy of mentioning on this page than it would be on, e.g. the Scientology page. Shii (tock) 22:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Shii and Catflap: This discussion on Talk page is about correcting the article - but I will use your words of Soapboxing and offer independent readers to see the sopaboxing in the article. Please read the following post and please understand that a chnage to the structure and conetnt of the article is inevitable. Regards SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:42, 7 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

Noriega visit source

"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 cannot find the French source either, but the Kaplan book still remains as a source. Shii (tock) 20:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I found the passage in the Kaplan book. He's mainly interested in criticizing the organizer of a celebration of the bicentennial of the French Revolution, which he does by saying that he shouldn't have associated with such a disreputable figure as Ikeda. Then he repeats a bunch of hearsay, including the Le Point story cited above. Clearly he hasn't done any research of his own. E.g. he has Ikeda himself abandoning the safe. He's a bread expert, and out of his field here, so I think we're safe in leaving him out. (Also he calls SG a "sect" :) But I'm not going to touch the rest of the Noriega section. Those sources look much more solid. --Margin1522 (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sock puppetry no.2

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)

Edit reversions

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)

The huge citation mess is not Daveler's fault, it is Catflap's too. Both of these editors need to skim our featured articles to see how good intros look. Shii (tock) 01:29, 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)

@Catflap08. I'd like to suggest rereading WP:USEPRIMARY. Whether a source is primary or not doesn't depend on the source's affiliation. It depends on whether it is primary or secondary as explained in the article. For example, the Book of Mormon and the personal writings of Joseph Smith are primary sources. A book about Joseph Smith is a secondary source if it provides "analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation" of these basic texts. We don't allow editors to offer their own interpretations of the basic texts. We do allow editors to cite interpretations published by someone else. For example, as long as it offers "analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation", a book about Joseph Smith is a secondary source. That is true even if it was written by a professor at BYU, which is owned and operated by the LDS Church, and published by the BYU Press. Do you see the point? Speeches by Ikeda to the UN are primary sources and we shouldn't cite those. But a book about the speeches could be a perfectly valid secondary source, even if it was written by a scholar at a university or institute that is owned and operated by SGI. It's OK to cite what scholars of a faith say about it, even if they are affiliated with the faith. In fact it's pretty hard to write an article without citing them. Do you see what I'm trying to say? -- Margin1522 (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That explanation elides the fact that the SG owned press is not a "third party", and therefore their publications are not thrid-party publications. Maybe WP:SELFPUBLISHED comes into play here to a certain degree. BYU is an accredited university, incidentally, not in the same category as a press operated by SG/SGI. Like other university presses, their works would almost always be subject to a peer-review process.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm eliding the fact because it's irrelevant to WP:USEPRIMARY and wasn't mentioned. There is no requirement on Wikipedia that a press be unaffiliated. The Catholic Encylopedia was edited by professors at Catholic universities and published by the Church. It's cited thousands of times. The Deseret News is cited nine times in the article on Joseph Smith, a "good article". Nobody complains that The Deseret News is a publishing arm of the LDS Church. On Marx and Brecht, we cite the publishing arm of the US Communist Party. Can you explain to me why those presses are OK, but Middleway Press is not?

I think this is fairly important principle. If you're going to insist on excluding Middleway Press from the article, I'm willing to take it to dispute resolution. I'm quite confident that a press can't be excluded on grounds of being a "primary source" or "self published". If you want to want to look for other grounds, go ahead, let's hear it. -- Margin1522 (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I take that back. We do have a list of companies engaged in the self-publishing business, namely presses where authors pay to have their books published. Needless to say, Middleway Press is not on it. If you want to argue that it should be on it because SGI uses it to publish itself, well, good luck with that. --Margin1522 (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

As Catflap mentioned above, the source can be used, with proper attribution. There are guidelines on using such sources. With regard to SG/SGI, Middleway Press is not a secondary source published by a reliable third-party.

What exactly is it that you are arguing for anyway? Does it relate to the following passage?

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.

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)

