Talk:Soka Gakkai

The Psychology of Words: Catchy Tabloid Titles

A successful WP article should have appropriate sequence, proportion of events and proper titles. But for now I want to point to the immature choice of some titles, with the example of the Raccoon Dog’s one. This is rather tabloid and not encyclopedic way of choosing titles. Cheap advertising depends on unexpected flashes and a sudden strange title: a Raccoon? And a Dog? Wow! And add to that a Monk! Wow wow! And what was the intent of this attractive title? It is at the end of the text: that since then the Gakkai was sealed as a violent organization: “this incident helped establish the organization's reputation as a violent cult.[48]:705–711(A violent cult – just remember these words at the end of this post).

Editing which aims at stigmatizing and establishing identities for people and organisations - must be driven by personal agenda. WP should not come to this level. Lets ask a scholar on what she/he thinks about this Raccoon issue. They would perhaps say that the incident is just one of many events in the history of Soka under Toda. Being so, a meaningful title perhaps would be: “Toda and the Priesthood”, or something like that. Raccoon and Dog and a Monk and a Festival - and angry mob…such psychologically oriented words makes WP article go from sappboxing to a sensational sale advertising. This is not an attitude of an encyclopedic article.

There was also a justification of this Raccoon Section that the Gakkai wants to forget or avoid that incident - as for example the Catholic Church may want to avoid mention of the Inquisition. First, this is not true, members are proud of refuting supporters to war crimes within the priesthood. This should also be added to the text. But there is a serious matter here: Editors who make comparison - or even bring the name of the Inquisition – to associate in any implication whatsoever, with this Soka incident - are reminded here to understand that torture, and mass murder of thousands of people, even burning some alive by the Catholic Church, does not amount to Soka peaceful protest by youth to correct a monk who cooperated with the fascist authorities (and who was even happy in a latter stage with what happened). Again the personal religious or political beliefs of some editors– can affect the writing of this article and which makes its essence rather a farce.

Still on the titles: The title Pacifism comes a far way down and way far from the Intro which starts by defining the SGI by tabloid POVs: militaristic fascist quasi militaristic … The Intro was written to prime the mind of WP reader by repeated negative wording, and after that bombardment - then writers put Pacifism as a minor subtitle at the middle of the article (if the reader survives reading further). This is but a psychology trick to manipulate the mind of reader. Again, I may be mistaken but an independent scholar can give an opinion on priorities in article writing, because – speaking of Pacifism - Peace and Nonviolence are the very cause of SGI - which was intentionally designed to start in Guam, the island which suffered severe casualties during the World War.

SGI official birth in Guam was a statement of the start of “World Peace” instead of “World War”. The Section 'Pacifism' should proportionally to the facts - be prominent and at the start, and should also mention about SGI-USA movement VOV (Victory Over Violence) a factual activity of young people to stop violence in society (which was supported by independent local councils). These are facts that deserve also a presence and a title such as perhaps “Pacifism, NonViolence and World Peace”.

Returning here to the Raccon’s section ending with giving SG an Identity card: “ A Violent Cult” – there is Question here, directed to the intellect of reader, to wisdom and reason, and not emotions : Question: How would an implied militaristic fascist violent cult work for Peace, nonviolence and humanism? SGI is described in the INTRO as as a “militaristic organization” – then at the Raccoon area as a “Violent Cult” but in a later portion of the same article SGI works for peace and Nonviolence”. How can a “fascist manipulist militaristic quasi militarist Violent cult advocate Pacifism and humanism! Which of these 2 extremes had the priority in the Intro. The whole structure of the article is slowly falling apart. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

By partnering with Mitsubishi Heavy Industrials? Mark Rogow 08/06/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD27:DB49:845F:E6B2:FE26:FB17 (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I just realised now that the words fascist- militarists etc... were removed from the Intro. Nevertheless the Intro still does not mention the central essence of SGI - that of Pacifism and NonViolence as well as Humanism and WP (WorldPeace), but looks in the basket of "some cult - observers..." etc... so the essence of the above post is still valid and in particular to the Soapbox choice of sensational tabliod titles and the accusation of being a Violent Cult. So the Question which I posed would be: how would a meaningful WP article imply a Violent Cult is based on Pacifism and Nonviolence...- this is still avalid Question. The article is lacking consistency. Please focus on the article from encyclopaedic perspective, consistency and reason.

