Talk:Soka Gakkai/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Finishing work on lede

I want to thank everyone for their contributions and teamwork. I think the lede is vastly improved. I can only work on this project for another week or two before I have to pull back due to work. If there is anything I can do, please let me know.

In the meanwhile, here are a few seeds for thought.

1- Can we reduce the use of subordinating prepositions, for example in the sentence, "While Ikeda has been successful in moving the group towards mainstream acceptance in some areas, it is still widely viewed with suspicion in Japan." There is an implicit value in the grammatical structure because with clauses of concession the subordinate clause ("While Ikeda...") is usually deemed less significant than the independent clause ("it is still widely viewed..."). The solution is simple: change this into two independent and verifiable stand-alone sentences. Readers will have to decide for themselves which carry more weight. Ditto for "While the movement is publicly involved in peace activism, education and politics, it has also been at the center of controversies."

2- Do we really need to have three references to "cult" in a single lede? To me it strikes of overkill and gives "cult" much too much weight. One mention should be sufficient in the lede and perhaps an extended discussion could happen in a new subsection. If I had a choice I would immediately eliminate "brainwashing cult" since it does not appear in the article and both the APA and courts have questioned the scientific validity of the concept.

3- I believe the lede understates the significance of Makiguchi, Toda, and Ikeda to the core beliefs of the organization. On Tuesday I visited the New York SGI Center's bookstore and had the opportunity to interview five members, a preliminary to the article I am conceiving. I am convinced that "a Japanese new religious movement informed by the teachings of Nichiren" is insufficient. I need to research this more and for now suggest that we consider this for the next rewrite.

With your permission I would like to at least take a whack at #1.

FetullahFan (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with 1 and 2, but with point 3 do you understand that this is the definition of WP:OR? Shii (tock) 22:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shii, actually it is not WP:OR. If you recall you initially liked my suggestion on August 19th that the lede start with “"The Soka Gakkai is a Japanese new religious movement which bases itself on the the teachings of Nichiren as interpreted by its three founding presidents." That was based on research I conducted (see samples below) that convinced me that we are dealing with a movement that incorporated Nichiren’s writings but has drilled through them through the work of the three presidents to the point that Nichiren’s intent shines brightly. Excuse the length of this post but I want to leave an important point for future editors to consider.

From Nariyoshi Tamaru: “Makiguchi came into contact with Nichiren’s teachings rather late in his career, but accepted them as the culmination of his lifelong intellectual quest. His published works, accordingly, show a unique combination of his own thinking and the doctrine of traditional Buddhism, or an attempt to reinterpret the latter by means of the former. The key concept in this combination is “the theory of value,” which became the motto of his whole movement.” Global Citizens, p. 32.

From Richard H. Seager: “During the years of work on his pedagogy, [Makiguchi] remained skeptical about religion’s dogmatic claims, all the while respectful of human’s capacity for wonder, mystery, awe, and sanctity. When Makiguchi eventually took Buddhism seriously, it was because it enhanced, rather than overturned, these convictions, as he found in Nichiren much that lent support to his educational theories. The Lotus Sutra’s teachings that true Buddha is awakened wisdom fitted his own view that creating value is the essence of being human.” (Encountering the Dharma, p. 31).

“Makiguchi’s Nichiren-based ideas as an expression of what Heinz Bechert called “Buddhist modernism,’ the self-conscious effort to adapt Buddhism to modern society, a movement that has surfaced in many parts of Asia over the course of the past century. A fusion of modern, liberal .pedagogical ideals with ancient Lotus Buddhism, Makiguchi’s philosophy is a hybrid worldview that would be the starting point for Toda in the postwar years and, after him, for Ikeda. (p. 32). [Note: Seager continues to make a convincing argument about the unique original contributions of M, T, and I on pp. 32-34]

From Nariyoshi Tamaru: “[Toda] provided the movement with two central ideas that inspired people in his generation and elicited their commitment. One was the doctrine of obutsumyogo (the union of worldly matters and Buddhist teaching)…; the other was the “philosophy of life” as the quintessence of faith. In the former, it is not difficult to see that it was formulation of the preeminently sociopolitical intentions inherent in Nichiren’s teachings. Because of severe criticism from many quarters in postwar Japan, however, it finally had to be withdrawn. The second element, which restates another important motif of Nichiren Buddhism in modern language, remains the basic principle for all the activities of SG to the present” (p. 34)

From Nariyoshi Tamaru: “[Toda’s] harsh experiences in prison seem to have modified his understanding of Nichiren Buddhism in a subtle way. During his incarceration he set about enquiring carefully into Nichiren’s writings and sutras. This led him to the realization that the Eternal Buddha of the Lotus Sutra, so crucial in Nichiren’s teachings, was nothing but “Life”. According to Toda, this means “the fundamental power of the Universe,” and the Universe itself is Life, even before living creatures appear in it. He thus advanced a panvitalistic vision that equated Buddha, Universe, and Life as being mutually identical. Furthermore, this vision, far from being a mere metaphysical speculation, had a practical implication. He insisted that this fundamental power, Life, could give people happiness, and it was the duty of human beings to appropriate and transfer it to others. Happiness was nothing other than a harmonious relation between us and the Buddha-life, and it could be achieved by sincere believing in the Three Great Mysteries as formulated by Nichiren and by the chanting of daimoku. (p. 37, also see footnote 18 which refers readers to Susumu Mimazono’s “Shinshukyo to gensekyusai shiso” in Jikido Takasaki and Kiyotaka Mimura (eds.), Nihon bukkyo ron, (Tokyo: Shunjyusha, 1995).) [Note: Tamaru continues his argument for another paragraph.]