One thing I want to ask is, let's stop misusing the terms "primary" and "secondary" source. A primary source is data that requires interpretation, like census records. We discourage it because editors who use primary sources tend to be doing original research. Instead, we say use secondary sources, namely someone else's published interpretation. None of this has anything at all to do with the affiliations of an author or a publisher. -- Margin1522 (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I think SGI in general and Margin1522 specifically don't like primary sources because they [Lotus Sutra and Nichiren] either hang SGI or they [Makiguchi, Toda, and Ikeda] hang themselves. I believe that the reader can easily correctly interpret the words for themselves without having to rely on secondary or tertiary sources. Mark Rogow 08/06/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD27:DB49:845F:E6B2:FE26:FB17 (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That is an incomplete description of what "primary source" encompasses. Anything published by SG is a primary source about SG. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a PR website that re-presents organizations own (mis)representation of themselves to the reading public. 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 think that the example at hand is highly useful for illustrative purposes.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, but as it says in WP:USEPRIMARY, anything is a primary source for something. I really would like to suggest that you read through that guideline again, carefully, because the differences are a bit subtle. As it notes, there are three criteria to consider about sources for Wikipedia: (1) Is it self published? (2) Is it independent? (3) Is it primary? Those are three different criteria. What you and catflop are complaining about is (2), namely that Middleway Press is not "independent". You are objecting on grounds of WP:Independent sources, so that's what you should say. About "sect", that's Daveler16's word, not SGI's. And I have to say it looks like nitpicking to me. He was using the word in the way that we say "denomination" about groups of Christians, and you object that religious scholars don't use the word that way. Fine, so correct it. It's supposed to be a collaborative effort here. About the (mis)representations, that seems to me to be one of the biggest problems with this article. You guys appear to be on a mission to uncover things that SGI wants to hide ("sweep under the carpet", as catflop put it), and to show that its "representations" about itself are false. I think we have to be very careful about that. This shows up in all of the "while", "although", and "but" language is this article. For example, (SGI says A), "but" (Fact B). Now it may be true that SGI said A, and B may be a fact, with sources to prove it. But putting the two together to imply something is WP:SYNTHESIS, and we're not supposed to do that. Not that such an implication is banned. But we have to find a published source that puts A and B together in a package for us to use, so that we can say "It's not Wikipedia making those (negative) implications, we're just quoting somebody else." -- Margin1522 (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

Catflap, please, let me repeat, a source is not "primary" just because it is affiliated with SGI. Those are two different things. If you mean "SGI-affiliated" you should say that. Calling these sources "primary" will just confuse people who expect the word to have its normal meaning. Anyway, thank you for not reverting the SGI-affiliated cites. That was my main concern. I hope I've addressed your concerns by moving the cites from the lead down into the body of the text, and making Urbain's affiliation clear. The Pacifism section needs to be expanded further, and since Daveler16 has done the work of providing page numbers, I think that could be done by going through these cites one by one and providing a short summary or quote from each one. -- Margin1522 (talk) 05:32, 3 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)

@Daveler16 When it comes to the concepts a school believes in it comes natural to cite primary sources as they should know best what there teachings are about. In matters of dispute especially theses sources become somewhat redundant if not marked as being a primary source i.e. what other think of the matter. The schools you mentioned do their thing, believe in what ever they want to believe and their adherents do simply not sell their belief as the best thing since the invention of sliced bread. SGI’s has strived out into politics economics (businesses it holds). So it is what is is not a faith per se but an organisation. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:58, 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)

Nope you do not seem to get it. What a school may or may not believe in its own resources might describe it best. Any criticism of that may be substantiated by secondary resources. What one school/org. has to say about the other at this point boils down to bitching. So far however Nichiren Shoshu just does not care about SGI---- the same can not be said about SGI’s adherents. SGI is just no agenda within Nichiren Shoshu appart from historic documents.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Are there archives of this Talk page?

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

To answer my own question, yes, it is being archived. I'm adding an {{Archive banner}} to the top of the page so other people can find them. --Margin1522 (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Dumping the Safe

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)

The Hathi Digital Library doesn't support Japanese OCR. I have tried to use them to search Japanese books before and couldn't get any results for any terms. Shii (tock) 20:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I had never heard of the Hathi Digital Library. What a great resource. Unfortunately I'm not affiliated with a university, so I can't view it. But I succeeded in searching it, as follows.

國民政治年鑑 1990 | Limited (search only) | Search inside the text | 中西治雄 = 73 Results

Then it says "Full view is not available for this item due to copyright © restrictions. Page numbers with matches are displayed without text snippets due to these restrictions. Snippets may be available for some items if you log in."

I also found some snippets in Google Books. Like this one. 7 月には、 1 * 7000 万円の現金入りの耐火金庫を放置していたのが、元聖教新聞社 専務理事の中西治雄氏だったことが判明し、参院選挙を前に、やはりイメ一ジダウンをもたらした。 Apparently this was a big deal before an election, if they are mentioning it that often.

That said, no charges were ever filed, so I agree that we can file this under something that looked like an incident but wasn't. Under-the-table money goes to politicians all the time, and when there is proof they file charges. In this case, no money to politicians, no charges, nothing happened. So I agree that we could do without this section. --Margin1522 (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Did it. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I will support this change because this does not appear in major histories of the Gakkai. It was sourced primarily to minor sources, and although others can be found none are reliable sources about the Gakkai. The most relevant source I can find is a Japanese website akin to Operation Clambake, not reliable enough to establish the story as notable. Shii (tock) 03:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Ikedaism

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)

Lead paragraph

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)

"It is one of the largest and most successful New Religious Movements (NRM) in the world."

