Talk:Soka Gakkai/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Peace, culture, and education

I thought I was going to be out of here for a couple of weeks but the business spike never materialized. You're stuck with me.

Quite a bit of SG primary sources emphasize the theme of "peace, culture, and education." It seems that the SG article, strangely, picks up this theme in the lede, mentions it again in the history section, and then drops it. I think the article touches on the topics of peace, culture, and education but it is not organized around these themes.

I want to propose such a restructuring. The section that is now "Peace Activities" (after B&P) should be relabeled "Peace, Culture, and Education." Then we provide three subsections: Peace, Culture, Education. We then sink into these subsections a lot of the material that is now elsewhere. For example, all of the information on education is now under "Organization" which is not intuitive. R Instead, this information would be pulled under Peace, Culture, Education: Education.

In the past I just would have done this but after being roughed up a little by you guys last week I'm exercising constraint. BrandenburgG (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a regular editor, but anything to make the article easier to read and more thematized would be helpful. Right now it is extremely long and feels highly unwieldy. Themes are useful ways of conveying information meaningfully. Two cents anyway. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Too long,too unwieldy. BrandenburgG (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes! I think the "Organization" section ought to be just it's current lede, the "Membership" subsection, and maybe the "List of Presidents". Including all the other stuff there might give the impression that every member of the organization is, or has to be, involved with organized peace activities, or has to send their kid to s Soka run school - those are all auxiliaries to the "Organization". BTW, I intend to move Beliefs and Practices up to the top, where it belongs.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I clarified Nichiren Buddhism's relation to the original Lotus Sutra in the opening and gave a more accurate view of the Toda's goal of 750,000 converts. It was more a personal resolution rather than a "challenge" to the membership.Ltdan43 (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

As discussed above, I am trying to pull the varying strands into a coherent structure under the theme of "Peace, culture and education." BrandenburgG (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I finished my work of tidying up the subsections by pulling into "Peace, culture and education" strands from other sections. I need to step back for a bit due to work. In the task of simplifying the article perhaps we can also take a look at condensing the number of subsections. For example, instead of the current "Criticisms of the SG Peace Polices" and "Support of the SG Peace Policies", perhaps one subsection "Criticisms and Support of the SG Peace Policies" can be created.

BrandenburgG (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm the one who made the "Support" sub section, so I'll take a look at it. I like what you're doing - the less, the merrier, in this case.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

B&P once more

I'm going through Beliefs and Practices to make sure there's nothing in it that requires reading the previous section (History). As soon as that's done, I would like to move it up to the beginning. I have always believed -- and I have seen no genuine arguments to the contrary -- that that is what most readers are looking for, so I see no reason to bury it. I will hesitate, if there are any objections, until it's discussed here; otherwise, I will move the section soon.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I took out some sentences that had more to do with other sects than with Soka Gakkai. And it seemed to me that one might conclude that a proest named Nichikan had conceived the Gohonzon, so I made it clear it was Nichiren.--Daveler16 (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems the image of the Gohonzon does nothing to enhance the understanding of the SWoka Gakkai by people not already members, and serves only to offend those who are Soka Gakkai members. In other words, it's not serving any positive, helpful purpose. So I'm removing it.--Daveler16 (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

18 days, no objections raised - so I moved Beliefs and Practices. Thank you. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Changed some Japanese terms to their English equivalents.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing dubious and redundant references

Half the mentions of "Brian Victoria" were criticisms of his scholarship and questions about his credentials; and the statements he was being used to support had support from other, more reputable scholars (e.g., Ramseyer). So I removed him from the entry.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I reduced the Gohonzon section to a more concise entry, removing organizational terminology.Ltdan43 (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks pretty good.  I fixed a typo.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Beliefs and Practices

I find that the B&P section is disorganized and lacks flow. Rather than some ten separate subsections without much connecting organization, I would like to make two subsection headings--(A) Beliefs, (B) Practices--and organize the rest as sub-subsections according to the heading where they sort best. Any feedback? BrandenburgG (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I did not receive any feedback, hot or cold. So I went ahead and did as I had suggested. I am happy to revert if anyone wants to discuss some more. However, I am pleased with how it looks. This section is now consistent with other sections that have section, subsection and sub-subsection divisions. I find it easier to follow the flow with some of the topics broken down under "Beliefs" and others under "Practices."

BrandenburgG (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Lotus Sutra

I am also having a problem with this subsection. It seems to me a lot of the content here belongs in the Lotus Sutra article. This shouldn't be some alternate article. If editors have problems with the actual LS article, they should enter the fray and try to fix it--not try to keep an alternate article here.

The subsection now reads "Beliefs" so here we should be discussing SG beliefs about the LS, perhaps something also about the SG's historical take on the LS. Nothing else.

At any rate, this is my two cents. Anyone agree or disagree? BrandenburgG (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I did a draft of a rewrite which you can check out on my sandbox. It's a bit too long IMHO but I think it is better than the current entry. Comments are welcome!BrandenburgG (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit long but I for one think it's good. Editors, I'm sure, will edit. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going to put it in. Hopefully people will help condense.BrandenburgG (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You evidently also did some re-arranging. I wish we could discuss changes before they happen, Well, I'm going to make one small further change.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Taking Stock

Hi everyone. It's been a while but I'm on intersession now and have a few minutes. I reviewed the work you've done these past few months and here are some of my exalted thoughts:

Overall I think the article is getting stronger and stronger. It is comprehensive and balanced. It gives a good deal of detail about what the sG is and also gives proper attention to its criticisms. I think you have hit the balance here just right.

The article is still oppressively long. I don't think a reader will want to read the entire thing!!!! If your goal is to scare away readers, you are succeeding. If you want to attract and involve readers, you have a long way to go.

Here is my suggestion: inspire yourself by the Latter Day Saints (article, at least). It is a shell article, nice and pithy. But it refers readers to more comprehensive satellite articles. In your nomenclature, it sends readers to separate articles on Beliefs & Practices, History, etc. This gives readers the concise treatment while also affording them the opportunities for details.

Secondly, you need to look at some of your categorization. Can you reduce some of your subsubsections? For example, do you really need two subsubsections (Criticisms of/Support for) the SG's Promotion of Peace Efforts? Just condense this into one section and include both points of views.

Any way, good work. See you before the Fall semester. Fethullahsfan (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fethullahsfan, welcome back, noble partner. Obviously you are right on this length point as others have indicated. Inspired, I condensed the Lotus Sutra section. I also did some subsection work. I think there is a lot more work to go. I personally agree with you on spinning this article out to independent articles but I think this will require some more consensus. BrandenburgG (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Came here to report a change, and it's kind of in line with the above. I consolidated "Criticism of Peace Activities" and "Support for Peace activities" into one subsection called "Perceptions". --Daveler16 (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I moved some of the info in "Cult Appellation" to "Oneness of Mentor and Disciple", where it seems more appropriate. Also removed some repetition from "Cult Appellation".--Daveler16 (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Consolidated the "Mainstream media" and "Tabloid coverage" sunsections into "Public erception". Also removed a couple of redundant sentences. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Beliefs

I know we have been working for a long time on B&P but I still don't think we've nailed it. I think the Practices subsection works but the Beliefs subsection does not adequately describe the beliefs of SG members nor the source of these beliefs. In reflection, this should be the heart of the entire article. Really, this is what readers want to understand, far more so than the history or organizational structure. "What are the beliefs of SG members? What make their beliefs unique or controversial?"

My suggestion is to break Beliefs and Practices into two sections, one for beliefs, one for practices.