“Makiguchi had championed the rights of children to learn as children, following the lines of inquiry and curiosity natural to them and learning at their own age-appropriate pace. And he had placed the happiness of children before all else. His entire educational philosophy was based on that fundamental principle, which informed everything he wrote. That philosophy, which would later merge with the writing of Nichiren Daishonin to form the Soka Gakkai’s teachings on Human Revolution, was already well developed before Makiguchi began writing his theories on value-creating-education” (Clark Strand, Waking the Buddha, pp. 44-45).

From Bryan and David Machacek: “To Makiguchi’s humanistic educational philosophy, Toda added a populist political dimension that seems to have had a distinctive appeal in the confused and stressful situation that followed Japan’s defeat in the war. However, it was the ideology of “human revolution,” articulated by SG’;s third president, Daisaku Ikeda, which constituted the movement’s primary source of appeal, not only among the Japanese public, but also to individuals worldwide who were experiencing the process of social change taking place in the late twentieth century.

The concept of “human revolution” encompasses goals of reforming institutional structures, but asserts that the way to reform social institutions—to improve education, promote tolerance, protect the environment, and end war—is through individual enlightenment. Thus, reform is directed foremost to individual lives and by extension from individual lives to communities, nations, and the world.” Global Citizens, p. 3.

For more vivid descriptions of the impact of Toda’s awakening in prison, see Richard Seager, pp. 47-48 and Clark Strand, pp. 69-79. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.191.18 (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all of those points, but I think it's a bit early to focus on the lead. If you have time for a project, I would suggest researching the influence of progressive thinkers like John Dewey on Makiguchi. That is lacking right now in our Makiguchi article. But there is a lot of research on that out there. I tried to put some of it into the article earlier, but Catflap deleted it. You can look for it in the history. It was an MA thesis. Anyway, if we improve the Makiguchi article, then we can improve the section on Makiguchi in this article, and then improve the lead. --Margin1522 (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a better phrasing for the pluses and minuses regarding public perception, as the group is generally viewed more negatively than not in Japan, as attested to in various sources (see footnote to reficte 5). And Japan is what carries weight in this article, not SGI. The fact is that even though SGI is involved in "peace activism, education and politics" the Japanese don't view the group in a more positive light. The current phrasing is also concise, and written in a summary manner, and does not cast SG in an negative light. Nonetheless, I'd be interested in any suggested improvements.

There are different meanings to "brainwashing cult" and "cult of personality", both of which are attested in reliable sources. There is no grounds for removing either. "Brainwashing cult" is mentioned in a footnote (refcite 7), and could (and probably should) be incorporated into the main body.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit, my point is that the word cult carries much too much weight in the lede as is. A footnote mention is hardly justification for mention in the lede which carries an amplified significance. Do the work, start a subsection on the debate about cult identification, let people present evidence, AND THEN include in the lede as appropriate. As far as "brainwashing cult" is concerned, the sources may be OK but the science is not (SEE APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control. This is another reason why the discussion should be hashed out in a subsection rather than in the lede.

FetullahFan (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry the personality cult must and should be mentioned in the article. Some may like some may not. Fact is that outside observers attest this too – it’s obvious, it’s in one’s face and its currently one of the primary reasons that drives many adherents away. One can certainly cover all that up with so called peace activities of which I see no serious proof of. SGI never speaks up against human rights violations may this be in China, Russia or where ever. The lamentation of being apparently “persecuted” during World War II is reflected with an astonishing silence when facing religious persecutions that takes place all over the world right now – not even of Buddhist persecution that takes place in Tibet – zero, nada, nothing. For an organisation that prides itself with UN-activities that is a sad if not miserable state of affairs. The concept of Karuṇā seems to play no role.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem about including it in the article, but not in the lede unless it is substantiated in the article. If you think it is crucial in the lede, then do the hard work, Catflap08. Create a section that ties together the disparate comments about cult and cult of personality within a subsection and let editors contribute pros and cons. The lede, however, is not the appropriate place for such a debate.

Please respond to my comment about the science behind "brainwashing" which has been disavowed by the APA and the courts. Why do you insist on including shaky science in a lede?

Please stay on topic and stop creating diversions about peace-keeping--that belongs in subsection 2.4, not here.

And one more request about sourcing to you and others who edit this site. Please do not use Japanese-language sources unless you take the time to translate as per WP guidelines ([8] Furukawa, [9] Yantori, [14] Shimada). But why use them at all? If your point is that important, surely you can rely on English-language sources to substantiate. Finally, please refrain from misquoting scholars. Citation [11] is quite misleading because the author's point is that perceptions about the SG are "fractious" which include the spectrum from controversial to praiseworthy; it's egregious to use it as it currently stands.

I do not believe in creating sections and subsections over and over again as I do not believe in working on one cult issue making another cult look better.Which of the sources are the ones you deem shaky on brainwashing? --Catflap08 (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, a charge of "brainwashing" in a lede is a very serious statement. Even a statement of a perception of brainwashing is serious. A high level of documentation should therefore be required. Yes, it is so serious that it does merit a section so it can be examined. The documentation would have to answer the question of if SG members have been reduced to zombies, why is the organization so wealthy and powerful? Why would the LPD want to partner with Komeito if it is zombie-controlled?

