Talk:Soka Gakkai/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Josei Toda Subsection

I want to raise some concerns about a prior editor's work in 1.2.1 (History.Toda.Reconstruction). This editor seriously bastardized the Brannen source and should be called on his/her work.

The editor in citation #35 cites Brannen (Brannen, Noah, September 1962, "The Teachings of Sōka Gakkai", Contemporary Religions in Japan 3: 248–249. Retrieved 10 December 2013). In fact there is nothing at all pertinent on page 248. So the first action I will take will be to cite only page 249, removing the reference to 248. Citing more pages does not mean there is more substance.

I am assuming the editor is referring on page 249 to Brannen's statement: "The average follower is not expected to go too deeply into a study of doctrine." Brannen then refers to the comment of ONE (emphasis on ONE) SG member who, upon seeing some of the books on Brannen's bookshelf exclaims, “How were you able to get hold of these books? I have already reached the second stage in my preparation to be a lecturer and still haven’t been given some of them.” Brannen then describes a Q&A session Josei Toda had at a meeting where he (in my interpretation here) emphasized the importance of understanding the teachings of Buddhism through practical experiences rather than intellectual understanding of concepts. OK, I feel there are some issues here with Brannen (for example, this one member's over-entitled expectation that books should have been given him/her and the scholar's over-application of the specific to the general) but that is not my concern right now.

My concern is with the prior editor's reduction of the above to: "The Gakkai's teachings at this point became more restrictive, and lower-ranking members were no longer allowed access to more difficult books.[35]" There is a major difference between "lower-ranking members were no longer allowed access to more difficult books" and "the average follower is not expected to go too deeply into a study of doctrine". Excuse me, but I am really irate about this! "More restrictive"? "No longer allowed"?

Let me add a note about sloppy language. Did the editor mean, as stated, "The Gakkai's teachings" become more restrictive or access to the Gakkai's teachings become more restrictive? What is meant by "at this point"--what year? what stage in the Gakkai's development? What is meant by "restrictive"?

To add to this is Brannen's own contention (1968): "Soka Gakkai is conducting the most amazing program of indoctrination that Japan has ever seen...." (p. 143). So we also have a serious case of misusing a scholar's larger point of view.

So I want to make edits to these couple of sentences in the article but I will wait to give other folk a moment to share their thoughts. BrandenburgG (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I actually edited that part out some time ago, and am surprised it was reverted. My argument then was that there is a gulf of immense size between "I haven’t been given some of them" and "members were no longer allowed access"; and that changing "I haven’t been given some of them" to ""members were no longer allowed access" is so clearly and obviously original research - to say nothing of blatant bias - that there reallyisn't a lot of room for argument about it. So yes - make the change. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That's disgraceful that someone 1) lied about the content of these sources 2) reverted the edits correcting this error. Lionpride82 (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I waited for almost a month, hoping for consensus, before actually editing this section. I think it will be OK for me to make edits and await everyone's feedback.

BrandenburgG (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I finally made the changes. Now accurately portrays what is in the sources. BrandenburgG (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe the "Josei Toda Years" subsection could be strengthened by a subsection about the relationship between the SG and NS. This section would include the contributions the SG made to NS (publication of Nichiren's writings, rehabilitation of the Head Temple's finances through the pilgrimage system, the construction of numerous temples, the support of various high priests). We could also include troubles between the two organizations such as the Tanuki incident. BrandenburgG (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't receive any feedback from the above comment (July 8th) about changing the title of the sub-subsection to "Relationship between the SG and NS" within the Toda Years subsection. Let me give you a couple of more days for you to get back to me. BrandenburgG (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I have stated a number of times that it’s mostly active SG/SGI adherents who are active on this article and why this is counterproductive. This article fails to meet a whole number of Wikipedia guidelines including POV and COI. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I also despair of trying to edit this page as editors such as yourself have a strong COI as obvious Nichiren adherents pushing POV; people aren't responding because you go ahead and do it anyway, tag team with another editor, and often ignore when you are called out. You edit tendentiously and then wonder why no one replies to your asinine questions about renaming sub-subsections when the larger page issue is massively POV-skewed. Ogress _smash! 18:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Just because you make the claim does not make it true. I was "called out" about a year ago, I acknowledged the complaints of others and took a self-imposed exile from this article for about a half year. Since then can you specify when and how I "edit tendentiously"? "Asinine" questions? That's pretty value judgmental. "Tag team?" I beg your pardon, that's not me. "Obvious Nichiren adherents"? I'm sorry, "Nichiren adherents" come in all sizes and shapes from rogues (like me) to party-liners and leaders. Ban them all? Ban Catholics from articles about Catholicism, Mormons from LDS articles?

And a bit of self-reflection, Ogress? Ubikwit is banned from WP and you pop up out of nowhere at about the same time. Am I paranoid or is this a bit of sock puppetry? BrandenburgG (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@ BrandenburgG user Ubikwit left on entirely different reasons, accusing Ogress of sock puppetry you might end up shooting your own foot. This article is plastered with POV and COI and I know that arguing with open SGI adherents leads nowhere. SGI/SG is by no means an uncontroversial religious group – as soon as criticism was raised and made part of the article it was answered with ‘but “scholar” such and such says that …”. This is an article not a canvass. As an ex-adherent to SGI/SG I refrain from editing the article in major ways and active adherents should do the same. Amongst other issues I concentrate instead on Nichiren Buddhism in general as this was something I only learned about after leaving the named group. This article, as it stands now, is all over the place and still to my mind reads like an advert. The comparison with Catholics is not really a help as SG/SGI adherents do show signs of fanaticism (them against us) and are usually not know to challenge their organisation – of which most of them are not legal members of anyway. And btw in direct comparison Catholics have more means of democratic modernity available than any SGI/SG adherent does.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: What "to your mind" would not "read as an advert"? There are multiple uses of the phrase "brain washing cult" (and similar phrases), lots of references to "reputation for violence" with a few (unnecessary, imo) anecdotes to underline this, a while subsection on a minor incident in 1951 whose purpose (to me) is not clear, and hundreds of words implying the SG is still somehow a subset of Nichiren Shoshu. The section of Makiguchi tends to treat him as a sympathizer with the militarists' goals, the section on Toda paints him as a somewhat looney thug. So it would be most interesting (and frankly, scary) to learn what you would consider "not an advert".--Daveler16 (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Do carry on --Catflap08 (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody says SG/SGI is a subset, I guess you meant subsect, of NST but an offshoot not a set or sect, but an organisation that originally was affiliated to NST building many of its temples and carrying the faithful flock to the head temple for free :-) over decades.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You didn't exactly address my main point. And - free ride to Taisekiji??? When did this happen? Somebody owes me about $3000 adjusted for inflation! :-)--Daveler16 (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay I was a little bit sarcastic again here, sorry – certainly the pilgrimages were not for free. But downplaying the influence on NST would not do any favour to the article. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge

I propose the merge of Soka Gakkai and Soka Gakkai International the two are basically the same thing as SGI could not, and likely would not, exist without SG. This merge was done previously. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The SGI was established 40 years ago in 1975 to serve a different function (international) than Japan's Soka Gakkai. While the two organizations overlap, they are clearly not the same, and merging the articles only lends to confusion. For example, the leaders of the Japanese organization are not the leaders of the international organization. The SGI has been around long enough to merit telling its own story. Findemnow (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Good grief you really do believe what you are saying aren’t you? How come it was once before already decided to merge the two article? So SGI exist entirely independent form SG??--Catflap08 (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I've just been reading in two different books about the autonomy of SGI-USA and its unique character. Linkks between the two articles, perhaps, but no, it would be a disservice to merge them. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone on Reddit SGI Whistleblowers wrote: I've told before of how David Aoyama and Danny Nagashima were sent here from Tokyo for the explicit purpose of taking over the general directorship of SGI-USA ("heir and a spare"). Any gaijin who wants to advance in SGI-USA leadership has to attend SGI activities scrupulously; participate in the side groups like Kotekitai (women's fife and drum corps) or brass band or Sophia or whatever; subscribe to extra publications; donate; bring in lots of new "members" - through shakubuku. These Japanese nobility, on the other hand, arrive with a silver spoon in their mouths and get access to the express elevator straight to the top. They don't have to earn anything. They don't have to build anything. They were designated for their positions before they left Japan for the US. And tHAT's "the flower of Buddhist democracy". The General Director of SGI USA has always been Japanese born and SG [Japan] trained.69.149.246.100 (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Mark Rogow 07/15/15