I thought Mormons are the fastest growing group next to evangelicals

"As a lay organization it breaks with Nichiren lineages and schools where priests play the central roles."

This is humbug by fact as it is neither the first nor not the only “lay” organisation within Nichiren Buddhism. Not even when looking at groups only that were affiliated with Nichiren Shoshu.

The number 12 million is to be questioned as official Japanese numbers already show. So this number is only by its own accounts.

--Catflap08 (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

IDK if it is "humbug" but it is definitely an inaccurate description of a "lay organization". Shii (tock) 12:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Well even so it may be but the ones that play a central role in the organisation get into that position which is obscure and unaccounted for. So in fact one group of decision makers has been supplemented with another one. Most important though SGI never broke with a priesthood but was kicked by a priesthood --- small but important difference. And they were not the first to have been inflicted with that, they just publicised it widely. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@FetullahFan: The fact that they are a NRM is factual, and can be expanded upon, but you should try to work that into the main body of the article, not focus on the lead. I have incorporated the term.

A lot of the language you have proposed is peacocky and somewhat promotional, not encyclopedic.

There is no need to introduce SGI in the lead, especially in a manner that conflates the two and includes the membership claimed (and disputed) in Japan under SGI, which is misleading and false.

The "?" after the Japanese text in the title is standard formatting practice for the opening sentence of the lead, apparently. Check the code in the editing window.

FYI, Nichiren was a Tendai monk that adopted a new focus, particularly on the Latter Day of the Law in his teachings, and incorporated the chanting of the name of the Lotus Sutra as a practice, in a manner similar to the adoption by Honen of the chanting of the nembutsu in the Pure Land sect during the Kamakura period.

Nichiren's followers established the sect in his name after he'd passed away. It would probably be wise to refrain from trying to use proper nouns as descriptive terms. There is a lot of context involved, and statements have to be framed in a manner that accurately reflects the context.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:43, 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)

@Ubikwit, thank you for your revisions and for accommodating some of my concerns. The lead certainly reads much more smoothly now.

Here are some feedback points.

1- I checked what you said about question marks in the transliteration and the convention does seem to be largely but not universally in place. For example Oomoto reads as follows, "Oomoto (大本 Ōmoto, literally "Great Source" or "Great Origin")." I actually think this convention is more useful than the "?". The SG article could read, "Soka Gakkai (Japanese: 創価学会, literally 'Value Creation Society'"). This would be very helpful to readers like me who immediately want to know right away what the Japanese term means. (I don't remember reading this translation anywhere in the article itself, I had to find it in outside sources.)

2- I am afraid that you are going to unleash a stream of edit warring by introducing 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. This war is going to descend into a citation food fight; it will be ugly---and a waste of time.

Can we find a workaround? I am currently reading Hammond and Machacek's Soka Gakkai in America and they repeatedly use the term "Soka Gakkai Buddhism." This might satisfy the tight differentiation your want to draw between the SG and temple-based/traditional schools of Buddhism. I don't think that SG members would object either to Hammond and Machacek's term. May I suggest:

"SG is a Japanese new religious movement which, according to its own account, has 12 million members in 192 countries and territories around the world and is generally considered to be one of the largest NRMs in the world. 'Soka Gakkai Buddhism' originated as an amalgam of the teachings of the Lotus Sutra, Nichiren, and Tsunesaburo Makiguchi's Philosophy of Value."

(I'm a newbie at this but I think I got the religious sources and Makiguchi right.)

3- I think you should consider reintroducing the SG and SGI distinction. From what I gather the vast majority of members belong to the SG in Japan. Members around the world (I have seen the not so insignificant number of 2,000,000 tossed around) see themselves as members of the SGI or their country's organization, not the SG. From my readings I observe that they refer to Mr. Ikeda as "SGI President Ikeda" and not "SG Honorary President." I want to ask you, should this matter be saved for another time or tackled now? I know we are already stretching the length of a WP lead.

4- Can you find a better way to say that the SG "has broken with the Nichiren tradition in relation to the issues of monasticism and priesthood"? In the article Nichiren Buddhism "Nichiren tradition" is not defined through the lens of monasticism and priesthood. Perhaps its editors felt that this understanding is implicitly clear--but it is certainly not clear to outsiders like me. May I suggest:

"As a lay group that was originally associated with the Nichiren Shoshu school of Buddhism, the Soka Gakkai members revere the Lotus Sutra and place the chanting of the name of the Sutra at the center of devotional practice. The Soka Gakkai disavows monasticism and regards its membership, rather than priests, as the Buddhist Sangha."

Again, I am a new student of Nichiren Buddhism and I hope I got the Sangha thing right.