Secondly, the sources are tainted. I mentioned and you did not respond to my reservations about Japanese-language sources. Yes, they are admissible in WP under certain conditions, but the charge of brainwashing is so serious that English-language sources from top scholars should be cited.

I particularly object to the use of James R. Lewis as a source supporting the brainwashing contention. Anyone familiar with his work knows that he was one of the foremost scholars of the "anti-anti-cult" movement. He earned a degree of notoriety for his uncompromising opinions that NRMs should be held to the same standards as more traditional schools. The use of his article that is cited here is specious, ugly, and unethical beyond belief. He uses the claim that the SG is viewed as a brainwashing cult as a foil and spends the rest of the article explaining that the contention is false. Whoever posted that citation should apologize profusely--and perhaps be sent to the WP time-out corner for a couple of years.

This is similar to the specious use of the Seager citation I mentioned above. It is one thing to have a POV and another to be unscrupulous in defending it.

BTW, if you do not want to create this subsection, I will take it on. I will create a balanced one that reflects WP:DUE. I just ask that you do not even think of removing it.

FetullahFan (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with FetullaFan, the use of “cult” in the opening paragraph is deeply problematic. The references used to support this label were taken entirely out of context.

First, this sentence: "Some anti-cult authors have included the Soka Gakkai on their lists of cults.[10]"

The reference is from a book called "The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions"...deducing that is a cult just from being mentioned in this book is misleading as it is not exclusively about cults. Furthermore, nowhere in the section on the Soka Gakkai it is labeled a "cult."

Furthermore writing "some anti-cult authors" is also deceptive as only one author is referenced. There are far more authors that routinely argue that SGI is not a cult such as Oxford Professor Bryan Wilson in his article " The British Movement and its Members"(Global Citizens, page 370, Oxford University Press)

In regards to the "brainwashing cult" reference, it seems the purpose of this paragraph is to claim the group is controversial and the term "brainwashing cult" is haphazardly thrown in there riding on the coat tails of the research that argues that the Soka Gakkai struggles with a somewhat negative public perception in Japan. Many of the references for this statement make no claim of the group being a "brainwashing cult."

Reference # 5. Why this reference was used is very puzzling.

Wellman, Jr., James K.; Lombardi, Clark B. (eds.). Religion and human security : a global perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 272. ISBN 978-0199827756. "When I conducted a survey of 235 Doshisha University students a few years ago asking their opinions about the Gakkai and how much they knew about its peace education programs, over 80 percent responded that they had a negative image of the movement and about 60 percent thought that its "peace movement" is little more than promotional propaganda. the few respondents with a positive image were either Soka Gakkai members, were related members, or were friends of members."

Again, makes no mention of Ikeda as a “brainwashing cult leader” and seems totally unrelated to this statement in the article.

Reference: LA Times

This article hardly labels the gakkai as a brainwashing cult or Ikeda as a cult leader. It does explore the both positive and negative aspects of Ikeda’s public perception, however claiming this backs the notion that Ikeda is a “cult leader” is a gross oversimplification. The article says:

“Ikeda also has started a political party, education system, art museum and cultural programs that have taken him to 50 countries--deeds that will establish his legacy as one of modern Japan's most remarkable religious leaders, said Shin Anzai, a Roman Catholic scholar.”

The “cult” references in the lead is wholly misleading. The references used to back this claim is very sloppy if not completely dishonest. The use of the word “cult” should be completely taken out of the lead.

Lionpride82 (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am removing the Robert Bluck citation that is being used to support the sentence “it is still widely viewed with suspicion in Japan and grapples with a stereotype of being a ‘brainwashing cult’ as well as a cult of personality centered around Ikeda” in the lede. As @Ubikwit has pointed out this is an article about the SG, not the SGI. Bluck’s book is a balanced review of SGI-UK, not the SG. Therefore it is not appropriate to use it to define public perception of the SG.

Furthermore the pages it references have no relevance to the topic. The only remotely possible sentence to the topic on page 98 is: “But his [Nichiren’s] persistent intolerance makes him an unusual role model for contemporary Buddhists.” This is a sentence about Nichiren and has not the slightest connection to the SG. The only remotely connected sentence on page 99 is “Critics may see the publicity surrounding Ikeda as a personality cult.” Critics? Which ones? “May see”? That is not even a declarative sentence, let alone a well-researched finding.

I am discovering that this article is rife ignorant or unscrupulously-used citations. I repeat my comment from yesterday that the editor who included them should apologize to the WP community.

I find it surprising that some editors object to posting of the work of top scholars who are publishing through a SGI-USA publishing house yet have no objection to the appearance of unscrupulous sources.

I also want to remove the Khoon Choy Lee citation The claims of “brainwashing cult” and “cult of personality” are so serious and emotionally-charged to WP readers that they merit the highest level of scholarship to appear in a lede. The source “Japan: Between Myth and Reality” by Khoon Choy Lee does not carry this weight. Lee was appointed ambassador to Japan 1984 and his book was a collection of personal impressions from his years in Japan. It is a personal memoir, not an academic study. It has no references, no theoretical basis from sociology, anthropology or religiosity. In the cited passages (102-106) there is no mention of “brainwashing” or any accusation of “cult of personality.” Lee does describe the strong affections of SG for Ikeda but this does not match any historical examples that appear in Cult of Personality which are restricted to political figures who carry national authority. Furthermore Lee’s impressions are from thirty years ago, whereas the sentence it refers to states “it is still widely viewed with suspicion in Japan” (present tense).