I also do not agree to combining the two entries. SGI has so many countries involved in so many local activities, that I can only imagine it will grow. There is some info on the Soka Gakkai page that might be moved to SGI.Goldenrescue15 (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The Article on Soka Gakkai can easily be renamed Soka Gakkai (International) this way both aspects are present in the article. As has been done before a redirect towards Soka Gakkai is created. The article on SGI does not tell us much more than the one on SG has not already done (more or less). Doctrinally the two organisations are the same thing just one being the “international” branch and both led by the same group of leaders even sharing HQ’s, teaching materials and so forth. Keeping both articles is deceptive.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The Soka Gakkai page is long enough, I can’t imagine what adding SGI information will do to it. Also, SGI Korea, Brazil SGI, Hong Kong SGI, and other organizations have millions of members with significant histories that include government oppression. Marginalizing these histories on the Soka Gakkai page won’t do them justice. It’s fair to separate Soka Gakkai and SGI. Lionpride82 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well that is indeed strange then, that if length of an article counts for anything, most editors active here do not hide the fact that they are adherents – most likely of SGI. All what is said about SG/SGI’s teachings, beliefs and practice including dogma is the same for SGI AND SG. SGI is just the international branch that’s it. In an article about Woolworth there are not separate articles for each of its branches round the globe. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This is where some editors have a problem on this page, and Catflap08 is now trying to transfer to another page. On the one hand you want to maintain that SG is not a traditional religion, but a movement -- but then refuse to recognize what it is that actually distinguishes it from traditional religion in practice. There are core beliefs ans practices common to every country, but each country applies them differently as they engage socially - because social engagement IS a core practice of the SGI and cannot possibly be applied the same way in every country and culture. In short, there is more to religion than dogma, especially in the SGI, and since the practice depends on the culture within which it's exerfcised, it is impossible to find one and only one universal practice.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you clarify what makes Soka Gakkai unique in the world from "traditional religion"? Methinks I smell a tremendous POV COI here. Ogress _smash! 05:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The practical results in daily life are what differentiates the SG from "traditional", That is, less reliance on dogma, the necessity of "winning" in one's personal challenges, social engagement, etc. Ths has been noted most clearly by Strand, but I think McLaughlin and Dobbelaere also touch on it. Susumu points out the change wrought by Toda's emphasis on life force, and a few assign "human revolution" and discussion meetings to near liturgical status. So it's not my original idea. But the poiht is that these sortsd of things are dependent on the host culture and customs, and therefore cannot be categorized as "Soka Gakkai" when they are applied differently in, say, Malaysia than they are in, say, Great Britain. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Daveler16 Yes in the world of Buddhism SG/SGI is not a traditional SCHOOL (!), it’s an organisation or a lay movement – even SG/SGI describes itself that way. I never ever questioned the fact that its adherents perform a religious service of some sort and if you think back you were asked many times to clarify the religious practice section – okay song and dance seems part of a religious practice now but hey who am I to judge. If you now say the RELIGIOUS PRACTICE varies from country to country please do elaborate on that one – different forms of Gongyo then? I am sorry but you are contradicting yourself more and more. You do seem to forget that I know SGI/SG! If in each country they believe something different and if indeed they are not affiliated to SG, do not follow “guidances” by their leaders do elaborate on this. It’s an intriguing information that in each country they believe something different this is ground-breaking news. It puzzles me that in other Wikipedia languages folks were able to explain all the above in one article, that is SG/SGI’s beliefs, history and its organisational structure in terms of SGI. They were even able to cater for a criticism section which got deleted in this article and not replace it with “overseas perception” over time and include exhibition dates instead.--Catflap08 (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I think deciding this will require time and working together despite our differences. We need to go to the sources and use them to come up with a wise decision.

We may all have opinions on this hot topic but our job as editors is to highly regard the trend of scholarship. We may also have theories about what happens behind closed doors but, again, speculation on conspiracies better belong in other discussion forums. Most of the post-1975 scholars who look at the Japanese organization (i.e., McLaughlin) write about the SG. Most of the ones who look at places outside of Japan (a long list here: Wilson, Dobbelaire, Machacek, Metraux, Macioti, Seager, Strand, etc.) discuss the SGI even though they may discuss the SG.

As editors I think we also need to look for evidence of how respective members perceive their membership. Looking at sources we should be able to see whether members in general say, "I am a member of the SG" or "I am a member of the SGI." The same for the national constituent organizations. For example, a list of some 50 national organizations is listed at http://www.sgi.org/contact-us. Just looking at the names they have choses for themselves, a vast majority of these organizations perceive themselves as members of the SGI. A much smaller group have SG names, and a few, interestingly, just use the Soka label.

My vote is to leave things as they are for now, respecting the hard work of co-editors, and walk through sources to come to a definitive conclusion.

BrandenburgG (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess respecting other editors work also means not to blur issues. As I recall the SGI article was created at a time critical issues were discussed, before that (Beginning 2015) the SGI article was simply a redirect to the SG one. Guidelines on issues like this one do exist. SG and SGI are in effect the same thing. --Catflap08 (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:MERGEREASON--Catflap08 (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Ogress I have been smelling tremendous WP:POV, WP:SPA and WP:COI here for years hence me not editing this article too much anymore. Seems nobody cares actually. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08, I would rather you address my concerns rather than attack my credentials. To reiterate, I invited interested editors to look at recent scholarship and see whether the trend of sources point to a divide between SG and SGI.BrandenburgG (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@ BrandenburgG This is not about attacking anyone’s credentials that’s why I mentioned the guidelines. At one time I did edit the article more than I do now – mostly on history and critical remarks. “By miracle” some sources seem to have vanished. Being an ex-adherent and critic of SG/SGI I have reinterpreted the guidelines for myself and decided to withdraw form the subject on SG/SGI for most parts. Looking at the editing history the ones most active in the article are adherents of SG/SGI given into what the article has developed there is evidence of POV and COI – there should be an awareness for that. In other languages articles on SGI/SG work fine even though the subject is just as controversial. The secret is to stay concise in structure, history and even on critical issues. It comes natural that adherents may think that their faith is the best thing since the invention of sliced bread – this is not what the average reader wants to know though. --Catflap08 (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08, I still think you haven't addressed my point. Shouldn't we collectively look at our sources to see how scholars refer to SG or SGI? Shouldn't this be the way forward on the merge topic? Can't we find consensus on this one point?BrandenburgG (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If the SG and SGI pages were once combined, can anyone tell me why they were separated in the first place? Thanks.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Well before February 2015 it was just a redirect to this page. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, your first note in this section says "this merge was done previously". If that's so, I assume there was discussion and then a decision to un-merge. Do you know - or does anyone still around -- know what the arguments were that resulted in the separation? --Daveler16 (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

We find testimonials of personal revelation and practical results in all religions, including Christianity, Islam, and even Scientology, let alone in all Nichiren Lotus Schools and sects. This is SGI propaganda and patently false. I suggest you research the so-called Pot Headed Monk or the martyr Nikkyo, it might awaken you to the real benefit of faith in the Lotus Sutra and chanting the Daimoku. 2602:306:CD27:DA49:695D:1225:66A1:BA63 (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Mad Mark 07/22/2015

@ BrandenburgG Wikipedia is not a mere collection of what so called scholars have to say. Wikipedia answers questions – hopefully. SG and SGI share the same religious beliefs and structure. SG may exist without SGI, but SGI does not exist without SG. Financially, religiously, dogmatically and hierarchy wise SGI depends on SG. Without SG there would not have been an SGI. So far both articles fail to differentiate the supposed difference of the two entities and do not prove the complete independence of both organisational subdivisions. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I’m sorry @catflap08. Wikipedia is definitely about “what scholars have to say.” Sure we should organize the page in a way that’s easy to understand, but all information provided should be based on scholarly research. We use verifiable sources and scholarly research, otherwise Wikipedia is nothing more than a message board to exchange opinions.

Also, despite what you say about not participating in the editing of the page since you are an ex-adherent, when I look at the SG page’s history you edit all the time! Can you explain this?