Any thoughts? BrandenburgG (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Please check out. I made the suggested change. I think it is easier to read now. I think "Practices" holds pretty well on its own. But I would like to suggest taking "Beliefs" into a bit different direction. Instead of a disparate list of beliefs, I would like to suggest subcategories: "Beliefs from Shakyamuni," "Beliefs from Nichiren," and "Beliefs from Makiguchi, Toda, and Ikeda." Any thoughts? BrandenburgG (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I made the suggested changes as per above. I think there are major beliefs from ND that must be included. Of course the downside is that the article is becoming longer and longer. I personally like the idea that has been floated to spin off sections of the article into stand-alone articles. Someone mentioned the Latter Day Saints article is like this. At any rate, open to feedback, reversions, etc. BrandenburgG (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I added a sentence to the "Neveer Disparaging" sub section. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

External Links

Added links to the Ikeda Center for Peace, and the Fuji Art Museum. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

And, more Beliefs and Practices

I think B&P -- the B, anyway -- could still use some re-ordering. It seemed clearer when it was by topic rather than chronologically. What do we think? --Daveler16 (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing. I would like to see beliefs framed more in Nichiren's words rather than just the Lotus Sutra. Although Nichiren's teachings are rooted in his interpretation of the sutra, practitioners embrace and practice the teachings of Nichiren.Ltdan43 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the "beliefs" section does not sufficiently emphasize the contributions from Nichiren. Perhaps this can be addressed by adding content to this section? I tried by adding a new subsection, "On Establishing the..."

The downside is that the article keeps on getting longer. But maybe we should first concentrate on conveying the full content and then worry about finding ways to slim down the article.BrandenburgG (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@ user:BrandenburgG and user:daveler16

Would you please be so kind to unveil, to an objective reader, your own association with the group presented here?--Tonisana2 (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Okay since none of the two bothered to answer within a month, even though editing the article, this should serve as an answer on its own right. --Tonisana2 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, @Tonisana2? I have never seen a request such as this on WP! Nor have I ever seen anything in WP guidelines that lands close to your objection.

If you have any problem with my posts--the quality of my sources or their neutrality--please let me know. As can be seen in many posts on several articles, whenever I've been called on a posting I have been open to criticisms and revisions. I will continue to do so.

The implications of your request are quite chilling. No Catholics may post on Catholic sites? No Muslims on Muslim sites? No LDS on LDS sites? No union members on union sites? No Chicagoans on Chicago sites? No Olympians on Olympic site? No Americans on American sites?

My User page has all the information I feel I want to reveal.

BrandenburgG (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@BrandenburgG This may be due to the fact that you concentrate on one article only (most of all). For that you should look up single purpose accounts, conflict of interest and advocacy. Furthermore considering that SGI is basically run like a corporation which holds massive real estate in Japan (and around the globe) and shares in major Japanese businesses I find your answer “chilling” and revealing at the same time. Your comparison with other faiths therefore falls short and blends out that SGI via Komeito is in the process to alter the pacifist nature of the Japanese Constitution. Articles like the ones on Catholicism draw a large amount of people (it’s a world RELIGION) which in the end will ensure some sort of balance. So how advocates of a fringe religious movement will ensure a balanced article and neutral point of view is to my mind, as a reader, questionable - and honestly it’s actually a real cracker. The article’s history speaks for itself – especially the way other views are singled out and in due course deleted. Ta ra! Tonisana2 (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Shortening

I have a proposed, much shorter, revision of Beliefs on the public Sandbox here. Let me know how it looks, please. Thank you. --Daveler16 (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Added paragraph to "Practice" to place the Object and invocation in context. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

No objections noted, so I did it. I think it's shorter and a little easier to follow. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Daveler16, I think this is a big step forward. I see pros in the changes you made--but also some cons.

Pros:

It is definitely shorter than the prior version. IMHO this has been an overriding concern expressed by not a few editors.

In retrospect, I think the subcategorization scheme I had proposed in the earlier version made the article needlessly complex. I don't think the readers of the article gained much from it. Too many trees were clogging the forest.

Cons:

I wish you had left some more time before making the change. I read your sandbox but was still trying to digest.

I am a student studying the SG and not in the active membership. Still, I enjoy reading its publications and I'm not sure the current article as it now stands fully captures some of the beliefs of the SG which are pretty unique in the religious world.

Just my thoughts.BrandenburgG (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place for a comprehensive examination of the finer points f Buddhist doctrine - so I tried to include the most essential points for an understanding of Soka Gakkai belie, especially since there are so few third party sources that examine doctrine as taught in the SG, and we're so heavily dependent on its own publications for this section. IOW, this isn't a Soka Gakkai study website and so, I think, ought to be a simple as we can make it and still be true to the subject. If it whets someone's appettite for more, great; but at the sae time, it's not WP's place to convert anyone. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Tonisana2

Not one non-SGI or former SGI has contributed to the article. This fact alone makes the entire article's neutrality suspect.2602:306:CC5C:D849:4C4F:9A88:CDA4:EA07 (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC) M.Rogow

I'm a former SG member, very former. I do subscribe to their publications and I love Ikeda's writings. My beef is that the organization, at least where I live, is conservative and formal, not catching up to Ikeda. That's my incentive editing here. Does this qualify or disqualify me from your perdpective?BrandenburgG (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Time to close shop

Hi magnificent editors.

Just because I have not been present does not mean I haven't sneaked a peak at your work now and then. Here are some thoughts....

I think the article is quite strong now. It is thorough and balanced, IMHO. Yes, I know some might say that critics and proponents each deserve a 50% cut in proceeds but I beg to differ. Check out Theodore Roosevelt's "man in the arena" speech. The article should focus, as it is, on the man in the arena. Critics deserve a place befitting reliable sources...but not 50%

I think it's time to bring the article down to a landing, to turn off the lights, to move on to greener pastures. By all means, keep on manicuring but return to your families and lives. Perhaps you can make a section or two more encyclopedic in style. Perhaps you can outsource some material into some spinoff articles to shorten the length of this LARGE entry. But with time. Take a break, you deserve it!

See you around around Thanksgiving or Christmas. Fethullahsfan (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Critics and proponents deserve space in proportion to the reliable independent sources available. If 99% of reliable sources are critical about a topic, then ideally 99% of the article should reflect what those sources say. I, too, have been observing here from time to time. I have no idea what proportion of reliable sources are critical of this topic. But if more than 50% of the sources are critical, then it's reasonable for more than 50% of the article to be devoted to the criticism. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we've gad this discussion before. One problem that comes to mind is the definition of terms namely "credible" and "all". I too have no idea what the proportion is, or even how many sources there are. Also, we have found that many of the sources are as much as 50 years old, and whatever credibility they may have once have has been overtaken by time and events. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi @talk:Amatulic#top|talk. You are correct. Claro. Gewiss. % 100 doğru. "Follow the yellow brick sources!"

So we are not dealing here with a poorly sourced article with 311 notes. Many of the sources are very big names familiar to anyone in the fields of history/sociology of religion: Bryan Wilson, Richard Seager, Karel Dobbelaere. Some are well-respected but not as well-known: Macioti, Hurst, Machacek. Some like James Lewis are famous but controversial. Others like McLaughlin and Fisker-Nielsen are fine up-and-coming scholars.