On a curious note, Lee spends about as much time on his observations of the SG (102-106) as he does on phallic-worshiping shrines in Japan (82-85).

FetullahFan (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I am removing the reference from James R. Lewis. I posted this comment a couple of days ago. "I particularly object to the use of James R. Lewis as a source supporting the brainwashing contention. Anyone familiar with his work knows that he was one of the foremost scholars of the 'anti-anti-cult' movement. He earned a degree of notoriety for his uncompromising opinions that NRMs should be held to the same standards as more traditional schools. The use of his article that is cited here is specious, ugly, and unethical beyond belief. He uses the claim that the SG is viewed as a brainwashing cult as a foil and spends the rest of the article explaining that the contention is false. Whoever posted that citation should apologize profusely--and perhaps be sent to the WP time-out corner for a couple of years."

FetullahFan (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the fact that Lewis himself does not necessarily support the "brainwashing cult" epithet is a reason to dismiss the use of his statements as a reliable source for the fact that many have in fact characterized SG/SGI as such. It is a secondary source testimony to that fact.

Take it to the WP:RS/N notice board.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit, that is a good suggestion, I will take it to the WP:RS/N notice board. In the meanwhile I have changed the placement of the Wilson & Machacek citation from "Religions of the World" to point to "viewed with suspicion" rather than to support "brainwashing cult" or "cult of personality." I copied one quotation from the work, the only quotation that actually supports current public perception. Other passages in the article that might be deemed applicable are referring to the earlier history of the SG and could be utilized in the Toda history.

Can you ring in on my point below on the relevance of the Yanatori source?

Perhaps what irks me so much from my background in sociology is that "cult of personality," originated by Max Weber, is typically used in the context of the autocratic governments where people are captive audiences, have no alternative sources of information, and no option to leave. In the case of the SG or Hizmet people have the option to freely walk away. Weber offered the term "charismatic authority" to apply to the latter situation. I don't think followers of Ikeda or Gulen would deny the reality of this term.

FetullahFan (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I am also requesting second opinions on the Yanatori source (Yanatori, Mitsuyoshi (1977). Sōka Gakkai (in Japanese). Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai.). I am not doubting Yanatori's scholarship, just the appropriateness of using a dated source (1977) to describe PRESENT public sentiment about the SG. Yanatori's research took place well before Komeito became a governing coalition partner in the New Frontier Party and certainly before its current role as a minority party in the LDP coalition. Could these events have played a role in public perception? I certainly think so.

FetullahFan (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit, I mentioned my concerns about the Yanatori source several times on the talk page. I personally invited you to comment and you failed to do so. I took your silence to mean a passive consent and I removed this source. I was surprised then to see you revert it. Once again, my concern is not Yanatori's scholarship since I do not read Japanese and can therefore have no informed opinion. He had published his article in 1977 when Jimmy Carter's presidency had just started. A lot has changed in the intervening years, don't you agree? This source just should not be used to describe current perceptions of the Japanese public about the SG. Who could have ever predicted then, for example, that New Komeito would be a junior partner with an LPD government?

The new academic year swings into full motion right after Labor Day and I will not be present here henceforth. As a courtesy please respond soon to my point on Yanatori so we can reach a consensus while I am still active on this board. Thank you, FetullahFan (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I have not read the Yanatori book, either. The point that because a book is irrelevant because it is from 1977 however, is wrong. The use of references covering broad period of time demonstrates continuity. You are wrong that SG is not still viewed with suspicion in Japan. I do not agree that much has changed in the intervening years, and it would have been totally predicable that the Komeito would become allied with reactionaries in the LDP. The SG uses the same types of deception to recruit members as the LDP does to deceive the public. The SG are not representative of Buddhism in the same way that the LDP is not representative of the electorate in a gerrymandered and flawed democracy. The recent National Secrecy Act and reinterpretation of the Constitution demonstrate that clearly, both with Komeito support. Both were denounced by the Japanese public, but supported by the USA, incidentally.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: You say, "The point that because a book is irrelevant because it is from 1977 however, is wrong. The use of references covering broad period of time demonstrates continuity." The paragraph itself uses present tense verbs--"is still widely viewed," "grapples"--not past tense verbs. Yanatori, as I mentioned, was published soon after Jimmy Carter was inaugurated. "You are wrong that SG is not still viewed with suspicion in Japan": "viewed with suspicion" is quite different from "a stereotype of being a brainwashing cult." Further, it is incumbent on you to provide the citations to prove specifically the "brainwashing" business.

I will soon address the "I do not agree that much has changed in the intervening years..." with some additional scholarship. But for now I am hoping editors will agree about removing Yanatori--or changing the text in the article.