Believe me, I don’t want to call you names and I want to assume good faith-but your comments on this talk page really make me scratch my head.Lionpride82 (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh sorry you missed the point in a somewhat sarcastic wording – scholar’s views are indeed used to reference what is written – but there are scholars and “scholars”. And to be honest, and when you follow the articles history you should see it, I do not make any MAJOR edits. I do scratch my head these days quite often too --- questions raised about beliefs and practices – no real answer, question on democratic modernity – no real answer. But hey song and dance are regarded nearly a religious practice and the old anti nuke exhibition still kicks around too. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

An excerpt from Can Scholars Be Deceived? Empirical Evidence from Social Psychology and History by Steve Eichel http://markrogow.blogspot.com/2015/07/from-can-scholars-be-deceived-empirical.html I think our readers would find this interesting. 2602:306:CC5C:C159:E97D:9FAC:95EF:F086 (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Mark Rogow 08/03/2015

@ Mark Rogow, would it not be far more helpful if you register as an editor? The talk page is not a blog. Even though debates and talks can become quite heated it is mostly a talk about the articles content and in the long run what is needed to improve the article. The talk page is certainly not a place to post conspiracy theories, own views nor does it serve as a soapbox for one’s own blog. The issue on SGI is well controversial and I personally would welcome a critical approach – but it has to be referenced and solid. Okay you do get people who even challenge referenced material, but that’s something that can be dealt with even though one needs a lot of patience on that one too as admins are not always experts on the issues they are dealing with.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"More" than what?

First paragraph in Belief and Practice says "From the time of its first president the Soka Gakkai was more interested in religion providing "personal gain"...." Ramseyer, the cited source, doesn't compare this to anything, so I wonder what the "more" refers to: more than Nichiren Shoshu does? That makes sense from the context but, again, Ramseyer doesn't say that. Or more than dogma? Also makes sense, also not said by Ramseyer. So I would like to remove the word "more", and then switch the sentence order so this goes first. This way the section starts with a belief of the SG, rather than a historical fact and a comparison that has been mentioned earlier. Thanks.--Daveler16 (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You cannot delete a word from a citation just because you do not like it or just because, to your mind, the meaning is unclear. It’s always possible to maybe get the full citation via WP:REX. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Not deleting it from the citation. I want to delete it because it is NOT in the citation, and is vague, as I explain above. The cited quote from Ramseyer is already included in the footnote. --Daveler16 (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Daveler16 Since it has been a while we discussed this. Please allow the reader to form their own opinion. Issues are mentioned in the article - pros and cons. Each pro, each con, may be summarised in a most neutral manner and hopefully referenced. In my books the perfect article does not push the reader into any direction, but makes the reader aware of relevant issues and enable him/her by reading referenced material to form an opinion. The biggest problem I have with the article as it stands right now is that it tries to push the reader into a certain direction. There are alternative views on SGI which do have their own right. .--Catflap08 (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Catflap08: I kind of agree with much of that. The exception is Beliefs and Practices, which I believe should reflect the beliefs and practices of the SG - not an argument about their validity (as some, not you, seem to want to make it), and not a comparison to the B&P of other religions and sects. I'm making slight (imho) changes in placement and syntax in the first paragraph of that section - see if you think any "balance" is lost. As for the rest of the article - there should be pros and cons, though my concern is that, as the article is now, the reader is hammered with them and ir makes it difficult to read. "In the 50s and 60s the SG had a reputation for over aggressive proselytizing", with appropriate footnotes, should, imho, be sufficient to cover THAT aspect, without one isolated anecdote after another cluttering things up. Likewise, "the priesthood didn't approve of all efforts to modernize" should cover it without having to dip into Nikken's distaste for Beethoven and other petty stuff, with The effect of obscuring the main points, which can be summarized in a sentence or two.--Daveler16 (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Daveler16 Well on the priesthood issue I do not even know what to elaborate on, even the mentioning of them (the priests) maybe having failed to modernise is just as much of a POV as adding NST’s polemics - that also would not be neutral. Even the Beethoven issue is POV as NST puts forward different arguments. The only thing that can be said with certainty is that the two groups held different opinions on dogma and that in the course of events NST in a first step excluded SG/SGI’s high ranking leaders and in a second step all SGI/SG adherents. The problem is that both, adherents of SGI/SG and NST all have their version of so called facts – personally I believe two ageing men had a mighty quarrel that also is POV though. The only solution that would help in an article like this one would be that it is being protected to a much higher level. People like me as an ex-adherent and like you as an active adherent should be blocked from making direct edits and wait until the edits are passed (reviewed) bv an editor neutral on the issue. No idea if this would work but in my opinion the current protection is not much of a help.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Because they both have their own POV as regards history, we use outside sources for that section. I think the issue of the priests' resistance to change comes from an outside source, as does the reference to Beethoven and the abusive language used on propagation. It's just that there are too many incidents and issues included, sinking the article. BTW, the use of outside sources also allows adherents to participate, as long as they stick to the proper sources for their statements. Right? --Daveler16 (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

As insiders we both know that as soon a certain expertise are supported by SGI/SG this should raise some doubts about its neutrality, even more so when at times sold in SGI bookshops. On the issue of the split I would suggest to describe it as neutral as possible. NST failed to modernise? Sorry even if somebody presumably neutral says so, but has SGI/SG modernised? In this context I would exclude SGI/SG’s adherents because in regard to SGI/SG’s legal members the structure has failed to modernise just as well. --Catflap08 (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Back to B&P

I believe it was Catflap08 who has asked for a cogent description of the B&P of the SG. Here is my whack at it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrandenburgG/sandbox lists my sources):

The belief of the Soka Gakkai centers on recognizing that imminent “Buddhahood” exists in every person and can be awakened through practice. Further, a person's social actions at every moment (the theory of ichinen sanzen) can lead to soka, or the creation of value. Societal change is facilitated through "human revolution," a way of living in the world that creates value. Many materials published by the Soka Gakkai convey the belief that members who share Nichiren's vow are the Bodhisattvas of the Earth.

The daily practice of Soka Gakkai members consists of chanting of daimoku to the Gohonzon as well as the study of Nichiren Buddhism. Rather than ceremonial daimoku (girei), Soka Gakkai members describe their chanting as “fighting daimoku” (tatakao daimoku) to the Gohonzon. The practice of chanting requires developing strong resolve to reveal inner “Buddhahood,” applying the ideals of Buddhism to daily life, and determining to accomplish specific goals. These efforts are linked to proselytizing to spread the ideals of the Lotus Sutra and to thereby effect a spiritual and cultural change in society. The practice also entails performing morning and evening gongyo, attending monthly discussion meetings, and fostering capable people.

Any thoughts or comments? I hope this can be seen as an accurate description of the SG's B&P and not as an "advert." I can foresee this as an introduction to the B&P subsection. BrandenburgG (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Looked at it, like it. It would certainly improve the article. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Is "The Oneness of [SGI] Mentor Disciple not, according to SGI, the prime point of the Lotus Sutra and central to SGI's beliefs and practices? 2602:306:CC5C:C159:743F:BFD1:69D5:71B8 (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Mark Rogow 08/16/15

I give up ... :-/ --Catflap08 (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a helpful comment. Snarky, dripping with self-victimization. I think an explanation, preferably an apology, is in order.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Apology for what? It still reads like a new adherent’s manual. Me giving up on this issue, like others have done long ago, means adherents can carry on with what they have been doing to this article. It will surely be super neutral and absolutely no POV. --Catflap08 (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I propose to change "Views on the Priesthood" to something related but, I think, more relevant: "Doctrinal Differences Between Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu". The references would be the NS Wikipedia article, as well as SG publications. An outside source or two might also be necessary. It would address the views on the Dai Gohonzon, transcription of Gohonzon, lineage, the 3 treasures, and True Buddha. Anything else?--Daveler16 (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Daveler16: "An outside source or two might also be necessary" -- no, that's not how Wikipedia sourcing works. All sources should be outside sources. The proposal to use "the NS Wikipedia article" as a "reference" would be problematic enough per WP:NOTSOURCE and WP:CIRCULAR even if Nichiren Shōshū was a good, well-sourced article, but that 2,400-word article contains only 18 inline citations, most not very good ones. "SG publications" are WP:PRIMARY sources, and should be used very carefully. Additionally, using "sources on SG" and "sources on NS" to compare the doctrines of the groups and create a section in this article entitled "Doctrinal Differences Between Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu" would be a textbook violation of WP:NOR: you are only allowed do this if you have sources (preferably third-party, reliable sources) specifically discussing "the doctrinal differences between Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu", not sources merely stating these doctrines without comparing the two. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, and the doctrines shouldn't be compared, then I would fully support removing the comparisons currently in the article. But if we are going to say "the split was due, in part, to doctrinal differences", then why shouldn't those differences be delineated? I would say also, if you are right, that the sub section "Views on the Priesthood", is unnecessary. I do agree with you on the careful use of primary sources - they should be used (as they are in this entry) only for the group's own doctrine, and not in History or other sections. Doctine is subjective, historical events are not.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