after I sincerely presented few valid issues above on the disputed article, now I would continue my own studies - and rarely revisit this page. Lastly I want to say to the independent editors that I am concerned with the raised issues because WP is a truly humanistic concept of engaging ordinary people in editing about research subjects, and is very beneficial to people. WP and World Peace - have the same abbreviation: WP. Regards to all.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait Safwan. Don't go. You still haven't answered my question: By partnering with Mitsubishi Heavy Industrials? 2602:306:CD27:DB49:845F:E6B2:FE26:FB17 (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Mark Rogow 08/06/2014

I have started an ANI discussion about these last few headings. Shii (tock) 06:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Has this been resolved yet? --Margin1522 (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Public perception and criticism

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

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

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

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

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

• "while overlooking news critical of the Gakkai."

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

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

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

In place of this stuff, I'm going to move to here some of the more colorful stories from earlier in the article, like Toda on his white horse. Those things did happen, and arguably contributed to public perception of SG.--Margin1522 (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, "Increased membership" needs work. As it happens, my day job is professional editor. If a writer submitted this, I would hand it back and say it has no structure, no story. What are we trying to say with these anecdotes? What links them together? What I would suggest is the line taken by the several of our authors, namely that Toda's ambition during this period was to convert the entire nation and establish a theocracy. That would tie together the white horse and national altar. Apparently this all comes straight from Nichiren, so we could mention that. Conclude with the funeral, saying that he died before he could realize his ambition, but.... If something doesn't fit the story of the section, leave it out. And write the title after you write the story, not the other way around.--Margin1522 (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed the "Leadership" section. besides having no citation whatsoever, it read like somebody's complaint about how an organization chooses to conduct its own business, and added nothing to an understanding of the subject.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Members vs. Adherents

I would like to underline the fact that the issue of members and adherents is quite important. SGI has managed to use certain legal loopholes. In Germany it operates as a so called “eingetragener Verein” and has legally a little less than seven members – same goes for the US and UK. Editors experts in such legal matters are welcomed to join to find references on that which are hard to come by being visible in the internet. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the section "Membership" can be re-written. There is one number for global membership, which is fine. But about the Japanese membership, it starts with a flat declarative sentence that there are 5.42 million. A sentence later it gives the SG's official total of 8.27 households, two estimates of 2.5 million people, and another estimate of 5 million (all in one sentence). I think mentioning just the SG's own count, and the contradictory Ministry of Education count would be sufficient, and certainly carry more weight than someone's guess - educated though the guess may be. Maybe mention "some authors estimate different numbers" with footnotes. But the way it's written now is confusing to read, and maybe a bit redundant. --Daveler16 (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No the number is NOT fine the official LEGAL membership of SGI outside Japan might only be within thousands. In my books a member of an organisation is so with full rights anyone else is an adherent, a follower but not a legal member of SGI. The numbers are presumably based on individuals that received a gohonzon which does NOT make them legal members. The average individual “member” might go to meetings, buy the publications and visit courses and venues but is not legally a member. This is a very important issue that should be mentioned and that most so called “members” are not made aware of. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Kept all the citations. Wrote it to be easier to follow. --Daveler16 (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed "Leadership" again. This time there was a link to a pdf of Canada's by-laws or something. But it is still just a declaration of how someone thinks SG should conduct its own business, and adds nothing to any understanding of the topic beyond that. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It typically describes how leaders are appointed. Do not delete referenced material. --Catflap08 (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This source describes how SGI Canada appoints its directors. This may be notable information, but extrapolating to all of SGI is WP:OR. Shii (tock) 04:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The statement (which comprises the entire section) "The election or nomination of so called “leaders” is typically not decided by SGI’s adherents but by a Board of directors" is blatantly false - unless one defines "leaders" as one would a CEO. The leaders who are most active, and with whom most members (and non-members) interact are not "decided by a board of directors". How about saying something more accurate - e.g., national leaders, at least in Canada, are chosen by a board of directors"; and then I'll add some information about the volunteer positions that make up 99% of the SG leaders? Trying to work wiyth you here instead of a revert war. --Daveler16 (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Bundestag report