We should as you state follow the scent of sources. I think the editors who did revisions over the last couple of years have done exactly that. In general I think WP editors should follow certain guidelines: highly regarded scholars over those with fewer records of research, scholars over journalists, recent scholarship over less timely work, and verifiable English sources over untranslated/unverifiable ones. We have to be true to the general thesis of scholars and not cherry pick foil comments. Fethullahsfan (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Before we divide media coverage of the Soka Gakkai in half based on pros and cons, it is imperative to understand how Japanese journalism differs from Western journalism. Professor of media ethics at Doshisha University, Takesato Watanabe is co-author of A Public Betrayed, An Inside Look at Japanese Media Atrocities and Their Warnings to the West, explains why Soka Gakkai receives unfair treatment from Japanese media. “Only a handful of Japanese reporters have received any university training in their profession. Of the approximately 20,000 working journalists in Japan, perhaps only 200 to 300 (1 to 1.5 percent) actually have degrees in journalism, and perhaps only a fraction have an understanding of journalistic ethics as are regularly understood in other major industrialized democracies.” In an essay for Global Citizens he outlines ten reasons for anti-Gakkai coverage. Among them are: A power structure which derives legitimacy through preservation of the imperial system; The scope and scale of the Soka Gakkai’s political influence; The Japanese media’s dependence on large corporate advertisers; The Gakkai history of defiance and autonomy; The uncompromising religious convictions of the Soka Gakkai; The framework of social intolerance in Japan; The proliferation of media stereotypes. (, p. 213) It wasn’t until Western scholars fairly recently stopped depending on Japanese journalists and did their own independent research that accurate depictions of the Gakkai appeared.Ltdan43 (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Help, Ikeda picture

I tried posting a more recent picture of DI to replace the 66-year-old one from 1960. A more recent picture is now available at Wikipedia Commons wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/DaisakuIkedaTokyoMay2010.jpg/187px-DaisakuIkedaTokyoMay2010.jpg

I can't figure out how to post the small-pixel version. Help, please! BrandenburgG (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Fixed the size. Lost the caption. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Educational Activities

Is it really necessary to have 8 sub-sections under "Educational Activities"? Do the various levels of schooling each need a separate section? Couldn't they just al be listed under a "Educational Institutions" or "Soka Schools" heading? --Daveler16 (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There isn't enough substance to deserve a separate section for each.Ltdan43 (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I look at it again and don't really see a way to change it so it's any clearer - just removing the headlines wouldn't really accomplish much.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The reason why I listed all the education institution previously 2 years ago. Below is what I wrote then. I quote :

The reason why I list down all the school is because of all the negative information that is written by the editor in the introduction page. Even the history section is filled with negative articles. By listing down all the school that is establish in the world, this may let the reader understand why Soka Gakkai is very negative at the same time managed to establish the education institution in 8 countries ranging from kindergarten to university. If it is really a brainwashing cult, how come there are 7 countries (exclude Japan) that have Soka Education Institution. Why the 7 countries never ban these institution for trying to brainwash the children into becoming "quasi-fascist", "fascist", "militant", "overzealous", "manipulationist" and "authoritarian".

Unquote. If you can find a better way to improve the article, please do so.Kelvintjy (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No, my point was that, after examining it to see if it could be improved, I decided it looks just fine as it is. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Small edit

Removed the Japanese characters in the lede, so it's all in English. --Daveler16 (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

International perception

Someone edited the statement about the Concordat in Italy, excising everything except that it allows taxpayer money to fund the Soka Gakkai. That's rather selective, but to avoid any controversy I've replaced that staetment with the whole sentence frm the cited source. So that is still there, but so are other benefits of the Concordat.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That source is effectively a blog. If you're going to claim that SG is a consultant to the Italian government you need to do better. Mcewan (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't claim that - I quoted the source, which does NOT say SG is a consultant. I think we agree (?)--Daveler16 (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Tone of entry

I'm somewhat familiar with the Soka Gakkai as the Soka U is nearby. It seems to me this article is a little tilted toward the negative. Most of it is objective, but there's a whole section on "Cult Appellation". Is that necessary? And an hour long video by disgruntled former leaders?? --JackBnimble10 (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: why did you reinsert the YouTube link added by Catflap? Does it pass WP:YT copyright-wise? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll take another look at it with that in mind. What makes you think it violates copyright? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The video appears to have been uploaded to YouTube by the Foreign Correspondent's Club (FCC), the entity that holds the copyright, so I see no copyright violation. Our YouTube policy is designed to prevent us from linking to videos of copyrighted material which has been uploaded without the permission of the copyright holder, and hence is a copyvio, but this video does not appear to be a copyvio, hence we can link to it with no problem, just as we could link to the full text of a book if it is put on the net by the copyright holder. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense, I just knew that linking to YouTube was usually discouraged and wasn't sure about it. Thanks for looking into it. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

All religions have disgruntled ex-members but it doesn't mean they have to advertise their opinions on their wiki page. This addition seems ridiculous and mean spirited. There other Internet sites that are more appropriate.Stgrlee16 (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

What video are we talking about?

As to the "cult appellation": it's a part of Soka Gakkai history and so ought to be included. I think te sub section makes the point that the "appellation" is mstly in the past and is not curently taken seriously by creditable scholars.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I shortened the title of the video.--JackBnimble10 (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Added reference

Added a link to the Soka Gakkai daily newspaper Seikyo Shimbun, in External links". --Daveler16 (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed two media links that dealt with the state of Japanese politics in, respectively, 1995 and 2000. They are no longer relevant - a new analysis might be. One was positive, one kind of negative, so the edit, I believe, is balanced. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Moved the Brian Victoria lecture to "External Links" as it's not really a news media website. Removed Dragan Todorovic because it also is not a news media website, but a log.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I still don't see the justification for the video in the External Links section by four fired staffers. There are 10 million members and thousands of headquarter staff whose voices are not represented. Why these four?Stgrlee16 (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless someone can justify the video link in the "external links" section of the four fired Soka Gakkai staff, I propose removing it. Anyone?Stgrlee16 (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

There is confusion here, I think. The standard for including External links is not the same as the standard for including information in the body of an article. In the article, we must observe WP:NPOV, but in the "External links" section, part of the standard for inclusion is:

Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

This material cannot be included in the article because is is copyrighted, there is no doubt that it accurately represents what happened, and it is pertinent and on-topic as it relates to the subject of the article. There is no requirement in External links that all viewpoints be represented. The article itself, presumably, accurately represents the organization and the beliefs and views of those thousands of works. These workers have a different viewpoint, which it does no harm to our readers to hear.

There being no policy-based justification for removal of the EL, it should stay in the article.