(CAVEAT: I haven't actually checked the sources currently cited in the article in much detail. They might actually be sufficient as is.) Well, if all the sources say "the split was based on doctrinal differences", but none of them actually discuss the doctrinal differences in question, then their usability for this point is questionable, whether or not they would otherwise be considered "reliable". Off-hand comments in sources that clearly don't discuss said comments in any detail should not be arbitrarily cherry-picked for use in Wikipedia articles. If the sources cited in the article do say "the split was based on doctrinal differences such as SG's X as opposed to NS's Y, which was controversial among followers of both groups because of Z" or the like, then cite them as saying such -- we can't take a source that says "the split was based on doctrinal differences" and then include extensive discussion of those doctrinal discussions cited to primary sources that don't directly discuss the split in question (or discuss it in a biased, aggressive or otherwise partial manner). For one thing, we as Wikipedians are not allowed to decide which doctrinal differences were specifically responsible for the split, unless we have sources that do so. Presumably there are several doctrinal differences between the groups, of varying degrees of relevance to the question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

In general, we can readily and easily use what some might call, sometimes erroneously, tertiary sources to at least determine the nature of content, and, if necessary, use them as the cited sources. Such sources tend to be among the better available sources when different ideas or subjects are compared to each other, particularly in recent times. I have copied out and will e-mail to anyone who sends me an e-mail (so I can get the address) the articles on this topic from the 2005 Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion and the 2014 Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. Those sources might be useful in determining how to phrase some of this material, perhaps particularly material relating to SG and NS Buddhism. John Carter (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@JC: For what it's worth, 2005 Lindsay Jones is apparently the second edition of 2005 Mircea Eliade. Unless their article on SG has been specifically updated on this point (according to the Booklist review, 2/3 of the original 2,750 articles were unchanged) it would be theoretically impossible for the work to cover the issue in question, which concerns events in the early 1990s. Just telling us that it might give us the information is not exactly relevant to this discussion -- you appear to have checked the (apparently highly reputable and on my "must buy" list) Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism -- why not just quote that rather than the commentary on whether encyclopedia articles should be referred to as tertiary sources? (By the way, I also agree with you on that issuewhether encyclopedia articles should be referred to as tertiary sources -- read any of the articles I've written in the last four months to see the respect I have for encyclopedia articles written by experts in the field who have checked all the primary source data.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It is I suppose required to indicate that if the article in the 2nd edition were simply a reprint of the first edition, I would have said as much. The articles all, in fact, clearly indicate when the individual articles and, where appropriate, bibliographies, were written and/or updated. The second Jones edition is noted for having many more articles on what are broadly called new religious movements than the first Eliade edition, and that many articles on older, less currently active, religious/mythological systems were removed from the second edition in favor of including more articles on more recent religious systems. The article in question was according to the book written for the 2005 edition by Shimazono Susumu, who wrote two of the items included in the rather short bibliography. Admittedly, I don't see anywhere in the book where the Princeton indicates who was the individual author of each of the pieces in that work. John Carter (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

, ::@ Daveler16 In my books the only document that would be suitable to describe on what grounds SG/SGI and its adherents were expelled would be (official) documents published by NST itself. If those exist online a reference should actually suffice. Anything published after that, by either side, just boils down to muckraking. Any neutral observer would actually come to that conclusion no matter what “scholars” are being brought forward – like in a divorce one side kicked the other one out and the separation was not amicable. The use of primary sources is not forbidden and I suggest to read guidelines on that one WP:PSTS. The reader should however be made aware of that. Used within the B&P section (especially the practice part) would even make sense i.e. service books, as reference, describing the daily liturgy, which mantra is used, which chapters of the Lotus Sutra are recited, Summary of content of silent prayers etc…. The beliefs part I find to be most problematic as the wording still to my mind describes the alleged benefits rather than being solely descriptive. Having said that, SG/SGI has yet to come up with anything that could be called a dogma or a document like the one NST calls “The Robes of this School”. Other traditional Nichiren Schools are far more eclectic on issues of dogma, but this is Wikipedia not a Nichiren Buddhist seminar after all. Comparing doctrines within an article on a school or organisation is problematic. Even the article on Nichiren Buddhism can only scratch the surface on that one and as I said Wikipedia is no Buddhist seminar and beliefs are what they are – beliefs. The amount of words in this article is gigantic but all those words say little. Many issues, even the critical ones, can be summed up without deleting any references.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, if anything, the Princeton dictionary mentioned above says about the break between NS and SG, "As tensions grew between the Nichiren Shoshu and its increasingly powerful lay subsidiary, Nikken (b. 1922), the sixty-seventh chief priest of Nichiren Shoshu, tried to bring its membership directly under his control. His efforts were ultimately unsuccessful and he excommunicated the Soka Gakkai in 1991, forbidding Soka Gakkai followers from having access to the holiest shrines associated with Nichiren." and the Encyclopedia of Religion says "There had earlier been serious conflicts with Nichiren Shoshu over traditional doctrine and the authority of monks after Soka Gakkai emphasized new styles of lay religiosity and the authority of the Soka Gakkai president. Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai finally split from each other in 1991."

I'm not suggesting doctrinal differences be listed as reasons for the split. I'm suggesting that, since such differences are mentioned, that some differences be delineated. I don't think they have to be mentioned in scholarly articles to be included. For instance, we know, and can document, that NS thinks "True Buddha (hombutsu)" refers to Nichiren and Nichiren alone, while the SG thinks all people are "True Buddhas"; NS considers ordained clergy to be the "Treasure of the community" while the SG considers all practitioners to be so. Personally, as a practitioner, I don't think such esoteric doctrinal points are necessary for understanding the SG, but some editors do, and I can see how they are necessary from a scholarly POV. So either let's have them, or eliminate a vague mention of them - which is something I would also support. Also, would you like to join me in going through the article to find "cherry picked" sources that don't say what the article says they say? E.G., Lewis is used for (paraphrasing) "The SG has a reputation as a brainwashing cult" when what Lewis actually says is ""The SG has a reputation as a brainwashing cult that is undeserved". So your help getting rid of stuff like that would be awesome! --Daveler16 (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Daveler16 Issues like brainwashing, proselytising and cult of personality are out there – there is no denying justified or not ... wheter you like it or not. SGI/SG is not without controversy this should be mentioned with appropriate references and the wording being as neutral as possible. I will by all means contest the deletion of references, this to my mind is just not on – the wording of the Wikipedia text however should be neutral. The reasons why NST excluded SG/SGI is solely up to NST, the interpretation of this exclusion can and may be referenced the wording has to stay neutral though. The examples brought up by John Carter do show how this issue can be dealt with. A Japanese lady I know, and staunch adherent of SG/SGI, once said to me “it was all about power and money” – I do agree as this it what it boils down to. Both sides officially downgrade each other and for what I can see SG/SGI is more active on that one. NST just do what they have been doing all along. Wikipedia is no battle ground though – it describes. We do all use the talk page for what it is intended for but outspoken critics of SG/SGI like myself and adherents like yourself and others should finally abstain from editing the article in major ways. The editing by adherents actually underlines why SG/SGI is being criticised for in the first place. Yet the B&P section lacks substance… I mean even SGI/SG must be able to describe what it believes in three presidents and so forth, the role of Nichiren. Give me a break.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Just imagine if somebody comes up with the Gohonzon Toda worshipped in front, maybe SGI/ SG would then find it to be a super replacement for the Dai-Gohonzon, maybe Toda and Ikeda would one day be referred to as being enlightened. If that were the case one would only describe it not being a universal fact though. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to turn this into a discussi0n of who did what to cause the split. I want docrtinal differences elucidated, in we are going to insist that SG is somehow dependent on another sect foor its doctrines. This seems quite neutral to ne. But I think I get your main point, about references: if a reference casts the SG in a negative light, it's objective and useful; if not, its meaning can be altered to make it negatiive; and if neither of these is possible, it's an "advert" ad can't be used. It wasn't me who brought up cherry picking references that don't say what we purport them to say - I was just agreeing that finding those is a worthwhile project. --Daveler16 (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I started this subsection with an attempt to leave readers with a cogent introduction to B&P. I provided the sources in my sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrandenburgG/). I know that Catflap08 felt that it read like a new adherent's manual. I am willing to work on that. Would you be willing to look at the first paragraph line by line?