Catflap, that was a nice try, but I really doubt that Wikipedia readers need to know about this report. So if there are no objections, I'm going to delete that paragraph.
First off, you left some things out. The whole passage is as follows (sorry, in German, but when I try to copy from the English version (p. 201) the text is garbled):

Einige Gruppen haben national eine geringe Bedeutung und sind vor Ort nicht in schwerwiegende politische Konflikte verwickelt bzw. schwerwiegender öffentlicher Kritik ausgesetzt. Sie bleiben aber durch ihre Einbindung in eine internationale, anderenorts bedeutsame und konfliktbehaftete Organisation latent problematisch. Ein Beispiel dafür wurde bei der Anhörung von Soka Gakkai deutlich, einer in Deutschland eher unauffälligen Gruppe von hier ca. 3 000 Personen, die in Japan, den USA usw. jedoch ein hohes Gewicht hat. 234)

Note that you left out the part where it says that in 1998 SGI was relatively unknown, had only ca. 3000 members in Germany, had never been involved locally in any significant political controversy, and had not attracted any criticism. They call SGI not "problematic" but a "latent problem", and as evidence cite one book in English and squabbling over SGI on an AOL members forum.
The book is titled "An Unconventional Method for killing America." In fact, AFIK, this book has never been translated. The Japanese title is アメリカ殺しの超発想―「奴隷」日本よ、目を醒ませ!制度疲労をすぐ正せ! (An Unconventional Method for killing America. "Slave" Japan, Wake Up! Repair Systemic Fatigue Now!). It was by an economics professor who in the 1990s had a side line of writing cheap paperbacks in the Japan Strikes Back genre. Apparently they hadn't read the book, or realized that it was Japan that was going to be killing America, as a way to escape from its slavery.
I could go on, but it's pretty clear that this group of German legislators knew almost nothing about SGI. It's a pretty low-quality source, for anything except that conservative politicians are suspicious of new religious movements. --Margin1522 (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I should have made it clear that I wasn't criticizing Catflap there. I had a little fun with the legislators, but this was a nice try. I've been looking for public opinion surveys or some other hard data myself, and so far coming up empty. --Margin1522 (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well thats too bad the original is quite explicit underlining the problematic character nothing more is said. Also the footnote is worth reading - the wording is diplomatic.So it was anything but cleared as of being unproblematic and it’s one of the few cases that SGI was looked at on a highly official level and since it’s an international organisation here we go. Similar material can be found in France btw.. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Margin1522: The article itself explains why the word derived is appropriate … the organisations’ history shows why it is appropriate. The remark that this government paper makes is that even though in Germany the organisation is inconspicuous it does underline that internationally the organisation is involved in profound political conflicts and serious public debate. It also concludes that in the US and Japan the organisation is faced with statutory violation, violation of human rights and rightist extremist allegations. It also notes that sources and literature are mostly in Japanese. So in the end it states that the organisation was officially described as being latently problematic. Nothing else is stated in the sentence and this is a piece of information on the latest official stance on this organisation is within Germany. An organisation that operates internationally. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Catflap08:. One of the problems I've been having while trying to gather information about SG is that apparently it is a hate object on the racist, ultra-nationalist, right-wing fringe of Japanese politics. These people are hyperactive and are polluting the Internet with all manner of lies and slander. As I was trying to find information about that book with its ludicrous title, I found that it's mainly forgotten. But it lives on at the hate sites because of one passage, where it asserts that Ikeda funneled drug money from Noriega to Ichiro Ozawa, who is another hate object on the right-wing fringe. This is irresistible to these people -- we hate Ikeda, and we hate Ozawa, therefore Ikeda gave money to Ozawa. But is it true? As we have seen, the "evidence" for Ikeda's drug smuggling is extremely thin. Nor is there any evidence that Ikeda ever gave money to Ozawa's various political parties. Ozawa's finances have been exhaustively examined, and if it happened newspapers would have written about it. They haven't.