If anyone has a problem with this, please open a discussion on WP:ELN, the External Links Noticeboard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Shouldn't the discussion of what goes on the Soka Gakkai entry be on the Soka Gakkai Talk Page? And, this is where there should be discussion before removing or adding something like this - as Stagrlee16 initiated before she removed the video. As to your point: there is no doubt the video accurately portrays these men's POV; but what I think is being questioned is whether or not that POV is accurate and helpful to the article - is that right? You seem to ne saying that something deserves to be on Wikipedia just because it exists; I'm sure that's not true but it seems to me to be your argument. If these guys had not been fired, there would be no video - so does being fired give one credence? As someone noted, there is plenty of negative views of the SG in the article -- but these are from fairly scholarly, fairly objective sources. Personally, my only question is this: the video was evidently originally posted by someone who is banned, while she was banned; if her edits are allowed t stay anyway, what's the point of banning someone? Thanks. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

If there's a question about an EL that can't be settled on an article talk page, WP:ELN is where those quesstions go to. And, again, the External links section in not a section of the article per se, it's meant to contain links to additional information that may be helpful, useful or of interest to our readers. The EL section does not have to conform to WP:NPOV, it does not need to balance viewpoints, as long as it's accurate and relevant information, it's a legitimate EL. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Okay. And my point about someone banned from editing, editing? --98.164.246.133 (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Banning an editor does not mean that every edit they made is automatically deleted from the encyclopedia. As with everything posted here, the edit has to be judged on its own merits - and, at this point, since it's been removed and I restored it, it's not the banned editor's contribution anymore, it's mine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice I wasn't logged in. @Beyond My Ken: It wasn't that she posted it and then was banned; she was banned, and, while banned, posted anyway. I don't think "it was deleted and then I undid the delete" is valid. If the banned person had not posted it, I doubt you or anyone else would have. It is here - no matter how many times it's deleted and re-posted -- because a banned editor put it here while she was banned. I personally have no objection to its content, and I understand your explanation above concerning that; but I do have a problem with letting banned editors continue to edit. Check [Banning Policy]: "The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good" --Daveler16 (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Chnged title to reflect content. --JackBnimble10 (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Gohonzon Image

Greetings,

I wanted to inform you that having an image of the Gohonzon online is very offensive to the faith. There is a reason it is kept in a Butsudan and you will most often find notices posted to "not take pictures of open Butsudan" or "not take pictures of Gohonzon". Though the Gohonzon is not something that is prayed to, it is still very sacred and the image should be taken down.

216.67.24.62 (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC) A SGI-USA member

I agree, but Wikipedia policy does not view the offending of members of a religion as a legitimate reason for removing anything. Perhaps you have a suggestion? Something to replace it that would be as edifying to the general readership? --Daveler16 (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The way it is represented on the Soka Gakkai International USA website is as a diagram, which maybe a way can be found to adapt to a format Wikipedia can work with. Kissam (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2017

I would like to suggest adding a link to the Nichiren article on the first mention of his name found in the lead sentence. Kissam (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Done He appear to be already linked on the article page. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 02:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Performance art

May I know why the article the I wrote is considered as promotional with inappropriate primary source? The source that I get can be considered as third party source that said about Soka Gakkai in Singapore. Kelvintjy (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I just restore back the article that I wrote as there is no respond here. I had also give enough time for the response. Kelvintjy (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

And ice revolved it again fur the same reason: inappropriate source, and WP:WEIGHT. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

What is the inappropriate source? I see maybe one that might be, but that's no reason for erasing the whole section (if that's what this is about).--Daveler16 (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a WP:PRIMARY source. It will need exceptional justification, as would the information itself, which is trivial. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Japanese characters

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@White Whirlwind: Could you explain why we need Japanese writing in an English encyclopedia entry? --Daveler16 (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Daveler16: Because the name of the subject isn't in English, and the "Japanese writing" enhances the reader's understanding of the subject. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Stge88: I don't understand your reasoning. If the reader doesn't read kanji, which probably 99% of readers, how does it help? Are you saying that Soka Gakkai in Japanese is not Soka Gakkai?Ltdan43 (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It would make more sense to translate Soka Gakkai into "Value Creation Society (or Association)" and replace the kanji with that.Ltdan43 (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ltdan43: How about this then: the characters have specific meanings unique to the words and phrases they make up; they disambiguate homonyms; it allows readers to find more information on what they're looking for, especially if there isn't a lot of English info available. Just because someone can't read it doesn't mean they can't recognize it. @Nishidani: Maybe you can word this better? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

While waiting to see if White Whirlwind, who made the edit, answers my question, I'll say this: while this seems a common practice on Wilkipedia, I can't determine that it's policy. I agree with Lt. Dan: the words should be translated to English right at the start, and there doesn't seem to be a real reason for the Japanese characters; including them does not help an English speaker read them, or give further understanding - the translation will do that. And there is plenty of "English info available" - there are, for instance, over 300 footnoted to this article, all but handful (or less) in English. The only way I can see the characters potentially helping anyone is if we assume they will copy and paste them into a translation site -- BUT, btw, I did that, and Google Translator translated them to "Soka Gakkai", which doesn't really help my understanding of the words "Soka Gakkai" :-). On the whole, I think just translating "Soka Gakkai" into English is more helpful tham spelling it out in Japanese characters. Unless there isa policy and I just can't find it. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Foe me i will like to agree to retain the Japanese name of the organisation. In the anime related article or Japanese related article, majority of them retain the Japanese name. Kelvintjy (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't seem that important to me - is it? But, if I had to choose, I would leave off the kanji and go with the English translation. --JackBnimble10 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

See WP:MOSJAPAN. @Nihonjoe: any comments? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a Japanese topic, so MOS:JAPAN applies. With Japanese topics, the Japanese kanji/kana (whichever is applicable) are included in the lead, and then generally not used after that. This may not be specifically written into policy, but it is de facto policy as it has been used in practice for almost the entire time I've been on Wikipedia (since 2005). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, MOS:FORLANG applies, which MOS:JAPAN follows. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It says the Japanese form "can" be used; that doesn't sound mandatory. I understand that the practice is rather ubiquitous on WP, but that doesn't make it practical. Still have seen no argument for how this enhances the understanding of an English speaker reading an English article. Translate the words - don't obscure them further. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The Japanese is information a significant number of likely readers expect to be there. Given that the kanji has been there unchallenged since 2008, you really need a vastly more significant argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

"which probably 99% of readers"—99% of statistics like these are made up on the spot and devoid of context. Most Wikipedia readers will never click through to "Soka Gakkai"; a signifant number of those who do either can read Japanese or may be seeking the Japanese rendition of the organization's name. Given that you cannot take a romanization of a Japanese name and simply guess at the kanji, it is very important to have the actual kanji accessible. This is not in the least trivial.

"don't obscure them further"—I quote this argument not to rebut it, but to highlight what gibberish it is. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not "I don't like it". It's "it'd pointless". For one thing, it has not been there since 2008; it has been there since April 19th. Second, people who want to read Japanese have a Japanese version of Wikipedia; you may be unaware, but the Soka Gakkai has a significant presence in the United States and England, and there is no reason at all to think that a "significant number" or readers know anything about Japanese - they more likely know of the group from its activities in the English speaking world. And as one of those, I can say the kanji ads absolutely nothing to my understanding. As I say, I realize it's a common practice - but it doesn't seem to be a mandatory one, and just because it's common doesn't necessarily mean it's useful.--Daveler16 (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Daveler16 and Curly Turkey: Actually, the Japanese characters were in the article from 2008 until you (Daveler16) removed it last November with no explanation. This is obviously a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. By your proposed logic, the name "Soka Gakkai" shouldn't even be in it's own article as it is meaningless to English speakers; why don't you rename it "Value-Creation Society"? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You missed something - [[1]]. Part pf the problem for me is that someone made the edit BACK without bothering to discuss on the Talk Page; I am somehow uder the impression changes are to be discussed - it that not true? And yeah - if the Soka Gakkai around the world DIDN'T go hy the name "Soka Gakkai", the the name of the aeticle shoud be changed to Value Creation Society. But that's not the case. --Daveler16 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's "it'd pointless".—you've just had the point explained to you. Stop wasting everyone's time.

it has not been there since 2008—it had, until you unilaterally removed it. Again, stop being disruptive and wasting everyone's time.