74.101.191.18 (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Beliefs and Practices

I am going to try to incrementally re-do the "Beliefs and Practices" section so that it more closely reflects the beliefs and practices of the Soka Gakkai, less how the bs&ps of the SG differ from what other sects believe and practice. I think some SG practices have underpinnings rooted in beliefs, which are not really addressed in the current version. I also think this section should include certain organizational activities, as they are part of the SG religious practice. This might help iron out some of the controversies about the intro, also. Opinions? --Daveler16 (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

A beliefs and Practice section would be welcomed, as it is used in most articles on beliefs. But also references that it is regarded as a belief, this is the difficult part as SGI has not published any dogma so far. The religious practice in the sense of daily practice has been slimmed down over the years – this should also be mentioned. The focus given to the Lotus Sutra has been slimmed down while at the same time the study of the so called “human revolution” novels has gained weight. Sources on that will be difficult to find but it’s a process that has indeed taken place. In contrast to Nichiren Shoshu a document entitled “The robes of this School” does not exist within SGI. Nichiren Shu is based on all of Nichirens disciples, including most Nikkō temples excluding Taiseki-ji and its sub-temples. Nichiren Shu is a confederation of Nichiren Temples and lineages. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand there are protocols and such to watch out for. I will do a small part of it, and we'll see what people think. --Daveler16 (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not know of any protocols, but in what SGI beliefs in is hard to define--Catflap08 (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Added a new opening. The points it raises will be expanded in the section as I get to it. SGI practices other than chanting to the Gohonzon are part of its religiosity (a few authors say this in different ways), and I think they will be included. --Daveler16 (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

For reasons unexplained, Ubikwit deleted the sentence I added. As this sentence is accurate and documented with citarti9ns no one has disputed, I unded the delete. --Daveler16 (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The reasons were explained in the edit summary. That sentence is a vacuous and promotional statement that contains no concrete information, particularly regarding a definition of what the SG-sympathetic author terms "New Buddhist Humanism". There is nothing regarding "beliefs and practices" in that statement. It should be easy to find primary sources, but as Catflap08 mentioned above, there are no pronouncements of doctrine from SG, primarily because it attempts to assume the mantle of Nichiren-shu.

The entire book by Seager is available as a pdf online, and there is a single mention of the phrase by him as he attempts to salvage something of Ikeda's writings, Toda's shakubuku and Makinoguchi's affinity for "progressive education", which is an interpretation that encompassed a historical assessment of the group by an American that seems sympathetic to their cause, e.g., "Ikeda has called for...", but it does not describe any concrete beliefs and practices other than those associated with Nichiren-shu, chanting, etc. Meanwhile, you have tried to co-opt that overarching attempt at a description of what the author thinks the groups ethos is as something corresponding to "beliefs and practices" of SG.

You say you will explain it later, but there is no content there to explain. The statement is simply promotional window dressing. Here is the relevant paragraph from that text (p. 109)

Ikeda’s writings convey the same ardor for character found among members of SGI like Johnson, together with a strong commitment to Nichiren Buddhism. He has written widely and in depth on Mahayana Buddhism, Nichiren, and the Lotus Sutra, and has undoubtedly recast many of the doctrines central to the orthodoxy of Nichiren Shoshu. But in his writings and speeches designed for the broader world, Ikeda has called, in very plain language, for nothing less than a new Buddhist humanism that can revolutionize the twenty-first century through the inner transformation of the individual and the reordering of an increasingly interdependent global society. This call is a modern restatement of Nichiren’s visions of kosen-rufu, which he first articulated in the thirteenth century. But it also reflects Ikeda’s vision of world peace, Josei Toda’s commitment to shakubuku, and Tsunesaburo Makaguchi’s passion for progressive education.

I'm not sure how "Toda's commitment to shakubuku" qualifies as "humanism", but maybe you can explain that. I haven't read the chapter on "Soka Gakkai and Its Nichiren Humanism" yet.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

That it is a "new Buddhist humanism" is a belief, and it gives a religious underpinning to the supra-ritualistic activities, such as meetings, cultural activities, etc. You night say "those are not Buddhist practices", but the point of :new: is that they are, indeed, and the "new" part recognizes that the SG may beunique in this way, but that its activities are valid as religious practice and belief.--Daveler16 (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That is nonsense; in other words, those "supra-ritualistic activities" obviously aren't Buddhist practices, and nowhere does it say so in the source. I read the chapter on "sokka Gakkai and its Nichiren Humanism", and there is nothing that obliquely supports those WP:OR statements.

The assertion is POV and needs to be removed. Since Seager's charcterization in relation to Ikeda is muddles by the final sentence, I don't see that it can be used even if appropriated to him as his summary interpretation of Ikeda's writings. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Daveler16: Humanism is one of the two major strands in the SG, maybe the dominant one today. It's a major theme in the literature. Here it is in Google, Google books, and Google scholar. I'd also recommend the chapter in Prohl & Nelson. That was quite good on this. One reservation I had was the material on Ikeda at the end. It's amusing to read about how every culture center has his nature photos on the wall and a piano in case he comes and wants to play. But I think it's a religious impulse to want to venerate a teacher, so we could be a bit more sympathetic there instead of calling it a "cult of personality".

Anyway, if people object to putting humanism in the practices section, start a new section on humanism. And if someone deletes that, I think you'll have grounds for complaining to dispute resolution that there is a campaign to keep humanism out of the article. That really has to stop. --Margin1522 (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That is a fairly reasonable approach, as no one has been trying to "keep humanis out of the article", but it certainly does not belong under a section called "beliefs and practices", which is clearly evident even from the source Daveler16 has taken the aforementioned phrase.