So the fact that SG is "controversial" doesn't tell us a lot. Being slandered on the Internet is not a serious public debate. A decade ago, German politicians who knew very little about SGI quoted second-hand rumors from an AOL members forum about a dubious book that they had never seen, much less read. Does that kind of information belong in Wikipedia? And I have to say, I haven't made up my mind yet about Ikeda and SG, but looking at their enemies I can't help feeling that they must be doing something right. --Margin1522 (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

One more, the Dragan Todorovic article. So 17 years ago a Yugoslav essayist goes to a scientific conference in Toronto, and spends a month asking around about SGI, which he knows very little about. People send him faxes. Ikeda shook hands with Ozawa. Ikeda has been accused of rape. He makes a big deal out of this, but doesn't mention that the rape case was thrown out of court, with the judge stating that the allegation was the worst abuse of the judicial process that he had ever seen. So it's an old article by a poorly informed essayist who didn't check his facts. If no one objects, I'm going to delete this. --Margin1522 (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If a source is 17 years or one year old is irrelevant. A 1998 source of the Washington Post was good enough again in another article:-). I am sorry but this has nothing to do about “slandering” (what a typical SGI terminology that is). If you do take time and read the whole article’s history within the last five or ten years you will realise the article was at times in a state as if it came straight out the SGI PR-department. A soon as some included some critical comments (not even by myself) the SGI faithful were out there for a full swing edit war. Attacking even the most renowned sources, even as going as far to attack editors with an academic background. Before you downgrade an official report and the conclusions it has made – Information on SGI were available even in 1997 and the problems it faced were similar to the ones today. AND all cults and groups mentioned in the report had to face the committee personally via its representatives – I know this because a) I speak German hence read the report b) because I at that time witnessed when the outcome of the report was delivered to the SGI-D faithful. So were that AOL stuff comes from no idea. The section reflects exactly what the report had to say on SGI. A report of a committee SGI had to stand up to. So if you are so knowledgeable as you seem to be about the report I wonder why you left out the fact in you latest edit that SGI had to speak in front of the committee. Also the Dragan Todorovic report is what it is a report an observation which readers are expected to have brains enough to read first hand and come to their own conclusionI wonder why it is that sources that support SGI’s view of itself are at a closer look in some ways affiliated to SGI – even some sociological papers?? Which at a even closer look at times turn out to be a dissertation of some sort by an SGI adherent. I know that secondary and tertiary sources to support SGI’s view of itself are hard to come by but that does not make secondary and tertiary sources that DO NOT support SGI’s view of itself inaccurate. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I read German too, and I even quoted the relevant paragraph. It's true that SGI had to testify before a closed-door meeting of the committee. But we don't know what was said there. Presumably they were satisfied with what they heard, because the paragraph quoted above said that SGI had not caused any trouble in Germany. As to where the AOL stuff came from, didn't you read footnote 234? That's the only place where they mention any evidence. This seemed really odd to me. I mean they are the German government. If they wanted to know whether SGI had committed crimes in the US, why didn't they ask the FBI? Why rely on statements in an AOL members forum?

Anyway, my opinion is that this report is old and unreliable, and that we should just delete it. If you insist on keeping it, then at least we should have an accurate summary of what it actually says. I contend that my summary is better. But as I said earlier, I'm not going to get involved in edit wars with you. If you insist that my version can't appear in the article, then we will have to take it to dispute resolution. --Margin1522 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that is hard to swallow for you … the report lists sources and footnotes you may like them or not. SGI had to face the committee as all other groups and cults had to. The result is this Government paper which comes to the conclusion that SGI is problematic. 1998 is not 1898 or 1798 I have no idea what the year 1998 has to do with it while you add references to articles which are even older than that. The only conclusion I can come up with that you do not like this being mentioned and in that case there are guideline on censorship too. Even the paper itself does not say that SGI IS fascist, that it oversteps legal boundaries but it says by keeping all things in mind – especially in respect to the Japanese mother organisation – it remains problematic. Compared to other cults investigated this is quite a smooth outcome. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Catflap08: Note your assumption here, that SGI is a cult. This is one reason why some people find this article offensive, and what some of us are trying to correct. You guys are perfectly free to argue in the article that SGI is a cult. Just define what you mean by "cult" and show that it applies to SGI. But you haven't done that, despite repeated requests. So until you do, I think it's best that we stop using the word cult, especially in the lead. Without the argument it's just name calling.