1.The belief of the Soka Gakkai centers on recognizing that imminent “Buddhahood” exists in every person and can be awakened through practice.

2.Further, a person's social actions at every moment (the theory of ichinen sanzen) can lead to soka, or the creation of value.

3.Societal change is facilitated through "human revolution," a way of living in the world that creates value.

4.Many materials published by the Soka Gakkai convey the belief that members who share Nichiren's vow are the Bodhisattvas of the Earth.

BrandenburgG (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the edits made to the B and P section by BrandedburgG. Well sourced and clear.Goldenrescue15 (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Why do you not include the core belief that "SGI is the only true inheritor of the "Daishonin's way of master and disciple" [Daisaku Ikeda] and "For me, I realized that the most important thing is to not have a counterfeit practice. I realized that spiritual death means not having a true practice that is directly connected to the mentor." [Greg Wolpert member of the SGI-USA board of Directors] 2602:306:CD27:FDF9:D2C:CA61:BFEB:889F (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Mark Rogow 08/29/2015

Enquete Commission

@Catflap08, I just read Seiwert's article on the Enquete Commission. It is a shockingly critical condemnation of this committee's work. From what I read this was a politically motivated inquiry largely powered by the Socialist Party's (SPD) efforts to cling to power. The committee was also fueled by established interests who wanted to tamper down on non-traditional beliefs. It was primarily targeted at Scientology and then expanded to include some 600 religions, NRMs, and "psycho groups." According to Seiwert the committee's methodology was shoddy beyond belief and its recommendations were ignored by the coalition government that took power the following year (1999).

My question to you is, were you aware of the information that Seiwert provided? You were the editor who added the Enquete information, you insisted many times on the Talk page that it must remain there despite other people's objections, you were the one who reverted it when someone else removed it. You have mentioned that you speak German and must be well-informed about Germany. I am skeptical that you were not aware of the very same background material described by Seiwert.

We can all have different opinions about an article but it is despicable to willfully and repeatedly include faulty or incomplete information.

On the other hand, if you simply were not aware of Seiwert and the information he supplies, then I owe you an apology. BrandenburgG (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: John Carter (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not know yet what Seiwert’s critique was about as the quote is not made available. The SPD is not a socialist party, but the social democratic party (Social Democratic Party of Germany) which is also part of the current coalition. German being one of my mother tongues I am able to read the original text still being made available online by the German parliament – so much for being ignored, the enquette commission’s results are relatively mild in their wording and indeed Scientology was one of its focuses. SGI was also interviewed and I in person was present when the committee’s results were presented to SGI faithful flock (as I was one of them at the time) the general mood was not hostile as the committee simply concluded that SG was problematic due to its involvement in Japanese politics. May I add that being extremely interested in current affairs it is new to me that an enquettes commission’s findings to be ignored as it is usually a cross party institution that has a solely advisory status hence no legislative powers. At this point I do question Seiwert’s ability to come to the right conclusions. The committee basically looked at all major cults active in Germany. To some, like SG/SGI, it may have come as a surprise not to receive an official approval but simply a question mark if not exclamation mark. In the end SGI was described as being problematic.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It may be that SGI is chewed off that it still holds relatively few European official distinctions except in the case of Germany a coat of arms presented by the city of Bingen for buying a prestigious manor, but who am I to know.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08, please read the Seiwart chapter for yourself. It is a damning condemnation of the entire enquete process. Seiwart had intimate knowledge of the proceedings because he was an official expert (recommended by the Green Party). What an absolute sham! The chapter is available on Google Books (a few pages blocked out) and the link is in the reference.BrandenburgG (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh an expert recommended by the Green Party what an expert that must be then. So a so called expert, and just repeating because is so nice to hear, an expert recommended by the GREEN PARTY is enough to condemn a paper that was put together by a cross party committee of the German parliament? So much for POV. But good that this discussion is filed here. You should also get your facts right. It is not Hugo but Hubert Seiwert who is mentioned as one of the experts in the paper itself !!!! Who also is a staunch critic of Scientology. He may have been critical in the ways the committee worked but at no point in the paper was he critical to what conclusions was made about Soka Gakkai. If you pic an advocate pick them carefully. And even if Hubert did not like some aspects it is still an OFFICIAL paper. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This even gets better as a thorough search reveals that Seiwert is not really a staunch opponent of Scientology en contraire actually – got home from work did some more research. That being the case I would say keep the Seiwert ref as it is good to know where SGI is coming from --- does take some searching though. This is actually top notch that somebody like Hubert Seiwert criticizes the commission as is does underline why Soka Gakkai is mentioned along the lines of Scientology – good job BrandenburgG. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

In some circles Seiwert is even branded as cult apologist (mostly dealing with Scientology) – so for anyone digging in further into the matter this is truly interesting. Again thanks for that one. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: Dismissing a scholar's integrity with a flippant label, "Oh, he's one of those 'cult apologists'" is just ugly. The man is a professor emeritus at the University of Leibnitz. It is so wrong to dismiss a distinguished career of scholarship with a dismissive wave of the hand.

I can understand why there was cause for alarm in the 1990s with Waco, Branch Davidians, and Aum Shinrikyo. But over the course of the next 20 years the scholarship of the "cult apologists" has been far more accurate than the dire warnings of ACM alarmists.

Far more damage today is being done by fringe political groups---and football/rugby clubs.BrandenburgG (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2015 (

Oh by all means keep the Seiwert ref in. For anyone at least speaking German this is a truly valuable thread. --Catflap08 (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedia article e-mails sent

Sorry for the delay, guys. If you have already received copies of encyclopedia articles from me, or have requested them, they should be in your mailboxes now. Anyone else, drop me an e-mail and I will forward them to you. John Carter (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"The group was a hokkeko"

I can fond no source to confirm this statement in the 2nd paragraph of the Makiguchi section. Everything I see (Montgomery, Seagar and others) seems to indicate that, until 1951, the Soka Kyoiku Gakkai was based on Makiguchi's philosophy, using the practice of Nichiren Shoshu; and that individual members of the SG belonged to NS - but did the organization itself? It looks like it wasn't until Toda became president in 1951 that the SG incorporated as a religious organization, and formally aligned with NS. Is there anything to the contrary in any availablle source? If not, I would like to remove this sentence.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Another small edit: seemed odd to have a sub called "Criticism of Soka Gakkai's Promotion of Pacifism" followed by a sub detailing praise for the SG promotion of pacifism, so I made the title of that sub "Support for....." --Daveler16 (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

BrandenburgG (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@BrandenburG, did you say something? --Daveler16 (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Another edit: removed the first paragraph in "Organization". It stated, erroneously, that "originally" the SG was a "lay organization of Nichiren Shoshu", and there was not one source cited in the entire paragraph; also, it described the organizati0n of NS. I'm going to be working further on this sub section, as it gives no information about the way the SG is organized, Instead it mentions the SG-International, cites the existence of a few priests (but not blocks, districts, chapters, etc.), the status as an NGO, and that there is a "paucity" of scholarship (there are 325 footnotes in our article). Perhaps it would be easier to just change the name of this section and make a new one about how the SG is organized?--Daveler16 (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

According to NST website (http://www.nst.org/sgi-faqs/the-history-of-the-relationship-between-nichiren-shoshu-and-the-soka-gakkai/1-the-pioneer-days/), the SG became a lay organization affiliated w NS in 1952.BrandenburgG (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Taking Stock

Halloo everybody,

I’ve emerged from a pretty bruising year of adjunct teaching and I’m about ready to re-submerge for the new semester. It’s been about a year since I last visited your site and it will probably be another year before you see me again. So let me give some impressions about the page's progress and then run before anyone can throw mud at me.

Objectivity. I think you have reached an acceptable level of neutrality. I can see that there has been a lot of tit-for-tat on the talk page. But as far as the article is concerned I see both tit and tat well-represented. So I think the WP protocol has worked.