there is no reason at all to think that a "significant number" or readers know anything about Japanese—stop playing with people's words. It's dishonest and obnoxious. The key words (don't pretend you're not aware) is "a signifant number of those who do". Context. It's everything. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if you're offended by having to discuss this; I would think using the Talk Page is anything but "disruptive". Whe I removed it in NOvember, I did indeed mention it on the Talk Page; there was no comment, no objection,until 5 months later someone puts the kanji in -- with not a word on the Talk Page - and it's me being "disruptive??? I will gladly leave this discussion the minute I get a cogent explanation for why it's necessary - why Japanese writing English speakers don't need has to be included in an English language encyclopedia. FYI, here's the lede for the Britannica entry: "Sōka-gakkai, ( Japanese: “Value-Creation Society”)" - no kanji. The "I don't like it" argument is a two edged sword, I think. Please please please: put yourself in the frame of mind of a student in America doing research for a paper, or a person in England whose friend has joined Soka Gakkai -you're looking it up on Wikipedia, and like most speakers of English, you can't read kanji - how does the kanji help you understand "Soka Gakkai" better than a parenthetical translation of the words to English would? THAT is the question for me. Thank you.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

We are not bound by every method or format used by any other encyclopedia. Having the kanji in the lead does not interfere with anyone understanding the article, and having them helps anyone interested in the Japanese (especially those that may be learning Japanese and not able to use the Japanese article). All Japan-related articles should have the Japanese in the lead. Having a translation in the lead is fine, too. These two things are not mutually exclusive. I've added the translation to the lead, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I was not suggesting we have to do what Britannica does, merely pointing out that someone who, I think, we can assume knows what they're doing does not believe including Japanese characters in an English encyclopedia is necessary. But thatnk you for a reasoned and sensile answer that actually makes some sense. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Here, I'll put myself "in the frame of mind of a student in America doing research for a paper, or a person in England whose friend has joined Soka Gakkai". I've just opened up the article and—"ACK! Four characters placed right after the name, which could only possibly be the Japanese rendition of the words that preceded it! This is too much for me to handle! I'd better restart my browser and check out Britannica instead ..."

Yeah, those four characters aren't going to cause anyone any sort of problem whatsoever, while being an extremely helpful reference for a sizable minority of likely readers. 22:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Daveler16: You can't seriously study a foreign topic with zero regard for the native language. I have been a student in America writing a research paper on a Japanese topic, and it was much easier to look something up if it had a well written English Wikipedia article with kanji, images, Commons, Wikisource, etc all in one. Soka Gakkai is well known, but more obscure topics need the kanji to find more information; translations and transliterations can only get you so far. Try finding anything on Kunmin doso, for example, without using the kanji. You get 54 hits on Google, and only two of those have any use. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I am a retired editor and I still don't get the reasoning for a foreign script that doesn't add to the understanding of the subject. I wonder what is behind your insistence? I propose that you can keep the kanji and also include the English translation (which actually helps) if you are so adamant about it.Ltdan43 (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Ltdan43: There should have been both to begin with, and both are now present. It is impossible—no matter how fluent one is—to figure out what the kanji for a Japanese word might be from the romanization—and it is far, far more difficult for names. Having the kanji is basic information, and serves a significant minority of readers without in any way inconveniencing those who can't read it. You wouldn't suggest removing the scientific name of an organism from an article, even though it's utterly useless information to the majority of readers. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sturmgwehr and Curly Turkey: Your comments are getting a bit personal and catty, I think. Yours is an out proportioned response to a simple question and - whether you agree or not, inwhich case civil discussion is welcome -- a legitimate comncern. My edits and comments were sincere efforts to improve the article. They didn't warrant smarmy and sarcastic replies - something sincere editors would refrain from. Since neither of you has EVER edited or commented on this page until just a few days ago, and are now suddenly so passionate and relentless, one wonders what your agenda could be? --Daveler16 (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Daveler16: How exactly does removing the characters improve the article? As Curly Turkey and I have said, including them poses no problem on someone who can't read it, but it is an extremely important and helpful asset for those who do. This may be the only Japan-related article you edit, but virtually all the other standard articles within this topic, or almost any non-Anglophonic topic, include the native name of the subject in their native language. Why should this article seemingly be the exception? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Daveler16: My first edit to the page was in 2012, and I'm one of the more active WP:JAPAN editors. I'm also a Wikipedia reader and make frequent use of WP's glosses and foreign-language renderings. I've given other explanations, such as "It is impossible—no matter how fluent one is—to figure out what the kanji for a Japanese word might be from the romanization" (which I've said more than once here) and that it "serves a significant minority of readers without in any way inconveniencing those who can't read it". You've yet to give a rationale beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Surely you can understand why we'd get frustrated. I sure can't understand where you've pulled "one wonders what your agenda could be" from, when you've been given actual explanations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said, you both have every right to disagree -- it would be awful if everyone agreed on everything -- but you do not have a right to be condescending n your disagreement, as if your POV is self evident and must not ever be questioned. How might removing the kanji "improve the article"? Well, it's presence might lead one to believe this is merely a Japanese phenomenon, and hence confuse someone who lives around the block from a SG center in America, or who knows the SG offered an invocation at the inauguration of an American president, or sponsored an American Buddhist conference at the White House - not saying it definitely would be confusing, but the possibility exists, you must admit, and your refusal to even acknowledge the legitimacy of my POV (and that of another editor's) is certainly out of place here. But you still haven't answered my question - if you are such an expert editor, why no edits or comments on this article since 2012 or whenever - and then suddenly, over this small issue,10 fairly long comments between you in less than a week, and, CT, 50 edits in one day? I hope you see how that might be considered rather extraordinary behavior.

Meanwhile, I am inclined to accept Nihonjoe's polite and rational explanation. Can't speak for other editors. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Daveler16: A reasonable person would only have to hear the words "Soka Gakkai", let alone read the latin characters, and immediately know it isn't English or even assume that it's Japanese. Your argument is that Soka Gakkai operates internationally, which is correct, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a Japanese organization with a Japanese name founded nearly 90 years ago in Japan by Japanese people. Applying your logic to any international organization, this would be like removing latin characters from the McDonald's article at the Japanese Wikipedia because it might "lead one to believe this is merely an American phenomenon". The lede is supposed to state or explain that Soka Gakkai is an international organization, which is then expanded on in the body of the article; that information doesn't hinge upon the existence of a few foreign characters. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I'm accepting the argument that there's no harm in including the kanji. Please don't re-open the can or worms by pretending people come to the English Wikipedia expecting to read Japanese. That really requires a stretch of the imagination and rationalization.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Except that that's exactly what a sizable minority does. Several of us have spoken up here already, so your "imagination" hardly applies. I'm highlighting the words "sizable minority" because you appear to be twisting my words to make it appear any other claim has been made. To demonstrate your good faith, retract what you've said, as this is not the first time I've called you out for twisting my words. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"it's presence might lead one to believe this is merely a Japanese phenomenon"—again, I'm putting this here not to rebut it, but to highlight the absurdity of the argument. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"if you are such an expert editor"—if this is the direction your arguments are going to go in, then you're really just saying you have nothing to say. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tone

Too much of this reads like a publicity release from the organisation. '"These are the wonderful things we have done, and these are the important people our founder has met, and these are the nice things they have said about us." Notreallydavid (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It is actually quite balanced, including a whole section on negative charges, and interspersed with other POV. The things you point out - what Soka Gakkai has done, and what others have said about it -- are actually pertinent to an article explaining the Soka Gakkai - don't you think? --Daveler16 (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It actually needs a copyedit. The tone of the article needs work. He said nothing about the neutrality of the article (though tone does affect that). The wording used throughout the article has a feel very much like marketing copy, and that's what needs to be fixed.