FetullahFan (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, missed Catflap08's comment at 17:50. Based on his/her suggestion, the final sentence of #2 could perhaps be read as "'Soka Gakkai Buddhism' originated as an amalgam of the teachings of the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren as interpreted by the movement's first three presidents." — Preceding unsigned comment added by FetullahFan (talk • contribs) 21:39, 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)

{(edit conflict)@FetullahFan: You need to understand that anything you want to add to the article has to be supported by WP:RS. I don't have time to discuss the history of Japanese Buddhism here in depth, and this is not a page for doing that anyway.

All Buddhism is defined by monasticism and the priesthood vis-a-vis the sangha. It is inseparable from Buddhism. What the Nichiren article says (or doesn't say) about that is irrelevant, primarily because it is a superordinate concept as one of the three jewels, and the material basis for Buddhist practice.

Soka Gakkai is a new religious movement, not formalistically a Buddhist organization. The neologistic compound "Soka Gakkai Buddhism" is a misnomer when used out of context; that is to say, as a name instead of a descriptive modifier. I have just acquired a copy of "Global Citizens", and the subtitle on the cover is

The Soka Gakkai Buddhist movement in the World

As you can see, it is used in a descriptive manner, not as a proper noun. I will comment further after having had a chance to look through the book a little.

The statements you made above

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.

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 suggestion of "Value Creation Society" is not necessarily accurate (as described above) and there are no reliable source citations for it. The "literal translation" proffered on the SGI website could be used in the article to explain the name, and that should probably be done conjunction with the "philosophy of value" you mentioned.

Maybe SGI could have a separate article, but then material would have to be clearly limited to minimalize overlap.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Good morning, everyone! @Catflap08, I am a new student of Buddhism as well as a relatively new editor of WP. I am on a steep learning curve and enjoying it very much. I look forward to working with you and hope you come to see my sincerity and perspectives as being useful to this article. I feel impassioned about my work here because I see such interesting parallels between Hizmet and the SG, Gulen and Ikeda, and Nichiren and Rumi. I am sure my work here will culminate in an academic article. And please come and visit the Gulen Movement and Gulen Movement Schools pages. I am so lonely there, it is so much more fun here.

@Daviler16, I agree with you about "put back 'revitalizing lives of its members'. We had discussed it, it is backed up with citations, and it presages the article." On Aug 6th @Shii wrote, "This is not something I usually see in articles about specific religious groups." Alas, I feel it should be--and perhaps this will be a trendsetter. Why not?--as long as there is proper citation.

@Ubikwit, I have also just picked up Global Citizens and look forward to comparing notes with you. One thing I noted right away in the Wilson and Machacek opening article is "Perhaps the most notable feature of this Buddhist movement is a distinctive reform orientation" (p. 3). Perusing the Table of Contents I see articles like "A Buddhist Reformation in the 20th Century," "Immigrant Buddhists in America," "Socially Inclusive Buddhists in America," "Socially Inclusive Buddhists in America," "Buddhist HUmanism and Catholic Culture in Brazil," and "Buddhism n Action: Case Studies from Italy." At least among the scholars represented in this book, @Ubikwit, the SG is recognized as Buddhist, not Buddhism-inspired.

FetullahFan (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@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)

@Ubikwit:The ongoing problem to compare SGI to Protestantism is that the latter was an ongoing movement within the Christian world. SGI were miffed to be excluded by a sub-sect within Nichiren Buddhism, a sect not even mainstream Nichiren Buddhism. It boils down to spread far too much butter on one’s bread.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Catflap08: Yes, that's true.

It's practically not even necessary to mention fundamental differences in doctrine, practice, objectives and organization between the church and the sangha with regard to SG. I noticed a statements on the SGI homepage about "authority" lying in the "original texts", etc., which struck me as an attempt to Protestant discourse related to the reading and interpreting of the bible on the part of the individual. That's why I responded to the suggestion of "reform" of Buddhism by SG. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As a concession to pro-SGI perspectives I think we should leave in the references to "M. Bumann" etc., but possibly make them shorter. Shii (tock) 22:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Here is one source that uses "Buddhist-derived new religious movement" to describe Soka Gakkai.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 22:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead paragraph, sect, NRM

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/?&section=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 where is SGI a lay-movement? Most of them just like protestant Christian congregations can be identified with some sort of democratic input. "As a lay group based on Nichiren Buddhism..." where apart form the absence of priets is the lay -aspect identified? Who elects its leaders?? Especially as it likes to compare its self with Protestantism this would be a useful input. The term “new religious movement” is nothing to say it is a cult – it defines a certain time scale, but most cults in Japan also qualify for that. Is SGI a Buddhist School? A Shu? I am sorry but the Lutheran Congregation next door is more democratic locally that SGI internationally. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, Catflap08, are you criticizing my suggestion here or criticizing the Soka Gakkai? "Where apart form the absence of priests is the lay-aspect identified?" you ask. Absence of priests equals a lay movement, it seems to me. I don't see anything else in between and I don't think anything else is required to meet this statement.