Size. I seriously believe your readers would want a shorter article. Look at the history section. Do you really need so many sub and sub-subsections? There’s a lot of room for condensing since there already are extensive stand-alone articles on the SG’s three presidents. From what I can see there is now also a stand-alone article about the SGI. Maybe some things can be transported there? At WP there is always free shipping.;)

Priority. As an outsider I would be more interested in getting right away to the “beliefs and practices” of the SG; its history is of secondary importance to me. Give me the “now” and, perhaps, at my leisure I will explore what happened in the 1930’s. That’s my opinion and perhaps you editors disagree, but I think a reordering will serve your readers well.

Cult and Cult of Personality. I get it, there are people who think the SG is a cult. But do I really need to see the C-word come up some 15 times in the article? That’s overkill. And then come all the defenses to these charges. Gives me a headache. My recommendation: create one subsection about the C-word and dump everything there. You nailed me: I bring a prejudice to the table. The C-word is thrown all the time at Hizmet and it bothers me.

So I bid you all farewell. Seriously, I can participate for a few days through, perhaps, the end of the Jewish holidays. Perhaps I might drop by on Thanksgiving and Christmas and see who is still yelling at me. FetullahFan (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

A few responses.

Thank you for your thinking the neutrality is acceptable. More than anything else, I think, that is one of the things we aim for one contentious topics.

Regarding placing beliefs before history, that might make sense, or, alternately, we could add to the history section some information on the beliefs, practices, and structure inherited from its parent. I personally think that would be the best reason to place history first, to document the inherited beliefs,practices, and structure.

Spinout articles would be a not unreasonable idea, I think, if we could agree on what should be spun out and find sufficient sourcing for them.

Regarding the "cult" word, yeah, it might well be possible that 15 is too much. Any ideas on specifically how to rewrite it? Personally, I wouldn't have any reservations about any proposals in that regard myself. Also, Criticism of Soka Gakkai or similar is certainly at least potentially a reasonable spinout, if we can find sufficient sourcing. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, @John Carter. I'm afraid I don't have enough of the biblio under my belt--or the time--to do extensive research. Coward, I am. If someone else is willing to do the hard work, I'd be happy to give my two cents, however. Seriously, I don't think it would be that terrible because I see many references are already there. Just add a new subsubsection (maybe under 4.7, "Public perception and criticism," and throw in what is now scattered all over the place. Then we can see how people respond.

FetullahFan (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I would be interested in working on this. Give me a couple of days. Like in the past I will work from my sandbox and wait for comments before I post.BrandenburgG (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@BrandenburgG: I may be beating a bit of a dead horse here, but in most cases I've always held that the bet indicators of what the content of our articles might be is the content of other existing reference sources related to this matter. I think I have at least a few available, of varying ages. If you want any, let me know. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I posted my proposed edit for a new subsection called "Cult Appellation" in my sandbox. Comments appreciated.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I just imported the "cult appellation" sub-sub-subsection from my sandbox. Hope this works for everyone.BrandenburgG (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I have long advo0cated moving B&P up and would be happy to see it happen. :@User:John Carter:, I think the perception of the Soka Gakkai having a "parent" is a misnomer that has been heartily endorsed by other editors, so ity's understandable there is a misconception about it. The SG was founded, and functioned, as an independent educators' group, based on the ideas of its founder, for years before associating with an established sect. The mechanics of practice were not received form that sect, but from Nichiren - all Nichiren sects practice fairly similar rituals. And the philosophy that informs the practice is purely the philosophy of the first 3 presidents; the concepts espoused by Nichiren Shoshu have been jettisoned by the SG. I can delineate some of these for you if you wish; but my point is that there's no reason to have history befo0re B&P if the idea is to exp-lain the relationship to a "parent", because the relationship is merely historical, not doctrinal. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I deposited one of the "cult" references in the "Cult appellation" section. It seems to me, if we have to have such a section, it's not nexcessary to have so many of the other sections deal with the same topic. I think I kept the context of the reference, and retained the citations.--Daveler16 (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved the Wilson reference in the opening to the "Cult appellation" section. Was going to move the "cult of personality" reference there, but it's already there, so I just removed it.--Daveler16 (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"Cult surrounding this figure"

The "Power and Wealth" subsection of the "Organization" section says "Seikyo Shinbun regularly reports on President Ikeda's activities, making evident 'the cult surrounding his figure.\'." The citation is Kisala, in Lewis, "pp. 139-152". That's pretty vague. Is there a page number for this reference? Thanks.--Daveler16 (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No response. I moved the fottnote to the "Cult appellation" section where it re-inforces the "cult of personality" statement. Did not include the sentence from the "Power and wealth" section as it is now redundant, and also vague in its source. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Minoru Harada

Minoru Harada is NOT a good person to be Soka Gakkai president! I prefer Daisaku Ikeda to be Soka Gakkai president rather that Minoru Harada, Daisaku Ikeda is a good person to be Soka Gakkai president. SA 13 Bro (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Does Soka Gakkai still consider that Shakyamuni is disciple of Nichiren ?

Did any member of Nichiren Buddhism ever wonder why Shakyamuni name is not mentioned nowhere in the Kyobon. And thanks are expressed to everybody except to the founder of Buddhism ?

Nichiren rather considered himself as the Bodhisattva Jôgyô and as the disciple of Shakyamuni. After his death on 1282, within two centuries, this belief is agreed as so by all branches of Lotus School. But from Nichiu (1409-1484) Nichiren suddendly became the Original Buddha and Shakyamuni considered then just a « Transitory » Buddha! . This affirmation is found nowhere in the Gosho, but in the Comments by his successors. Is this a Documentary Proof ?

Excommunication on 1991 by Nichiren Shoshu where the mouvement issued, could be considered as a luck permitting Soka Gakkai to revise this comment ? Rehabilitate Shakyamuni to his place would help Nichiren Buddhism to have a place among the other Buddhist shools? It would legitimate SGI on his way of contributing to Peace to the World ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.3.190.160 (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Organization

I'm going to be working on this extremely long annd complicated section to see if it can be a bot streamlined, and made more compatible with it's title - as there is currently very little about the functional organization of the Soka Gakkai. I ade one small change already: In the first paragraph, it had said SG-International has an international political presence as an NGO, and the source is McLaughlin. Actually, McLaughlin refers to the SG, not SGI,to wit: "...and Sōka Gakkai also maintains an international political presence as a registered Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) with the United Nations." So I deleted the word "International".

Any suggestions for streamlining? From anyone? Sub sections to move or remove? Re-writing of sub sections? Thanks.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Under Japanese politics I question the claim that Komeito leaders also hold positions in the Soka Gakkai, and that Komeito offices are in Gakkai establishments. I will try to find references to the contrary. Actually, I wonder if this section should be its own since it is not part of the organization of the Soka Gakkai.Goldenrescue15 (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"SG" maybe can't cite in short name for Soka Gakkai International because SG the top-level domain is stand for Singapore, so "SGI" maybe are the best citation for Soka Gakkai... SA 13 Bro (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Couple of edits. I added a description of the organization to the Organization intro. Under "Japanese Politics", the first paragraph was almost entirely made up, with a citation to a Levi McLaughlin timeline that did not say that the SG's "first attempt in influence" politics ended in multiple arrests. It did have some useful information, so I kept the reference, but included only what it says.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Added a quote to the Watanabe reference in "Power and Wealth" --Daveler16 (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Made some rather major changes to the Organization section. In fact, I divided it into 3 sections, and did a lot of revisions. I think it reads better, flows more smoothly, and is accurate and fair. But I understand if it's too much at once, andthere are objections or even reverts. Looking foward to discussion.--Daveler16 (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

May I know what is the reason you delete away the overseas' education institution that have the proper source?Kelvintjy (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

There is now an "Overseas" section, where they are mentioned. I thought it would make for clearer reading if the overseas institutions were grouped with the other overseas references. Is that okay? --Daveler16 (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I had transfer the info to the overseas' section.Kelvintjy (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated section removed

Someone (sorry, can't decipher who) inserted a section that was nothing but a link to an article about Kenshokai. I removed it, as it has nothing to do with the Soka Gakkai (other than the SG in mentioned in passin in the article)--Daveler16 (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I posted a balanced view of Gakkai study as opposed the Brannen's statement of incredible "indoctrination" in the Toda section.Ltdan43 (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks well sourced. A welcome change.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hubert Seiwert

I just wonder if references made to Hubert Seiwert should also mention that some regard him as a Scientology apologist? Is it also common use that relatively recent threads are achieved?--Catflap08 (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I put a note next to his name linking readers to the article about Seiwert in the German Wikipedia. If anyone wants to translate it, I suppose we can start an article about him in the English WP and then link his name to that.