Also, please used : or * to indent appropriately so your comments are easier to notice. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• So the problem is word choices? I can see that point, certainly.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me the article is meticulously and credibly referenced. If not directly quoted and the wording is troublesome, then changes can be made, but facts are facts. The external activities of the SG make it unusual among Buddhist schools.Ltdan43 (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I personally find it unfairly negative. But could you give a specific example o two of what you mean by "marketing"? I don't see it.--JackBnimble10 (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Scouring

Above discussion reminds me that I had said I would go through and try t change some of the language if it seemed to be using loaded "promo" words. Will start that; might take a while. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone. Can we play some back-and-forth here? Please post any sentences that need toning up or toning down. Let's fix problems. BrandenburgG (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

In the lede: "(the Soka Gakkai is) based on the teachings of the 13th-century Japanese priest Nichiren as set into motion by its first three presidents Tsunesaburō Makiguchi, Jōsei Toda and Daisaku Ikeda." I propose to change "set in mtion" to something like "taught by" or "interpreted by".

I'm also not sure the lede is where the observation about Kometo by Sato belongs. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, the verifiable must in exist. SA 13 Bro (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Changed "set in motion" to "taught" - more neutral tone, I think. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem on that, as long as in neutral point of view. SA 13 Bro (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

In the Makiguchi section: There are two references to the Soka K. Gakkai refusing the Shinto talisman - can we get rid of one of them? Also (minor issue), is it important to note the year the Religious Organization Law went into effect? --Daveler16 (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You can edits the article, but however, please do not cite any sources about Makiguchi birthday, because Gregorian 6 June was an invalidate. SA 13 Bro (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Removed the word "crucial" from statment that Toda was "the crucial link" between Makiguchi and Ikeda.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Changed "The unprecedented growth of the Soka Gakkai stands out from the other new religions," to "The Soka Gakkai's growth far outpaced that of other new religions". Same sense, but not as flowery. (In the "Toda/Reconstruction" sub-section).--Daveler16 (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Under "Ikeda Years/International" I changed that the American group grew "at a remarkable rate" to that it grew "rapidly". I understand "remarkable rate" was a quote from a source, but I can see how it might be a little but of peacockery. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

In "Founding of Komeito", removed an unsourced quote attriuted to Ikeda.

Under "Economic and Social Influence" edited out an unreferenced statement, and changed the wording of another to reflect the nature of the reference. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I have added a new research paper dated from year 2005 in the reference section for your perusal.Kelvintjy (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

In "Cultural Institutions", changed "have social influence" to have a social presence". --Daveler16 (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Shame on you

It is somewhat irritating that some individuals, clearly affiliated to the organisation named, are allowed, unnoticed by Wikipedia and its admins, to freely edit this article on a cult. Editors formerly devoted to a somewhat balanced view have been blocked. Wikipedia, please do not act as if you are not being manipulated – it’s a crying shame what is going on here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.221.156 (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Maybe you should do some research before you talk about cult, etc. The SGI has long ago proved itself to be a world religion, that contributes to the world. Unless you are a priesthood disciple?Ltdan43 (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

What was the IP have criticized maybe can't reproach, here is a big place that contain plenty kind of difference editors idea. However, Wikipedia is WP:NOTPROPAGANDA and should not be advocacy and preach any kind of religion-ship on it, so I don't think any kind of priesthood disciple researcher should be needed at here. SA 13 Bro (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

There are over 300 references that support the information. isn't that enough?Ltdan43 (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Is good to those references for information, but the group of plenty disciple doesn't need to be at here. SA 13 Bro (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a WP entry saying what a group is and does in "propaganda", just because what the group is and does happens to include some good things. The Nichiren Shoshu entry is entirely referenced by Nichiren Shoshu sources, and I don't believe it contains any criticism of that group at all. Or look at "Catholic Charities USA": mostly good, because they do good things,; and an entire section on it's controversies -- just like the Soka Gakkai page has.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu is an notability Buddhism-ship in the world, the WP policy guidelines is to prevent an large among of fellows entry here for making disruption. SA 13 Bro (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I came here after reading a critical piece on SGI on reddit/whistleblowers, I certainly cannot evaluate it enough to incorporate any of the points, but I will say that if substantiated I should not want to be associated with SGI and think 'cult' seems overly generous.

From Handbook of Contemporary Japanese Religions, p. 289: Gakkai members incited conflict through their practice of hobobarai, lit. "cleaning out slander of the Dharma", a measure that included eliminating items and implements related to faiths other than Soka Gakkai from the homes of new converts. In the Toda era, new converts were required to burn Shinto talismans, Buddhist altars and images, Christian bibles, and even mandala issued by rival Nichiren sects^1. One result of hobobarai in the first decades of Soka Gakkai's expansion was that the destruction by converts to Soka Gakkai of thousands of mandala, talismans, and other items that made up the rich heritage of Buddhist practice. This wholesale destruction inflicted tremendous damage on Japan's cultural inheritance by essentially erasing centuries of grassroots-level Buddhist history² (conversations with Nakao Takashi, preeminent scholar of Nichiren Buddhism, summer 2008).

https://www.reddit.com/r/sgiwhistleblowers/comments/74wmdd/more_on_how_the_soka_gakkai_destroyed_japanese/

Claverhouse (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2018

Henry Kissinger's name is misspelled in this article (it is written Henry Kisienger). Please correct. Adeutsch (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Spintendo ᔦᔭ 02:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Little more scouring

Removed some of the puffy language concerning Ikeda's peace proposals under "Support for the United Nations".--Daveler16 (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Continued scouring

Removed a couple of sentences from the sub-section "Makiguchi Years/Foundation". Shortens the article and keeps focus on Soka Gakkai. --Daveler16 (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's discuss edits on the Talk Page

@Phalinith Your addition of a sub-section does not meet Wikipedia standards. The "edit description" is not the proper way to discuss changes with other interested editors -- that's what the Talk Page is for. Further, I and another editor have suggested ways you could improve your addition, but you have ignored us here, and reverted an edit while making no changes to your original writing. As it stands now, the sub-section is all original research, which is frowned upon by Wikipedia. See here. --Daveler16 (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Phalinith, the last thing we need here is an edit war. Editors have worked many years on this article and consistently use the Talk page to work through issues. We want to ask you to follow WP protocol and discuss your edits right here. It's just not right to revert--with a single phrase--without commenting on the Talk page.

Isn't there a way to compromise on your edit? This article is mainly about the Soka Gakkai and not its constituent organizations. Your topic about study exams, if properly sourced and edited, might fit better in the Soka Gakkai International article. Or perhaps in a new article about the SGI-USA group. You should also note that the SG study program is already mentioned in the article ["Brannen, a Christian missionary writing in 1969, describes the Soka Gakkai's study program at this point as "the most amazing program of indoctrination Japan has ever seen". New members attended local study lectures, subscribed to weekly and monthly periodicals, studied Toda's commentaries on the Lotus Sutra, took annual study examinations, and were awarded titles for their achievements such as Associate Lecturer, Lecturer, Associate Teacher, or Teacher.] Granted that Brannen's source is dated and needs to be updated or supported by more recent scholarship. Perhaps you might want to find such a source.BrandenburgG (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I've again removed it, hoping this can be resolved. Phalimith is correct in that the Soka Gakkai's examination on it's principles is unique. But it needs to be sourced properly, and does not need to be so long and detailed. You mentioned the "discussion meeting" section; there is not a minute-by-minute report on a particular discussion meeting, and there doesn't need to be a topic-by-topic report on an exam. This can be worked out and, I think, should be - that the exams exist might be important, but it should be included properly.--Daveler16 (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Phalinith, I am guessing that English is a second language for you. Please don't let that stop you from participating in this discussion. Your English skills are far better than mine in any of the second languages I've tried to pick up!!! Your fellow editors here will certainly work with you on edits to make sure syntax comes out just right. No formalities here! We need you and we need other editors to improve this page.BrandenburgG (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@ Daveler16 I am not as enthusiastic as you of a Wikipedian and SG matters, I have neglected to take part in the correction. Anyway, as the event has gone, I do believe the edition is mostly based on your favor, as seen