Regarding the "cult of personality", it extends to more than the points you have mentioned, as is sourced to reliably published statements found in multiple sources. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it "Beliefs and Practices" of the Soka Gakkai? Or "Beliefs and Practices other schools of Buddhism think the Soka Gakkai should have"? If it is "of the Soka Gakkai", then if the Soka Gakkai believes its practices are religious, they belong here. I don't think you can argue, on the one hand, that it's okay to use sources that say "SG is not a cult" to argue that "some say SG is a cult"; while on the other hand arguing that say "discussion meetings are part of the religious practice of the SG" can't be used to say discussion meetings are part of the religious practice of the SG". I like the idea of a "Humanism" subsection of the "B&P" section. But I think the first paragraph of that section should be a general summary of SG beliefs and practices, as opposed to what it is now, which is "SG in relation to Nichiren Shoshu", which in turn is a rehash of the section immediately preceding it. That's really all I'm trying to do. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

"Since the foundation of the Soka Gakkai, its history and tradition have been rewritten and refomatted to fit with the perceived reality of those writing it. That rewriting and rationalizing has generally been undertaken by the presidents of Soka Gakkai who succeeded the founder Makiguchi Tsunesaburo, namely Toda Josei, and Ikeda Daisaku. Both of these leaders have rewritten history, not only that of the Soka Gakkai, but of Nichiren Shoshu, the Buddhist group from which Sbka Gakkai originates, as well as the entirety of Buddhism. In doing so, they have succeeded in defining a world-view for millions of SÔka Gakkai adherents." [source, Dominating Tradition: Soka Gakkai and the Creation of History by Levi McLaughlin http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk1/tape11/PQDD_0006/MQ45445.pdf

Therefore, since they rewrite over and over again their history, for example, Human Revolution, New Human Revolution, New New Human Revolution, etc., their principles and practices are as amorphous and ever changing as the shape of an ameoba. It is fruitless to try and pin them down on anything regarding doctrine, principles, and beliefs. 2602:306:CD27:DC29:68E6:A29A:1983:F2E9 (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Mark R. Rogow 09/01/2014

Last two paragraphs of the lede

My crazy work semester starts this afternoon and I will have to pull away from this article for a good spell but I will remain active on the Gulen articles. Thank you for being good partners. Special thanks to Ubikwit who taught me a lot about editing and WP protocols.

The final contribution I would like to make is reworking the last two paragraphs of the lede. Right now they lack a coherent organization. There's a bit of controversy in one, then controversy in the other. Likewise cult here and cult there.

My suggestion is to organize one paragraph around the SG's growth, moderation, and controversy. The second paragraph will be specifically about public perception ("brainwashing cult" and "cult of personality"). I will aim for WP:DUE in both paragraphs. FetullahFan (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit, @Margin1522, @Catflap08, @LionPride82, and @Shii. I would like to ask you to review my edits for the last two paragraphs which is on my Sandbox, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FetullahFan/sandbox. Today is the last day that I would like to volunteer on this article. Rather than playing cat-and-mouse, I worked hard to create a balanced WP:DUE which also reflects the feedback of WP:RSN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Inappropriate_use_of_an_author.27s_quote_to_substantiate_a_charge_of_.22brainwashing_cult.22).

As written in my Sandbox, I don't think that any SG member would not accept the article even though the poignant criticisms are present. On the other hand, critics of the SG should feel their positions are reflected; statements that support the SG are fully documented with quotes from citations.

I hope that others will review my suggestions and please feel free to incorporate them in the SG article as I do not have the time to work on this anymore.

I really hope that all editors in the future will agree to let WP:DUE guide your work. As I stated in my very first post (back in April?), we need to find a way that WP:DUE can transcend point-scoring and personal POVs.

FetullahFan (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The ideal lead section we should be looking for is one with no citations at all. It should only summarize what is in the article and not make new claims such as the "gnostic-manipulationist" one. Shii (tock) 04:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Shii, you are absolutely right. There is such bad faith among editors right now. It seems like everyone is intent on scoring points rather than finding WP:DUE. I inserted "gnostic-manipulationist" only because other editors insisted on using the Wallis and Glock sources in disparaging ways and using "manipulationist" as a dirty word; no one gave an inch when I brought this up. As a sociologist I can inform you that Wilson's work has withstood the test of time.

If editors can redetermine to work together to create a neutral and balanced article, all the citations could be stripped away and the text left to stand on its own.

I am really hoping you could look at my suggestions for the final two paragraphs. It is on my sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FetullahFan/sandbox).

I have an extremely heavy teaching load this summer and will not be editing the page but will respond to comments to me.