I don't see the pertinence of the label "democratic" to my suggested edits. NRMs range the entire spectrum of democratic just as do more established religions movements. Some elect leaders, others don't. They remain NRMs nevertheless. I am trying to referee the "sect" vs. "movement" discussion by introducing the sociological lens of NRMs, nothing else.

I do think that the discussion of democratic impulses in the Soka Gakkai, informed by discussions of research on democratic impulses in NRMs, would be a fascinating subsection in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FetullahFan (talk • contribs) 19:14, 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)

@Catflap08: You're right that even the categorization as a "lay movement" or "lay organization" is somewhat problematic, I don't think we have a better vocabulary to describe SG/SGI. They started as a lay movement, but have grown into something hardly recognizable as such. Their attacks by SG on the Sangha practically makes them an enemy of all forms of Buddhism, and that is one reason they have been disowned by Nichiren Shoshu. That is also a reason why they are categorized as a "New religious movement" and not a sect of Buddhism. They incorporate aspects of Buddhist teachings, but they are not, technically speaking, Buddhists.

@FetullahFan: I'm not surprised that you continue this line of argument despite the AN/I thread, but now you have also misrepresented a source that you yourself have presented in an attempt to advocate a false position.

First, this is an erroneous assertion in the source you provided, as Buddhism and Shinto were strictly separated from the Meiji period under the Shinbutsu bunri policy

...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

There may have been an attempt to merge all sects of Nichirenshu, but not to put them under control of Shinto.

Second, these statements clearly demonstrate that the author of the article, despite their somewhat lacking knowledge in relation to Japanese religion, considers SG to be a NRM, not a sect of Buddhism

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.

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.

One last point, you continue to refer to the Wikipedia article defining "sect" and ignoring the Wikipedia I've linked to above defining sects of Buddhism, in which Soka Gakkai is clearly identified as a "New Buddhist movement". The only intent apparently would be to seek to identify SG as a sect of Buddhism, representing a further instance of WP:IDHT.

It should be noted that even in the old version of the article indicated by Margin1522 in the AN/I thread, SG was referred to as a "lay Buddhist movement" in the lead, not a sect. That was a more recent addition, in the past year sometime, apparently.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

No, but you are still surreptitiously attempting to elevate SG to the status of other Nichiren "lineages and schools" (practically the same as saying it is a 'sect'), which it is not. It was started as a lay organization/movement that has grown into a New religious Movement; in other words, it is not accurate to say that it is a "Nichiren Buddhist movement", particularly in light of the fact that Nichiren Shoshu--with which it was formerly associated--has severed the connection/association with SG.

The Nichiren Buddhism site defines its traditions, etc.

SGI is the international movement, SG is Japanese.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I am working on a detailed response to the above comments . Thank you for inspiring me to undertake a new field of study. Please, can you find a better word than "surreptitiously"? It suggests that in some way I am part of a sinister plot which is untrue.

Just a clarification, Ubikwit. Let me see if I understand you. At first you claim that the SG is not a sect. Just now you downgraded it, "it is not accurate to say that it is a 'Nichiren Buddhist movement.'" Of course on August 9th you cited "a link I've linked to above defining sects of Buddhism, in which Soka Gakkai is clearly identified as a "New Buddhist movement". This all seems nonsensical to me.

Putting all this aside, I suggested several suggested improvements to the lead paragraph. Is there not one you are willing to consider? Not even removing the question mark after the transliteration of Soka Gakkai?

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)

Please present a source to support every statement you make, as your statements are vague, and see WP:NOTFORUM.

Formally speaking, SG members do not practice Nichiren Buddhism; they practice a Nichiren Buddhism-influenced new religion. The Nichiren sect has formally severed all ties to SG.

What specifically are you referring to regarding a revert? Please try not to waste other editors' time.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 22:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I am working on a detailed response to the above comments. Thank you for inspiring me to undertake a new field of study. One kindly request, however. Please, can you find a better word than "surreptitiously"? It suggests that in some way I am part of a sinister plot which is untrue.

Just a clarification, Ubikwit, let me see if I understand you. At first you claim that the SG is not a sect. Just now you further downgraded it, claiming: "it is not accurate to say that it is a 'Nichiren Buddhist movement.'" (Of course on August 9th you cited "a link I've linked to above defining sects of Buddhism, in which Soka Gakkai is clearly identified as a "New Buddhist movement"), "an enemy of all forms of Buddhism," and "they are not, technically speaking, Buddhists" (August 9th). Is this the position you hold?

Earlier you brought up WP:IDTH and AN/I accusations which may have been directed at me. Is it your intent to argue now that the SG should not be considered as Buddhist? Isn't this a WP:IDTH violation?