1. A new section was written 2. Your idea - it is redundant 3. Our short idea exchange 4. The suggestion to wait for others' opinion 5. Your individual decision of deletion as 10 days was gone - I thought at the stage, to keep and exclude were the same possible idea, then waited for others, but now I understand that somehow you are the leading person and no comment by others was interpreted as no one, other than me did not mind your preference. 6. I recovered the removal because of the idea of removal seems not a universal agreement interested in this topic including a judgment of source (the use of 1st and 2ndly sources seem really based on article-by-article) and as an encyclopedia. 7. With these situations, (and the previous comment that indicates somehow you are rather co-author of the article than editor (actually so) who judges), further discussions seem to be just a matter of each preference. I personally have no problem on the article without removal as useful information to see this grope, so I separated them following as a zadankai page.

@BrandenburgG Surely if talking to the source very academically, SG and SGI will be different (but I'm not a person among, not really know the specific differences or even the sense of members, e.g., SG Japan members or SGI members vice-versa feel they are not the same with other branches or not). As each of them is branche of Soka, I'm not really feel the meaning to distinguish of them in terms of their study and what they want to. Or simply an English material is more easy access to non-Japanese readers when using original language source.

But I agree some better references are desirable. About edit-war, why remove with only one's idea is prioritized one revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phalinith (talk • contribs) 09:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. The need for citations is not just ne person's opinion, however -- it is Wikipedia policy. Maybe take sme time to familiarize yourself with that, and you'll be able t put together an entry that meets Wikipedia standards. I know it gets confusing -- one link tells you to read something else which tells you to read still another thing -- but maybe start here? Menawhile I'm going to look through a few sources to see if the exams are mentioned -- in which case I will restore the section (or send it to you s you can do it) (though with less detail). --Daveler16 (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Phalindrinth. Here is one useful citation by Peter Clarke, a respected religious scholar. He describes here the role of study examinations in the Soka Gakkai. He also associates it with Makiguchi's theory of value creation in education:

"Unusually amongst the multitude of new (or indeed old) Japanese religions, Soka Gakkai has a well-developed doctrinal dimension. While Soka Gakkai members may not routinely study Makiguchi's 'Theory of Value' as part of their training, the emphasis on studying and passing examinations in Soka Gakkai doctrine does reflect the fact that the first two founders, Makiguchi and Toda, were teachers. The unusual emphasis on rational explanations of Buddhism and the study of systematic doctrine (unusual that is, for Japanese religions) underlines the point that Soh Gakkai is not simply a religious sect, but a modern lay movement founded on an essentially secular education theory. It also means that both ordinary members and leaders of Soka Gakkai have a potential means of access, through their religion's positive attitude to education of the whole..." (p.122)

Unfortunately, Google Books does not let us to look at further pages. I will see whether my library has a copy.

But where in the article should this reference be placed? BrandenburgG (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

My library was able to locate the book and scanned the chapter for me. Here is the rest of the quote which continues to page 123:

"person, to the wider world of secular and religious meaning that exists beyond Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism and even beyond Buddhism, embracing secular, cultural and socio-political activities. This is in contrast to many other new Japanese movements which, though they cannot accurately be described as anti-intellectual, have little or no interest in educating their followers beyond the narrow confines of the world-view whose typical features are shared by most Japanese new religions."

The book is edited by Clarke but the author of this chapter, "Of Priests, Protests, and Protestant Buddhism: The Case of the Soka Gakkai", is Brian Bocking.BrandenburgG (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Phalindrinth, I made an edit under the "faith, practice, and study" subsection that reflects your interest in the SG's study examination program. I know you would like to go further but this is at least a start and it's based on a solid secondary source published back in 1994. If we can find more sources we can add more references. Please let me know what you think.

BrandenburgG (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. @Phalinith, that look okay to you? --Daveler16 (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Slimming down

I've been going through the article, trying to remove "peacock" phrases -- words of descriptions that are subtly subjective, one way or another. While doing so it struck me (not for the first time) that this article is way way too long. I have some ideas for trimming it down, but before doing so, would like to discuss ideas others might have for shortening it. Anyone? --Daveler16 (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

For starters, I'm looking at the "Academic research" subsection under "Economic and Social Influence" -- is it necessary? Also, "Responses to the organization" under "Peace Culture and Education". --Daveler16 (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I see no problem in eliminating those sections.Ltdan43 (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Removed "Academic Perceptions".

Do you see another place to put the Clarke bibliography? At the time it was the most comprehensive bibliography about English-language scholarship about the SG. I agree on the need to slim down the article but some sources might be valuable for researchers.BrandenburgG (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@BrandenburgG: Maybe in "Further Reading", if you want to keep it visible? I just don't think "Avcademic Research" is a valuable section except for, maybe, academics who 1) probably don't rely much on Wikipedia anyway and 2) are probably aware of what academic books and articles have been written. Do you have any suggestions for what else might be trimmed away? --Daveler16 (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The first paragraph in "International Perceptions" says, basically: "The German government thought something was wrong, but then concluded there wasn't."That doesn't strike me as helpful on any level. Okay to remove? --Daveler16 (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The best English-language treatment of the SG in Germany is Sanda Ionescu chapter "Adapt or Perish: Soka Gakkai in Germany" in Peter Clarke's "Japanese New Religions." It is quite comprehensive and (at least the part available in Google Books) does not mention this alleged incident with the German government." I will try to get hold of the entire chapter at my library.BrandenburgG (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please, if you have something that is useful about Germany and the Soka Gakkai, please replace what's there now with it. --Daveler16 (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Reduced "cult appellation" to its essential points. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Moved "Relationship with Nichiren Shoshu", shortened, into "Ikeda Years" section. Promoted the headings of the sections of each president. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Seeing a lot of extraneous information. Do we need the last paragraph in the Makiguchi section? The who "Rush hour of the Gods" remark in the "Reconstruction" section?--Daveler16 (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Anything that is helpful to readers new to the Soka Gakkai, I agree. There is a lot to digest.Ltdan43 (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Removed all but one sentence of the last paragraph in "Repression During the War (Makiguchi sub-section)". Moved that sentence to the paragraph about Makiguchi's imprisonment.--Daveler16 (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

And, removed first paragraph from "Reconstruction of the organization" in the Toda sub-section; there is no obvious need to compare SG growth to that of other new religions, that I can see. --Daveler16 (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Necessary sub section?