BrandenburgG (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It is up to editors to keep in the Hubert Seiwert comment/quote or not. Even the German Wikipedia entry does not go far beyond bibliographical facts. Further research also within blogs (which do not count as reliable sources) do paint the picture of a scientology apologist. At the end we are talking of the findings of an official committee and the “counter” argument is supported by a source anything but not dubious. I asked within the German article for a clarification on that one. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Repetition in lede

The final sentences in the lede now read: "While Ikeda has been successful in moving the group towards mainstream acceptance in some areas, it is still widely viewed with suspicion in Japan.[6][7] The organization has been the subject of substantial criticism over the years, often finding itself embroiled in public controversies[8] especially in the first three decades following World War II.[3][9][10][11][12] According to James R. Lewis, although the Soka Gakkai has matured into a responsible member of society, it still grapples with negative public perception.[13]

OK, I get what prior editors wanted to say. But there are three repetitive statements of the same idea: "widely viewed with suspicion...", "substantial criticism," "negative public perception." This is overkill.

What I propose is, ""While Ikeda has been successful in moving the group towards mainstream acceptance in some areas, it is still widely viewed with suspicion in Japan and has found itself embroiled in public controversies[6][7][8][13] especially in the first three decades following World War II.[3][9][10][11][12]" BrandenburgG (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right and like the change you propose. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

All leftism Japanese especially the entire of Soka Gakkai member in Japan should get rid of Shinzō Abe, he's a descendant of fascism and also the worst government in Japan! SA 13 Bro (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@ SA 13 Bro Why is it then that SG affiliated Komeito supports the LDP government led by Shinzō Abe?--Catflap08 (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 SGI should affiliating work with Tomiichi Murayama and Yukio Hatoyama, it should not work with Shinzō Abe that are having fascist's cogitation. SA 13 Bro (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I am going to make the change I proposed back on November 16th.BrandenburgG (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this the place for a dicussion aboutthe merits of the Japanese PM? --Daveler16 (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

SGI should not work with Shinzō Abe, here is not the place for discussion about him. SA 13 Bro (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ikeda and Priesthood subsections

Changed the statement that all Gohonzon--Daveler16 (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC) derive from the Dai Go0honzon to the less dogmatic "the Dai G is central to NS doctrine". There are a couple of other changes I'll make in these sections, mostly semantic. This might be a "minor change", but I'm not sure, so I didn't check it off as such.--Daveler16 (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a great erroneous mythology surrounding the Dai-Gohonzon that should be clarified, but this may not be the entry to do it. I will check the DG page.Ltdan43 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not starting a discussion of the DaiG. I just changed the entry from "It is the source of power for all Gohonzons" - which is not something universally believed -- to "it's central to NS docftrine", which it what it is. You're right - details about that doctrine can be dicusses elsewhere--Daveler16 (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC).

Fixed more syntax, and added a note onthe SG interpretation of "sanctuary".--Daveler16 (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Added the latst activity (2014-15) from the SG side of the schism. Fixed more syntax problems.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Corrected misquoted Metraux citation and included correct page number. Made a few more grammatical and syntax revisions.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

From the first para in "The Ikeda Years" removed references to matters just covered in previous paras. Left citations because thyey still apply.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Relation to NS

I moved the one sentence on the "Views on the Priesthood" sub section into the "Differences With NS" sub section (in Beliefs and Practices)and propose to delete the "Views on the Priesthood" subsection. It's redundant; this is for the sake of readability. I also think the "Differences" subsection can be moved down (but still within B&P) as neither priests nor NS are a major concern of the SG except as a small school that is also within the Nichiren fold.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The relation to NS section centers on the Ogasawara incident, and the relation to NS in the seventies focuses on the Sho-Hondo when in fact, the machinations of Yamazaki and the splinter groups like Shoshinkai that were excommunicated or left NS are more relevant to the overall relationship, but that would make the SG entry even longer.Ltdan43 (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I removed a sentence about alleged wiretapping in the 1980's. The source was the Communist Party, and it quoted only its own members. Plus, the sentence hopped from "accused of" to "illegal operation masterminded by..." and txhere was no mention tat the accusation was proved.--Daveler16 (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

As I suggested Dec. 24th - and there has been no objection - "Differences with NS" now moved down within the Beliefs and Practices section. --Daveler16 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources in Japanese

I've found 14 footnotes that I think are exclusively in Japanese (might be off by one or two). Some of the statements they support are pretty neutral (e.g., that there's a Soka kindergarten); but a few might be considered controversial (e.g. "the Seikyō Shinbun reported that it had been found innocent of all charges” or (“Scholars have linked political motivations to reports in the press that associated the Soka Gakkai with Aum Shinrikyo.”). These need translation, or removal, according to WP guidelines [[1]]--Daveler16 (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I removed a few, but not all, the Japanese-only sourced material.--Daveler16 (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Makiguchi section

It appears a huge part odf the section on Tsunesaburo Makiguchi has been deleted. I can find no trace of the edit in History, and there is no explanation anywjere. Whoever did it - major edits are discussed here on the Talk Page. As Makiguchi is extremely important - the Soka Gakkai was foundfed on his philosophy, and he founded it -- this is just not acceptable.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Fixed it, except the pic is gone.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I kinda think the begining is important.Ltdan43 (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Enlarged Ramseyer citation to balance allegation that Japan was committed to religious freedom. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Taking stock

Halloooo dear editors and Happy New Year to you all. I'm just here for a brief landing before the spring semester begins in full force, then I'm gone like the birds flying south.

I have to commend all the hearty editors. You have made great progress from the last time I visited. Here are a few of my thoughts.

1- I think the article reaches a commendable level of objectivity. I would recommend that you remove the "in dispute" tag that warns readers that they are entering a forbidden planet in Galactica Wikipedia. All sides are represented and, IMHO, in the right balance.

2- Seriously, this article is an unending road. There is duplication within the article and also duplication with other WP articles. Would it drive you crazy, dear editors, to take a few months to condense, cndnse, and _cndns?

3- I love history, that's how I make a living. I am fascinated by the history section in the article. But I think I'm a rare bird among readers. Most people want to get to the essence of the article. What is the core belief, what is the practice, what is its unique perch in the religious world? I would suggest that you switch the history and the "beliefs and practices" section but, alas, that is also quite long. What is the solution? I have no idea.

See you during spring break. FethullahFan (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

PS, I forgot my PW so I had to switch my id. But it's still me.

Question about neutrality. I read through the article and it seems fairly neutral to me, as far as it goes. Can anyone note what the real concerns are with neutrality at this stage? Thanks. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I certainly cannot. Seems rather gratuitous to me.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with FethullahFan, Cleopatran Apocalypse and Daveler16. I will remove the tag. Lmkei22 (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Toda Years: Relationship with Nichiren Shoshu

I believe we should take a look at this section. In particular I think there are a lot of value-laden and sloppy statements here. For example, "highs and lows." What is a high and what is a low? One person might say X is a high and another might label it a low. We've talked in the past about whether NS is, in fact, a "parent organization" of the SG. It was the focus of some heated discussions and I seem to recall that we should just bypass this phraseology with more neutral terminology and let the issue be discussed in other forums. BrandenburgG (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Under Reconstruction of the Organization I removed the 1962 Brenner anecdote of one person who couldn't find advanced study material. The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin as well as the Record of Orally Transmitted Teachings were readily available as well as Gakkai publications. I don't think it warrants inclusion in the Soka Gakkai entry.Ltdan43 (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed the last sentence of the first Para in "Great shakubuku march". There was no citation at all.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Shortened the sub section by removing repetitious references and making the perspective broad and general. Kept Murata and Montgomery citations.--Daveler16 (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed last paragraph from "Death and legacy". Point was made strongly in preceding sections and there's no need to add one incident to illustrate something already stressed.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Added references

Added a couple of references to "Buddhism IN America" to the Proselyting subsection of Beliefs and Practices.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, copied part of the "Life Force" subsection into the Toda section - it had menti0ned his "prison awakenings" without explaining what they were. I think it's clearer now. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Article is too long