Putting all this aside, I suggested several suggested improvements to the lead paragraph. You drew the distinction between the SG and the SGI, very helpful. Let me suggest a modification to my proposed first sentence: 1- "Soka Gakkai (Japanese: 創価学会?) is a Nichiren Buddhist movement, 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." Please consider taking a look at the other revisions I suggested. Since it appears you are Japanese-speaking, can you take a look at removing the question mark after the transliteration of Soka Gakkai?

FetullahFan (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@FetullahFan: I've already answered your questions, yet you repeat them with different phrasing. The fact that you are not a student of religious studies, and particularly of Buddhism and Japanese religion, might means you are somewhat lacking the competence necessary to edit this article.

I've already provided a link to the English SGI website where they describe the history of the organization. Note that they describe themselves as a "lay Buddhist movement" here, and other history is found here, where they categorize themselves as a "network of lay Buddhists" as well as here. In short, even SG/SGI does not currently characterize itself as a "Nichiren Buddhist movement", and they would probably be sued for copyright violation or the like if they did, as there is an actual Buddhist sect started by Nichiren that is still extant and bears his name, and is a legal entity under the laws of Japan.

The SGI webssite is a primary source. Apparently, you haven't even looked at that, but you persist in making proposals for editing the lead, ignoring what I've said or questioning it on the basis of some unsubstantiated rationale.

SG has a long history. They did start as a lay movement associated with Nichiren Shoshu, then they were kicked out of Nichiren Shoshu, resulting in the Buddhist-influenced new religious movement they are today. Elsewhere on this page I've provided wikilinks to fundamental tenets of Buddhism (three jewels/sangha) that SG/SGI repudiates or violates.

Catflap has reasonably questioned their characterization as a "lay group" at present. Their ties to Nichiren Shoshu have long since been severed, and SG has a completely unrelated organization and vastly different form of religious practice than Buddhists associated with Nichiren Buddhist temples. This is a slightly different point than Catflap's, I believe, but formalistically, you cannot be defined as a Buddhist "lay group" if you are not associated with a Buddhist temple, basically. SG simply tries to claim that it has done away with the "priesthood", but that is nothing but a form of hubris.

At any rate, the article is to be written on what is said in RS published statements, not WP:OR.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@FetullahFan I think a sociological approach might well bring some depth of analysis to this article, which it could use. If someone questions your competence to write about religion, you're entitled to ask how much they know about sociology. In any case, you don't need anyone's permission to edit the article. Nobody owns it (see Wp:OWN). I'd suggest that you develop your ideas in a separate section and add them to the lead when it's ready. --Margin1522 (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Margin1522 Did you read the initial response I posted regarding the linked-to source? Note that I quoted a couple of passages from it.

Let me remind you that there is a pending AN/I thread related to this article, and disruptive wall-of-text soapboxing, in particular. You mentioned that you are a "professional editor". That does not involve knowledge that is topic-specific to the content of this article.

Incidentally, I have studied Max Weber, for example, and have a degree in the social sciences; furthermore, I'm fairly well versed in the field of Japanese religious studies.

Please read WP:NOR. Anyone can edit the article; however, we don't edit based on our "own ideas", but on what reliably published sources say. I don't see where a single concrete edit to the main body of the article has been proposed or attempted on the basis of the linked-to source. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:46, 11 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)

@Catflap08: The point I was making regarding the use of "Nichiren Buddhism" related primarily to the use on the SGI English webpage itself, because for them to use the term in their name or in a manner that drew a false association with Nichiren Buddhism would be a violation of the law even in the USA, for example, under copyright and trademark/unfair competition laws. There is a concept known as "free-riding" on a another entity's reputation which would come into play if they did so, more so since they have been officially excommunicated from Nichiren Buddhism. They can claim to have been influenced by the teachings of the man who is the namesake of the Nichiren sect, which is basically what they do on their website.

Academics can use the term "Nichiren Buddhist movement" as a kind of descriptive shorthand. I don't have a great objection to that, but have revised the lead to more accurately depict the historic progression.

Also, I don't know what your field is in academia, but SG leadership most definitely broke with--or attempted to undermine--the status of the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood by attempting to supplant the Buddhist sangha with their own organizational hierarchy. I will have to read the paper from 1992 on this topic, but even based on peripheral knowledge of the history of Buddhism, there is little room for doubt that such a nihilistic position masquerading as egalitarianism was the reason that first the leaders and then the entire movement were excommunicated.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A Japanese lady still active in SGI once told me it was about money and power. Certainly no side would admit into that, surely also not the priesthood as they lost their steady income – certainly anything but poor even today. At any rate I agree that any attempt to make it look as if SGI broke away is simply wrong. It might well be that nearly 25 years afterwards some see it as liberation but for that SGI officials and its press organs where quite miffed well into the 21st century. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:39, 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

Buddhist or Buddhist-derived

@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)

@FetullahFan: It has been a couple of years since I read anything on new religions, but I have been studying the topic for years and am familiar with the terminology used to describe these groups.