What I find especially dubious about this cite is that it works through guilt by association. The Budestag investigated cults, SGI was investigated, therefore SGI is a cult. But I contend that the report didn't say that.

A couple of other factual errors. SGI didn't "have to" appear before the committee. It was "invited" (eingeladen, p. 15) to appear. Unlike some of the other groups, it accepted and testified (p. 15). SGI wasn't labeled "problematic", it was "potentially problematic" (latent problematisch, p. 105). These are important distinctions that your version glossed over.

About the sources, it's not that I don't like all sources that put SGI in a bad light. It's that this is seriously low quality stuff. We wouldn't allow an editor to cite mudslinging on an AOL forum. Why should we allow through the back door, just because the Bundestag allowed it?

So, I guess we're not going to agree on this. I'll look into how a start a dispute resolution. I've never done this before so it may take a while. --Margin1522 (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have asked for a third opinion, as that seems to be lowest level type of dispute resolution.

For anyone arriving to look at this, here is where I deleted this cite on the grounds that it's too old and unreliable (see Talk), and here is where Catflap08 reverted my deletion. Here is where Catflap08 reverted my edited version of the description and restored his version.

So this is a simple question. Which version is better? Or would it be better to simply delete this cite? --Margin1522 (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion: The Bundestag entry is not really a source dealing with Sokaa-Gakkis but uses them as an example for low profile foreign cults which nevertheless desrve some attention. Margin1522 version is better in covering the content, but nearly as long as the complete relevant section in the source. Forget it, erase it. If you would start to involve German sources, look for better ones. I had a look on the EKD Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen data base entry. It has a good online base about all sorts of cults and refers to further sources including an online doctorate in buddhism studies published 2000 about the interaction of Sôka gakkai und Kômeitô and the political cloud. Serten (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

So it's OK to go ahead and delete this? Thanks, I guess I will ahead and do that.

But I think this may be one of my last edits to this article. Over the past few weeks I've made 50 comments on the Talk page, with little discernible effect on the article. Of my surviving contributions, one is now in a tone that is hardly what I intended. But, I guess you can't complain about that. Through this experience I have seen a side of Wikipedia that I barely knew existed. So that was interesting. But after considering it, I don't think I have the time or inclination to get involved in that side of things. So now may be the time to move on and go back to editing smaller and less contentious articles. I may make one more try on Makiguchi's educational theories. If it's incomplete, hopefully someone else can pick it up and complete it. --Margin1522 (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry the EKD is the Evangelical Church in Germany (bit of a bad translation into English as “Evangelical” holds different connotations) protestant church in Germany – I rather keep a government paper as a source rather than what a religious “competitor” has to say on SGI. And no – it is not okay to delete the source. @ Margin I did not want you to turn your back on the article. But in the end its worthwhile if editors are familiar with the subject. I would suggest reading the book “Fire in the lotus” which is in my books one of the few neutral books on the subject in an unbiased and understandable tone. Since the subject is not mainstream it is out of print but still available. Yes the subject is contentious and I am sick and tired that some decide to “attack” sources with an opposing view on SGI while none provide non-primary sources on how SGI sees the world. I use the word cult only in the talk page – due to personal experience. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That's OK, Catflap, it's not just you. There really are other things I want to do. But I do think I should get to delete this line. I asked for a 3rd opinion, and that's how it works. There will be other times.

BTW, I'm not associated with SG and have no particular view about them one way or the other. I asked my wife, who is Japanese, and the first story was about a funeral that only 2 family members could attend because they weren't members. The second was about a relative who is a member, and how he was required to contribute a certain percentage of his income. So she doesn't care that much for SG. As far as that goes, it sounds to me like they resemble the Mormons -- rather secretive, close-knit, strict rules about tithing, and into proselytizing. But that doesn't mean they're a cult. Wikipedia manages to get through all of our major articles on Mormons and Mormonism without using the word "cult", even though some Evangelicals do believe it's a cult (and even though they were also investigated by the Bundestag). I think we should be able to do the same with SG. --Margin1522 (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories in the See also section

I see that a new editor added the "Members of Sōka Gakkai" category to the See also section, and that it got deleted almost immediately. The way he did that was apparently to create a redirect page to the category, and then add the redirect page. I'm pretty sure that this is not the right thing to do, but it's not clear that categories can't be added to See also. This was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout/Archive_7#See also include links to categories?, and there wasn't a consensus. Some people feel that in some cases it's OK.