I'm sorry, but I don't see the point of "Examination on Nichiren Buddhism and Soka Gakkai". What the Soka Gakkai believes and practices is already pretty well covered, so why should there be a whole section on the fact that its members are taught what it believes and practices? This article is way too long as it is, and I'm inclined to want to remove this sub-section. Please discuss.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Firstly sorry I am not familiar to use the discussion so much and just replying your source as template. (if not proper, please let me know) I think Soka Gakkai's study examination is a characteristic of their activities as a systematic event which will not be seen in many other religious organizations in Japan. And if the discussion meeting and proselytizing will be kept a separate section, study examination can be an individual part as Soka Gakkai seems to focus very much. --Phalinith —Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Not everybody uses the Talk Page, but we are supposed to use the Talk age when making changes, especially major changes. I understand your thinking. But does it have to be so long, and go into so much detail? I would call the section "Study", maybe. Them just a sentence or two that Soka Gakkai studies the Lotus Sutra and the writings of Nichiren and its own presidents, and an exam is given occasionally. Is that reasonable? --Daveler16 (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Phalinith, another problem is the need to find secondary sources to substantiate your narrative. You cite a source that's published by the SG so by definition it's not objective. In addition you extract from the source so that perhaps opens you up to charges of Original Research. You can certainly, however, list your source under "Further Reading."BrandenburgG (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is one source from a respected academic who mentions the SG Study Department: https://books.google.com/books?id=Oe0GDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA84&dq=soka+gakkai+"study+department"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR9ue4uuTaAhVvQt8KHdgACU8Q6AEISjAH#v=onepage&q=soka%20gakkai%20"study%20department"&f=true

BrandenburgG (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It's been 10 days and there's been no response or change, so I'm going to remove the sub-section. I hope @Phalinith can find a way to shorten it, with good sources, and try again. --Daveler16 (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

https://markrogow.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-definitive-analysis-on-why-sgi-is.html69.149.247.241 (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC) M. Rogow

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• SGI Gohonzon.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Performance Art

The "Performance Art" sub section is entirely about Singapore and Malaysia. If there isn't anything concerning the Soka Gakkai in Japan, can this be jettisoned? Or may be moved to the "Soka Gakkai International" page? --Daveler16 (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Good point. But isn't there a long tradition of mass gymnastics and stadium performances in Japan? Shouldn't this be in the article? My recommendation is that we keep the Singapore and Malaysia content in the article as place holders until we can provide references about what happens in Japan. I will look into it soon.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. I left in a minor pointer to several references which could be useful to readers and researchers.BrandenburgG (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Educational activities

Since there is now a WP page for Soka School System with the same list of schools as this article, can we shorten the "Educational Activities" sub-section? Insert a "Main article - Soka School System" line, leave the opening paragraph, and jettison the list of schools? Just trying to rein in the length of this article a little. Thanks. --Daveler16 (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I will check out the new (?) article. If it is a strong article I would vote for condensing this section. We all agree that the article needs slimming and this seems to be a legitimate way to slim without losing valuable content.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The list has already been moved to the other article. Keeping it here (in "Soka Gakkai")is redundant -- the other one seems a more natural home for it.--Daveler16 (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• SGI Gohonzon.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Schools

Added a "Main Article" line and removed the list of schools.There are now 2 links to the article where the list resides. --Daveler16 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Shortening

In "Public Perception", there were two sentences that said the same thing. Removed the second. Kept its citation by applying it to the first one.--Daveler16 (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Re-arranged "International Perception" - put European mentions together.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Changed "widely viewed" t "viewed" in the lede. Means the same thing. One word shorter!--Daveler16 (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

New section

Added a section on "Soka Humanism". Borrowed a couple of lines from other sections.--Daveler16 (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Shorten?

It still seems to me this article is overlong (I haven't helped!)Any suggestions on how to trim it?--Daveler16 (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Had to Undo

Sorry, but a blog isn't a good reference.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Citations

A statement in the lede was referenced to the website of an interested party. There are plenty of legitimate, scholarly references to the marriage of the Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu, so I substituted one of those. Also, an un-referenced characterization of Komeito fixed.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

New additions and changes to the "Relation to Nichiren Shoshu" section either have no citation and constitute "original research", [is not allowed]; or are referenced to Nichiren Shoshu websites. The place for Nichiren Shoshu doctrine and version of history is the Nichiren Shoshu Wikipedia page, not the page of another religion. Picture caption changed. Other changes will be made to reflect both WP policy and the subject of the Soka Gakkai page.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

In the Gohonzon section, reference to "Dai Gohonzon" removed. The cited reference, Seagar, males no mention of it as a model for transcription, on page 93 or anywhere else in Encountering the Dharma.--Daveler16 (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Caption changed again. Building opened in October 1972 so it's unlikely the picture was taken in September 1972. Also, this article is about the Soka Gakkai, not the Nichiren Shoshu opinion of the Soka Gakkai and its history.--Daveler16 (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The Image of Nichiren Buddhism's Object of Worship

Displaying the Nichiren Buddhism Object is highly inappropriate. It is for members' daily practice and visitors to our cultural centers only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.165.190.60 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I recognize your concerns but on this site we have to follow WP guidelines. This is also an issue on various other pages such as those about Islam. Most Muslims feel that any graphic portrayals of Muhammed are sacriligious. Yet they appear in WP articles.BrandenburgG (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal of image

@HansJohan808, I'd like to request that you voluntarily remove the image you placed on Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nittatsu_Shonin.jpg). I suspect that this image is copyrighted by others and not, as you claim, your own work.

The image seems to be a photo taken from a bifold publication as the crease from the publication is very evident. Taking a photograph of a publication does not make it your "own" work.

If you had taken this image on your own I suspect you would have had to have an unlikely and very privileged access to the event being portrayed. And, if you were the photographer, I suspect you would have uploaded an original image into Wikimedia Commons.

I would also like to request that you voluntarily remove this image from the three sites:Nichiren Shōshū, Soka Gakkai, and Dai Gohonzon.

Thank you for your voluntary cooperation. BrandenburgG (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

No more editing wars

There have been many generations of editors active on the Soka Gakkai page. I think we need to welcome many new editors into the future.

There have been a lot of controversial edits on this page as well. But I am proud that these disputes have been largely discussed on the Talk page and usually wise compromises have been made to accommodate the spectrum of reliable sources.

So let's avoid hit-and-run edits and reverts. I think everyone here will agree with these concerns.

Also, I think all wikis, not just WP, struggle to develop rules of etiquette (see [2], for example). Let's try to be respectful and keep the pace of edits to a speed that other editors can follow. Believe me, I've learned this from my own experience after having received some bitter feedback from my streaks of obsessive edits in the past.

Thank you for your cooperation on this!BrandenburgG (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with BrandenburgG and Daveler16. Nichiren Shoshu has its own page, and they can put their POV there, where it's appropriate. This page is not about the Nichiren Shoshu view of the Soka Gakkai. And, the sources have to be real and legitimate. And there have to be sources!--JackBNimble43 (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Follow the Source

@HansJohan808, this concerns your edit on 7/3 in which you changed Nam to Na-mu. You claimed you wanted to use the untruncated version.

I understand your frustration about whether NMRK should be translated as Nam or Namu. The debate goes on and on among different Nichiren groups and requires compromise. Who's right? Who knows? The compromise on the NMRK article itself is to call it Nam(u). Pretty clever, right?

Another compromise is to follow the source. The source here (https://books.google.com/books?id=v2yiyLLOj88C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Religions+of+the+world+:+a+comprehensive+encyclopedia+of+beliefs+and+practices&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIkpbw_5vjAhXhlOAKHdOVABQQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Gohonzon%20%3A%20a%20comprehensive%20encyclopedia%20of%20beliefs%20and%20practices&f=true) is very reliable. Here the two authors use Nam and not Namu so we should use what the authors use and not second guess them. BrandenburgG (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No. We should use what Nichiren used in every letter, treatise, and Gohonzon, "Namu Myoho renge kyo" 2602:304:595F:6259:C5F1:F0B1:81CD:6C13 (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Mark Rogow