The phrasing "~-derived new religion" is a common parlance in the field of Japanese religious studies. Here are two references to its use with regard to Shinto[2][3].

Regarding the passage you quoted from the Kawamura text, her ideas about SG being an integral part of Japanese Buddhist tradition met with criticism, and she added an addendum to the paper in response to questions she received on that, which starts on p.218. You will see on p.217 that she discusses the history of the development in Buddhist schools in Japan relating to the new not replacing the old, just building on the tradition. The problem with SG is that it is not, as she asserts, a "sanga", which she attempts to define abstractly in terms of a sociology of religion removed from the of history Buddhism and doctrine.

I don't have time to go through that now, but the point here is that the descriptive use of "~-derived new religion" is the normal jargon used in academia to discuss these movements that started from the 19th century onward in Japan.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Thanks for asking me to look at the addendum of the article. I have come to the conclusion that Kawamura (BTW, Kawamura is a he, not a she) would strongly support "Soka Gakkai is a Japanese Buddhist new religious movement" rather than "a Japanese Buddhist-derived new religious movement." Here are some quotations from the addendum:

"At the Conference, two questions were put to me. I wish to respond to these questions in the form of an addendum in this paper, because by doing so it would help clarify the reason why I consider the new religions to be an integral entity of the Japanese Buddhist tradition."

Perhaps this quotation points a way out of the dilemma. The lead sentence could read, "Soka Gakkai is a [new religious movement] derived from the Japanese Buddhist tradition." A few pages (215, 218) from the Kawamura article could be used as the citation for this statement. I think such wording would satisfy all points of view.

I found p. 214 to be pertinent to our discussion. It appears that Japanese Buddhism is marked by the appearance of new religious movements, all of which are now considered as Buddhism. According to the author, the appearance of new religious movements was especially pronounced during the Kamakura era, by school-founders such as Nichiren, Shinran, and Dogen. The NRMs of the 20th century are very much following the same pattern. Ubikwit, since you are firm on drawing a line between traditional Buddhist sects and NRMs, you will have to wrestle with the issue of when a NRM is granted the appellation of being a Buddhist school. Is it the critierion the sustainability marked by the passing of decades? Is it the number of adherents? The SG probably qualifies on these two points.

The Kawamura addendum is pertinent to the discussion of the "lay" status of the SG. Perhaps this requires its own section.

FetullahFan (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That's ludicrous, because it is the Kawamura paper that is cited for the terminology "Buddhist-derived new religion". Your conclusion is once again, WP:OR. Obviously not everyone in the field agrees with Kawamura's interpretation of sangha in Japanese Buddhism, thus the addendum. The addendum, however, is not related to "new religions" per se, and the analysis is somewhat faulty. Lay people are not necessarily excluded from the sangha, but they cannot constitute a sangha by themselves. New sects of Buddhism were developed in the Kamakura period, not "new religions".

You do not have adequate competence to edit this article, and I suggest you cease and desist until you have done a substantial amount of reading.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Public perception and criticism

I'm going to delete everything in this section, because it isn't true. To wit:

• "Television stations have a policy prohibiting mention of the link between Soka Gakai and Kōmeito"

They talk about it all the time, especially around election time

• "major newspapers often print editorials attributed to Ikeda or report on Gakkai business"

I have never seen an op-ed by Ikeda, or a report on Gakkai business

• "while overlooking news critical of the Gakkai."

True, they don't print wild stories from the fever swamps of anti-Gakkai animosity, like "He's a drug smuggler", or "He's a despicable ethnic Korean", or "He's in control of Japanese politics".

• "According to one account in Shukan Shincho, Japanese news media cannot handle the social and economic pressure that the Gakkai poses."

Conspiracy theory. You can't believe what you read in the mainstream media because they've all been bribed and are covering up the scandals. This is the bread and butter of the tabloid shukanshi, and there's nothing new about it or any particular reason why we should cite it.

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)

"I have never seen an op-ed by Ikeda, or a report on Gakkai business" It is easy enough to disprove your personal observations, here is an op-ed by Ikeda in an English language publication: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2011/06/28/commentary/world-commentary/the-courage-to-rebuild/

"Conspiracy theory" -- In fact the article you are trying to pick apart is not a conspiracy theory, but won the annual Editors' Choice Magazine Journalism Award for its investigative journalism.