I think this entry for the Soka Gakkai is too long. I checked other encyclopedia explanations of the Soka Gakkai and their inclusion of Nichiren Shoshu related text rarely exceeds 300–400 words. The Wikipedia entry is over 1,800 words. I would like to reduce that to a reasonable word count. For example: Encyclopedia of Relion 123 words, The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism 45 words, Religions of the World 166 words, Encyclopedia of Buddhism 64 words.Ltdan43 (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're proposing. Do you suggest cutting this article to a few dozen or hundred words? The length is not too bad, in my opinion. Rarely do people read through a whole article. They jump around to the parts they're interested in, don't they? But if you are unsure and propose various components for pruning, then let's hear it. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

One of the things I've been working on is shortening the article. There has been a lot of repetition, too many anecdotes, and just overall clumsy construction- all of whi9ch, I think, make it difficult for an average reader to muddle through and come away with something edifying. And yes, there is way too much about Nichiren Shoshu. Cleopatra Apocalypse, my impression is that it's only the Nichiren Shoshu stuff LtDan is suggesting cutting to a few hundred words - is that right? --Daveler16 (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, for example, I think the the Sho-Hondo section of Nichiren Shoshu is too long.Ltdan43 (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I re-arranged the sub-section in Beliefs and Practices so there is more of a flow. I think there's still a lot of repetition throughout the section, and we can maybe look at removing somme redundancies.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW, theres is a good piece on the Sho-Hondo in the Taiseki-ji Wikipedia entry. I also think the transition of high priests—66th to 67th—and the formation of the Shoshinkai under "conflict with the priesthood" is more appropriate for the Nichiren Shoshu or Taiseki-ji entry.Ltdan43 (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to combine all the Nichiren Shoshu material into one section and edit it down to what is relevant to the Soka Gakkai. The priesthood material is over 1800 words and much of it is more about the priesthood rather than explaining the Soka Gakkai. I think something on the order of plus or minus 600 words would be more appropriate.198.72.221.176 (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Please feel free.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Daveler.Ltdan43 (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

While I agree the Nichiren Shoshu references should be consolidated, I do think the relationship is important enough that it desrves its own section - rather than being buried as a sub-section under Ikeda. So I moved it and made it a Section.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"Forced"

In the Toda section, "Great shakubuku march" 2nd paragraph: the discussion of "forced conversion" seems pointless. Someone in 1963 said Toda used "forced conversion", someone else a few years later said he did not. We already have that the method was aggressive and controversial, so this just seems like a space-filler to me. I's like to remove those sentences.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Made the change. Also expanded the Aruha fn, which is vague ("pp, 104-114")so that it includes more of what is said in those pages.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a conflict about how Japanese society/government viewed this new, independent from the Emperor. religion appeared. To define it today by 1950 standards is unreasonable. There is overpowering proof if research is done that the SG is a world-class organization. I approve of the changes that Daveler16 and others have made.Ltdan43 (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

"Great Shakubuku March"

I removed one phrase: "- thereby smoothly avoiding the need to meet Toda's request that his body should be dumped in Shinagawa bay". The "smoothly avoiding" is a thinly veiled bit of snarky editorializing. The point that the membership totals were never confirmed is stated clearly and objectively in a subsequent sentence.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I added clarification on the Gakkai leadership position on extreme shakubuku.Ltdan43 (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I moved two sentences from this section to "Cult appellation". The first was a statment about when the Soka Gakkai entered politics, which it seems wasn't really relevant to "the great shakubuku march", which was about propagation. The second was the sentence "The use of violence and intimidation as a part of the shakubuku campaign during The Great Propagation March has been dismissed by the Gakkai as "excessive zeal on the part of uneducated members," but evidence shows that much of it before 1967 was actually organized by its high-ranking leader": the citation for that one, Christine Naylor, does not use the word "violence", does not mention that this was during the "great shakubuku march" or that it was "before 1967" - and she does not mention it in connection with Toda at all. So I cleaned it up and moved it to a section where it might make more sense.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

In reading the section again, I noticed that in the last paragraph, it stated that Toda "demanded" an increase to 750,000 families. Many sources point that when he announced this target, it was a personal challenge, not a demand upon the membership. I changed the word demand and added a source that quotes Toda in his inaugural speech.Ltdan43 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@LtDan43 and @Daveler16: I appreciate your input here but the section still does not work for me. I think that ultimately this section should be an independent WP article. We have here a great sociological phenomenon: the rapid jump start of a group within a short span of 7 years. It might have been during a "rush hour of the gods" but none of the other NRMs could compete with this growth. Why? And why did this growth prove sustainable, internationable (sorry for inventing a word), and wealthy?

I am going to put up some things that I have been working on in my sandbox. I want to follow White's choice and use "propagation drive" instead of "shakubuku march" because it is more understandable to readers. I want to introduce three narratives to explain the growth of the movement including its own rationale. Also, I want to leave readers with a taste of the leadership of Toda and Ikeda because there is no story without them and this should not be understated.

However, after posting everything, my goal is to lift the entire section into its own article.

BrandenburgG (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure it deserves its own article? There are events on the Soka Gakkai (really, in any religion's) history that are significant to the group; but, removed from the context of the group's history, are they significant enough that the general public would seek out a separate article?--Daveler16 (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it will get much more attention if left on the Soka Gakkai page. It is a key part of the history of the SG. I think we should continue to improve what we have.Ltdan43 (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. Article is too long. This section is WAY too long. Yes, it's a key part of the history but it shouldn't be here. And I'm a primary author. The only way out is to condense it here and put the meat somewhere else.BrandenburgG (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I was also making changes, which I had been stating here on the Talk page, and it was, I think, improving - but now those changes are gone without us having a chance to discuss it. Didn't you have trouble before making wholesale changes without discussing them first? I'm not objecting outright to your changes, but it would have been nice to arrive at them, rather than having them dropped on the article like this. --Daveler16 (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

BrandenburgG: I also would have liked more discussion before replacing the whole section. Most acrimonious and biased views seem to have died down on this page. We need to have as much of a consensus among those still participating as possible.Ltdan43 (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you have not read my edits carefully. I incorporated all previous aspects of the contents into my edits with some slight condensation. I added important new information because I felt that the Soka Gakkai's narrative of its own expansion is important information for readers. I don't think this qualifies as "a major rewrite."

I have worked hard on this and other WP articles. Because my business dwindles before and after holidays and then goes into overdrive after them, I can volunteer only in spurts and then I go into long periods of hibernation. This has always been the pattern of my participation. I apologize if my style conflicts with your patterns. You won't see me much in April.

I believe my participation has been useful to this article. I bring an "insider/outsider" perspective because although I joined the SG, I am at the extreme edges of the organization. I chart a very independent and impetuous course.

I want to feel welcome here and felt that your comments above went overboard.

BrandenburgG (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow. No one said you're not welcome - in fact, I for one said I liked your changes. Just a little heads up next time, okay?--Daveler16 (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I may have missed your edits comments. I only drop in here from tine to time. I like your edits and have no problem with them. Just make sure we are all on the same page.Ltdan43 (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think "we're all on the same page", or need to be - unless you mean just a general "we all want to improve the article". But I think differing POVs are healthy and keep the entry from tilting too far one way or another. --Daveler16 (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Peace. All is well. Starting tomorrow my job goes into hyperdrive. You won't see me here for a couple of weeks. It's work, not hard feelings. Happy EasterBrandenburgG (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Further reading

The Nichiren Shoshu guide to heretical religions belongs more properly on the Nichiren Shoshu entry,m so I removed it. I also removed a link to a story about Soka U-Ameirca, because the story has been updated and now defeats the purpose for which it was placed here (it was about a lawsuit over religious discrimination, and the update is that the court found that nothing happened).--Daveler16 (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed Yano books as they were written by a disgruntled ex member whose purpose is not to inform. Added Yatomi. What is the purpose of having books that are evidently only in Japanese in the "further reading" secti0n of an English WP entry?--Daveler16 (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

References you can't read means they may or may not be relevant or valid. If at all possible, English is better since there is plenty of credible references available.Ltdan43 (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

"Non-pacifist" Komeito

BTW, a previous editor left a remark about "the non-pacifist Komeito party." That is very judgmental and oversimplistic. There is a lot of controversy about the party's support for revisions to Article 9 of the constitution. Just state this as a fact and leave sources. It is not our job to place labels on this as "non-pacifist." BrandenburgG (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)