What should we do about this? There was some useful information in there (e.g. I didn't know that Herbie Hancock and Wayne Shorter are members). I think the normal thing to do would be to convert the redirect page into a list article and put THAT into See also. I'd do it myself, but I'm kind of busy right now. --Margin1522 (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Under the "Beliefs and Practices" Section it said "For further information" with links to the entries for "Nichiren Buddhism" and "Nichiren Shoshu". I understand the "Nichiren Buddhism" link. But it is mentioned many times in many parts of the article (too many, I think) that the SG started as a lay organization within Shoshu,and it's certainly not necessary to define SG's "beliefs and practices" through the lens of someone else's "beliefs and practices", or even to compare them.

For the same reason, there is no point in including Taisekiji's ""Guide to refuting [erroneous teachings of] other schools"" in the "Books" section at the end of the article. I think the aqppropriate place for including what Nichiren Shoshu believes and practices is the entry for Nichiren Shoshu.--Daveler16 (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I guess the “Guide to refuting [erroneous teachings of] other schools” is mentioned in the section that is about the split i.e. when SGI was kicked out. That’s exactly where it belongs to or as a reference to those who want to hear the other side. What’s the problem??? Or in other words why should the information be withheld? Why should Nichiren Buddhism and Nichiren Shoshu not be mentioned??? At one time some complain that its not mentioned as a traditional school then some complain its not mentioned in a wider perspective. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Lede Sentence

@Ubikwit, you are an esteemed editor who has worked tirelessly on many fronts to improve WP. But in the case of using the term “Buddhist-derived” in the lede sentence of the Soka Gakkai article you are swimming against the current of scholarship.

According to H. Byron Earhart (The new religions of Japan : a bibliography of western-language materials) the notion of “~-derived” stemmed from “a practice adopted by the Ministry of Education (now the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture) in grouping New Religions according to the major tradition from which they derived: Shinto-derived, Buddhist-derived, Christian-derived, and ‘Other Religions.’" (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cjs/aba2512.0001.001/--new-religions-of-japan-a-bibliography-of-western-language?rgn=main;view=fulltext).

Should WP readers be forced to make a judgment about the SG through the lens of a Japanese government system of categorization? This is counterproductive. The first impression that they will inevitably draw from the lede as currently written is that the SG is not really Buddhist but only “Buddhist-derived.” 99.9% of readers are unaware of the backdrop of the Japanese Ministry of Education and a few scholars who rely on its systems.

This is a grave disservice to our readers especially since scholars have been either ignoring or abandoning this system of categorization. In the second edition of his book Earhart himself abandoned this pattern of grouping by derivation and simply listed new religions by the alphabetical order of their names.

@Ubikwit, the only citation you provided in the SG talk page to justify the “~-derived” concept is a footnote in Leslie Kawamura’s book “The Bodhisattva Doctrine in Buddhism” (p. 228) which was a collection of papers given at a 1978 academic conference at the University of Calgary. On the basis of a footnote you state, “the descriptive use of ‘~-derived new religion’ is the normal jargon used in academia to discuss these movements that started from the 19th century onward in Japan.” Without a convincing number of citations to support this statement, this categorization should be removed from the lede sentence and reserved for a new subsection.

The term “Buddhist-derived” certainly does not appear anywhere else in the SG article whereas direct SG references to Buddhist or Buddhism appear at least 7 times in the article, and 12 times in the bibliographic references. @Shii has been adamant in the past about removing content in the lede that is not supported in the rest of the article.

@Ubikwit, you sidestepped my August 14th post on the talk page where I point out that in the very text of the Kawamura book we find the central thesis that the Japanese new religions are “an integral entity of the Japanese Buddhist tradition” and “Soka Gakkai is a historically established religious institution, a sangha, which like any other Buddhist institution is striving, through improvising skill-in-means, to realize the ideal bodhisattva principle" (p. 215). Instead of considering my citation you ignored my references from the text of the book, calling my posting “ludricrous” on the basis of an obscure footnote. You then demanded that I “cease and desist” making entries.