" I'm going to move to here some of the more colorful stories from earlier in the article, like Toda on his white horse. " Why does this not belong in the history section? Shii (tock) 10:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I missed that one. I don't read the Japan Times. As evidence that Ikeda doesn't contribute frequent editorials, I will offer the uproar that ensued when for once he did, on March 1, 2009, in the Mainichi Shimbun. This was taken up in this famous thread on 2channel, that well-known hotbed of hate speech and rabid xenophobia. I'll translate. Ikeda's op-ed was an uplifting text entitled "The Power of Youth to Overcome This Crisis". Seems innocuous enough. The thread was entitled "(PERVERT) Mainichi Shimbun carries op-ed by Ideda Daisaku (CULT)". The guy who started it expresses outrage that Ideda be allowed to contribute an op-ed, and notes that "the Mainichi has been known to carry advertisements for SG publications and SG advocacy ads, but it is extremely rare for a newspaper to carry an op-ed by Ikeda."

So I stand by my claim that Ikeda does not contributes op-eds "often". To say that he does is false.

The assertion about TV stations is also false, as anyone who has ever watched their election coverage would know.

About the article, OK. It won an award that the editors of the shukanshi get together to give themselves. Can we compromise? I'll let this piece of speculation stand if I can insert a note to inform our readers that attacking the credibility of mainstream newspapers is their bread and butter.

As to why I want to move the white horse business, it's because of what I said at the beginning. We should move incidents and statements cited by critics and selected to express criticism into the criticism section, where it belongs. --Margin1522 (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no policy that supports, let alone prescribes, editing in that manner. In other words, that is nothing more than your personal opinion, and it seems aimed at avoiding the presentation of incidents (that don't present SG as you would like them to be presented) in a meaningful, contextualized manner.

The "Public perceptions and criticism" section is for meta-analysis and commentary on the movement by sociologists, politicians, whoever.

Incidents that are of historical note involving the organization and its leaders should be integrated with the presentation of the material in the main body of the article.

The blog site you to which you referred is not WP:RS incidentally, so the attempt to make recourse to that site in the context above is nothing but a diversion from the matter at hand. Regarding the frequency of his contributions of editorials, that is minor point that could be copyrighted, but clearly, he has occasionally submitted pieces for publication.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the whole point of that paragraph is to argue that the mainstream media is biased in favor of SG, and I'm saying that's not true. If we say that Ikeda contributes op-eds occassionally, then what happens to the claim for bias? The argument is false. The mainstream media is not biased. Let's get this idea out of the article by deleting the whole paragraph. Because it's wrong.

About the history, the section is entitled "Increased membership". Shouldn't we have a paragraph about increased membership? Where are the numbers? What does an objective history of the organization have to say about the growth of the SG during the 1950s? That's what we should be quoting. I can see how Toda sitting on his white horse and deploying extremist religious rhetoric may well have affected public perceptions of his group. I have trouble seeing how that increased membership. Did people join because they liked extremist rhetoric? Because they were forced to join? I suspect there may have been other reasons. What were they? --Margin1522 (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If Sun Myung Moon had "occasionally" contributed op-eds to major American newspapers, would you have denied that this was a bias in favor of the Unification Church?

"What does an objective history of the organization have to say about the growth of the SG during the 1950s?" We already have such an objective history in this article. The article explains how membership increased so quickly and gives specific examples. The article is already good and does not need to be degraded with a Criticism section. Shii (tock) 23:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Do I think a newpaper would be biased for printing one op-ed by Ikeda? No, of course not.--Margin1522 (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The "Increased membership" section could certainly use some expansion linking his reactionary rhetoric to the marshaling of the troops, so to speak, coupled with a dumbing down and compartmentalization of the teachings in correspondence to the newly established hierarchy of the organization, for example. Toda was not, incidentally, speaking to the public, but to his followers, delivering a motivational speech.

The perceptions section could also use exapnsion--as I've mentioned before here--but there is nothing wrong with the material in it now, unless there is consensus that the sources are being misrepresented or simply incorrect. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 01:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "Increased membership" needs work. As it happens, my day job is professional editor. If a writer submitted this, I would hand it back and say it has no structure, no story. What are we trying to say with these anecdotes? What links them together? What I would suggest is the line taken by the several of our authors, namely that Toda's ambition during this period was to convert the entire nation and establish a theocracy. That would tie together the white horse and national altar. Apparently this all comes straight from Nichiren, so we could mention that. Conclude with the funeral, saying that he died before he could realize his ambition, but.... If something doesn't fit the story of the section, leave it out. And write the title after you write the story, not the other way around.--Margin1522 (talk) 18:10, 10 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)

Agreed, there is no basis for such uncited claims Shii (tock) 21:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think I would have added a {{Cite needed}} tag instead of just deleting it. Catflap has spent some time looking into this, and if there is no information that in itself tells us something. Non-democratic is one of the criteria for being a cult, and if we are going to discuss cultishness it's going to come up. I'd just rather keep working on it. --Margin1522 (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)