FetullahFan (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I was responding to. Your proposal may be better than what we have now, but it's not what we should be working towards. I would prefer a proposal that simply accurately summarizes the article, and an article that lends itself to being summarized. Shii (tock) 13:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Shi: changes to the body of the article are being met with un-discussed reverts. I too feel (after you and others mentioned it) that improving the article allows for an improved introduction. But those improvements have to be allowed to happen.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm back for a 5-minuter. @Ubikwit, on Sept 3rd, 16:44 you edited my post that added the Macioti resource to the lede. What was your reason for doing that? I had paraphrased the Macioti statement quite closely. She is a well-respected Italian sociologist and brings two points to this discussion: (1) she mentions the "love" SG members feel for Ikeda (her words, not mine) and then (2) she questions whether this leads to a cult of personality. @Ubikwit, you cleaved the first part (love) and left the second part (cult). Why did you perform such a one-sided edit? Don't you think that readers have a right to see both aspects? Don't you want to keep Macioti's research and finding intact?FetullahFan (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that doesn't belong in the lede in light of NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. I already mentioned that you should incorporate that into the body of the article, but apparently you didn't hear me. There are many sources that describe SG as a cult, and we don't make value judgments regarding that, especially in the lede, which is a summary. All of the reliable published statements addressing the "personality cult" issue, for example, should be included in the main body of the according to DUE WEIGHT. Macioti says "love", others say "brainwashed". This is not complicated.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@FetullahFan, I went into your sandbox and I liked your proposed two paragraphs. I know there will be inevitable tweaking to set the balance to achieve WP:DUE. However, what I like is the organization. You got the growth sentences in one paragraph and the cult/public perception stuff in the second. Reads very smoothly.BrandenburgG (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I take FetullahFan's idea and jiggle around a few sentences between the two paragraphs. I won't change any content like s/he did, just incorporate his/her sentence order ideas and add some transition words. Just want some assurances that I won't be reverted as a matter of course.BrandenburgG (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

We have a source with a footnoted quote that reads, "the near godlike reverence that members have for President Ikeda have tended to perpetuate public distrust". There is no debate here, there are only statements made by reliable sources.

The proposed text obfuscates the issue in a manner such as to present SG in a more favorable light than what the sourced statements say.

There is also more cohesion to the narratives in the present form, where the issues about Ikeda are discussed in one paragraph, and more general issues in the other.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, Ubikwit, my interest is just organizational here. I want to take up your idea and keep one paragraph around the cult theme and the other around the Ikeda theme. I will hold off until I can get a thumbs up from you. I hope you will then let this go---no reversions, please.

BrandenburgG (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit, I took your lack of response as a tacit agreement. I shifted three sentences in three separate edits. Paragraph 3, following your point on Sept. 10th, is focused on expansion, Ikeda, and controversy. I think the paragraph works. Paragraph 4 has all the cult references. I believe this works, too. The Wilson sentence fits better here; before it was an orphan sentence.

Please note that I had made a prior edit--shifting the order of clauses--not related to the paragraph discussion above. I supplied additional quotation from Lewis which had been removed by someone. It is clear now that the wording reflects Lewis' conclusion.

BrandenburgG (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, that t not true at all. There are sourced statements that support both sides, and this new edit includes them all. Not everything that sheds a little positive light is self-serving or subjective, any more than things that shed a negative light. What is the argument against balance? --Daveler16 (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No, you people are making this "debate" story up, and that is WP:OR.

Since WP:DUE and WP:SECONDARY have been pointed out to you and others numerous times, I'm getting tired of repeating them.

Balance is not something that you determine arbitrarily, and secondary sources carry far more weight than primary sources, the use of which is discussed under WP:PRIMARY, but that has been pointed out numerous times as well. The only way you could balance those statements is with a refcite to a DUE secondary source specifically rebutting the claims. But the claims come first, and any response to them is only that, so the details belong in the body of the article. You could counter the negative impact in the lede by a short statement to the effect that, "Other scholars disagree with the characterization". You can't use Middleway press publications to support that, though. But that has been mentioned already, too.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Which sources are you objecting to? It seems to me there were plenty of secondary sources. And I know there has been an ongoing discussion of Middleway, but I did not know it had been resolved - even if it's labelled as being affiliated with the SGI. Has it? Or is that a unilateral decision? And I'm aware of undue weight - specifically, giving equal or more weight to 30 and 40 year old books over more recent studies of the same subject. And why is the Watanabe LA Times story used substantiate "cult of personality" when it gives equal space to describing Ikeda as "a crusader for common folk who unflinchingly fights the oppressive establishment", and describes anti-Ikedaism as an "industry" that has "blurred the lines between suspicion and fact, imagination and reality"? Does the use of that article constitute "undue weight"? --Daveler16 (talk) 23: 45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that my edit was perceived in any way other than helpful. I don't see how anyone could say that it changed the tone of the article. The old version, now back up due to a reversion, is disjointed. For example, the discussion about cults spills over two paragraphs--Lewis in one, the Wilson group in another.

BTW, the "near godlike" reference comes from a tertiary source, an encyclopedia. We should be careful about lending it too much weight.

BrandenburgG (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Move "Relationship with Noriega" to Daisaku Ikeda

I have now investigated this more fully and I find it dubious to put this in the Gakkai article. Certainly it is a scandal in Ikeda's life, but to pin the blame on the Gakkai seems to me guilt by association. Furthermore the article has a lot to cover and this is not a major event in its history. Shii (tock) 17:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. This is kind of a fascinating episode. I was reading about it somewhere. Noriega was only one of the many leaders Ikeda has met, but the two of them did seem to hit it off unusually well. Both self-educated with intellectual ambitions. Noriega was even a self-proclaimed believer, though now the Gakkai denies he was ever a formal member. It has provided endless fodder for critics like Furukawa. I wonder what happened to the "Noriega Garden". Is it still there? If I run across that cite again I'll see if I can use it to expand that section. --Margin1522 (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly a controversial relationship, however, and should be in Ikeda's bio.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. I don't know why it has to be anywhere at all -- he met with tons of people, one turned out to be a criminal -- but if it does have to be somewhere, that place is not the SG page. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, looking at the text, the repeated visits to the Taiseki-ji and naming of garden after Noriega at Soka Gakkai facility make this WP:DUE for this article. Accordingly, I've re-added a cleaned up version of the text.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Daveler16 Noriega was a head of state, not just anyone.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he was a head of state. Thatcher was, too, and Mandela, and Chou was all but. There is no reference for the alleged visits to Taisekiji, and the sentence "they praised each other in public statements" is meaningless - if Ikeda had praised Noriega's criminal activities, then you'd have a point. But he didn't. Shi is right, and this has nothing to do with the SG (folks on the Ikeda page can argue it's relevance there). --Daveler16 (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There are refs on Noriega[1][2]. Someone should get the later from a library.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As long as I'm here, the basic problem with the Noriega business is that it's an argument from guilt by association, which is naturally prone to bias and exaggeration. There is a pattern here. In the book about the celebration of the French Revolution, the author was attacking a French politician. He did so by pointing out the association with Ikeda. So he had an incentive to make Ikeda look as unsavory as possible, which he did by associating him with Noriega. Kempe takes it further. His main target is Noriega, so he has an incentive to make Ikeda look even worse (a tall order). He does this by reaching all the way back to 1963 and a Look magazine article that compared SG to the Hitler Youth. Was that his best source of information about SG, in 1990? I thought there was a rule somewhere that anyone who mentions Hitler is disqualified as a reliable source.

BTW, here is a newspaper article with the author, date, and title of the Look article. That might be interesting, historically. It also contains an interesting piece of spin from an SGI PR person. He blames the shakubuku excesses on the priests. Once SG was free of these fantatic, fundamentalist priests, they could become the gentle, peace-loving organization that they are today. Is that true? It seems like there should be a number of ways to test that. --Margin1522 (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

For anyone interested, here is the Look article. It never says "Hitler Youth", so Kempe must have been quoting from memory there. Lots about shakubuku. The author seems shocked by a religion that considers itself to be the only true one. I thought that was a core belief of Nichiren Buddhism, but I will defer to Ubikwit on that. --Margin1522 (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This source from this site claims Noriega was a "disciple of Soka Gakkai".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I had to read that whole page for this one sentence? "- Ikeda was found 'comforting' Manuel Noriega (at this time a disciple of Soka Gakkai) when America sanctioned Panama." What exactly is that supposed to mean? Notably lacking here is any evidence that Ikeda himself did anything wrong. The canonical form of this story is that (a) Ikeda was on good terms with Noriega, and (b) therefore SG was deeply involved in the drug business, and (c) it used its illegal profits to bribe Japanese politicians, and (d) that's why Japan has gone to the dogs. I can point you to any number of wingnut sites that go all the way to (d), even though there is not a shred of evidence for anything beyond (a). Is (a) alone reason to have this in the article? If not, how far are we supposed to go? --Margin1522 (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Margin1522: Only the major points are mentioned in the article now, nothing about speculation of funds used for drug smuggling, etc. In the case of Noriega, he is said to have been a disciple of SG that visit Taisekiji many times. Moreover,Ikeda presented him with a "humanitarian award" (not in the article) and Noriega named a small island after Ikeda, an act to which SG reciprocated by naming a garden at their Fujinomiya training center after himphotos. Aside from that anti-SG site (no others have the photos), this PhD thesis (p. 119) mentioned one of the sources I cited above, and another online source which is no longer available and apparently not archived--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC).

The online site was [this one], at WBM? Apparently it's the page of User jqpublic, from the Cult Watcher Network, at an Internet provider in Indiana. It has pictures of Ikeda with figures like Nicolae Ceausescu, Noriega, and Fidel Castro. I guess sometimes you get your photos where you can find them. My link to the text of the Look magazine article was to a user page at a Jehovah's Witnesses site. But, unlike us, the dissertation provides some context and an analysis of what these photos mean. She offers a list of admirable or influential figures that Ikeda has met, and then says that this penchant for jetting around the globe to meet world leaders has also led to some embarassing moments. The word she uses is faux pas. This is certainly true. You give a "humanitarian" award to Ceausescu and he turns out to be one of the greatest monsters of the 20th century. That's embarassing. So, since she has provided this context and interpretation, why don't we use it? Just cite the dissertation. In the Ikeda article, since it's about him. I will volunteer to do that, and then delete Noriega from this article, per the consensus among editors. Unless we can see a better argument as to why it belongs here (better than "He visited Taisekiji."). --Margin1522 (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. A lot of articles there... According to that link, the head of SGI, George M. Williams, was made a colonel in the Panamanian army[3].

The difference with Noriega is that he was a member of SG, and SG named a garden at an SG facility after him, after he named an island after Ikeda, etc. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, but I wouldn't trust any "fact" on that site without checking. The first one I checked was the statement "four months after Castro had ordered the destruction of 2 unarmed civilian planes that were on a humanitarian mission. " According to our article on this incident, Brothers to the Rescue, the mission was to drop anti-Castro leaflets over Havanna. But sure, I can see going into detail on Noriega in the Ikeda article. I even think it's worth a picture of the garden if we could find one that isn't copyrighted. Probably hopeless. Perhaps a picture of the island where the Ikeda lookout point used to be. --Margin1522 (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, fine, go ahead and move it there.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As promised, I expanded the Noriega section in the Ikeda article a bit, and added a picture of the islands where the lookout point used to be. Then deleted the section from this article. --Margin1522 (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)