You certainly have more credentials on WP than I based on your long history of contributions on many articles. But in this case I have to question some of your actions. It appears that you went on a one-man campaign to introduce the concept of “`-derived” (a few days earlier “~-influenced) into Wikipedia. On August 12 you applied the term to the article on the Soka Gakkai. On August 13th you changed the Sangha article by injecting “Buddhist-derived” to a reference about the SG. The same day you introduced “Buddhist-derived’ to an article about the Kenshokai. You struck again on August 16th to introduce the term “Shinto-derived” to the article on Tenrikyo. This strikes me as Orwellian. FetullahFan (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not want to be accused of writing walls of words so I listed many additional citations to support my contention that the SG should be identified as Buddhist, not "Buddhist-derived," on my Sandbox page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FetullahFan/sandbox).

I have done extensive reading on this matter and the citations I listed are just the tip of the iceberg. I included citations from scholars as well as tertiary sources such as respected encyclopedia which go through an intensive editorial vetting. I even included a newspaper article from the NYT which is ostensibly critical of the SG; regardless, the headline refers to the SG as a sect.

Rather than me citing sources ad nauseum, I challenge those who prefer the current "Buddhist-derived" appellation to find citations, preferably from the 21st century, that identify the SG in this manner. It's important for readers to see which interpretation is a river and which is a stream.

FetullahFan (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The "derived" line is horribly misleading, if not just plain wrong. I'd first point out that the very first citation in the article is to a book called "Soka Gakkai: From Lay Movement to Religion"; and the subtitle of one of the most frequently cited books is "Daisaku Ikeda, Soka Gakkai, and the Globalization of Buddhist Humanism" - not "lay movement to religion-derived", not "Buddhist-derived humanism". I suppose with a little effort other references throughout the article could be found that make the same point - Soka Gakkai is a religion, and, in fact, a Buddhist religion. Plus, it's members engage in the practice prescribed by Nichiren, in exactly the same way as other Nichiren sects, and the organization was the first to publish a comprehensive collection of Nichiren's writings, the first to translate same extensively, to say nothing of the numerous books and articles it publishes on the Lotus Sutra and the writings of Nichiren. I will soon be adding things to the body of the article that I hope will make this point implicitly. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss general issues here, but you should bear in mind that you are both nearly totally uninformed on this topic, whereas I have studies the field for years, and Catflap80 is an academic working on this subject matter.

For now, I'm just going to list another academic reference or two (accessible on google books) that refers to SG as a "Buddhist-derived new religion"

1. Marketing the Menacing Fetus in Japan, by Helen Hardacre
2. Modernity and Religion, William Nicholls

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Luckily, since we are an encylopedia, we don't have to decide which of these expressions is right and which is wrong. We quote sources that refer to SG as a Buddhist sect, a Buddhist lay movement, a new religion, a Buddhist new religion, and a "Buddhist-derived" new religion. If someone wants to write a paragraph to sort this out, that would be useful. In that paragraph, instead of assembling random quotes, we should select passages where the authors discuss why they chose that term. For example, perhaps they were discussing new religions in general and wanted to distinguish between those that arose out of Shinto and those that arose out of Buddhism. In that context, "Buddhist-derived" would make sense. In other contexts it might not.

What we shouldn't do is imply that SG isn't Buddhist, because that is highly offensive to members of the faith. If there's a dispute over the nature of "true Buddhism", we can explain what the dispute is about. But we can't take one side or the other. That's what NPOV means. --Margin1522 (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line is that SGI does not even describes itself as a Buddhist school. As there is no council on who is Buddhist and who is not the discussion is somewhat useless. Some regard the Bodhisattva vow as kind of creed that unifies most Mahayana Buddhists (also practised by other Nichiren Buddhists). The reason why some would say SGI is today only remotely Buddhist is due to the fact it introduced teachings that are not Buddhist and which some regard as indication of a leader cult. Also the weight given to Buddhist liturgy has lessened in the last few years. It also has not contributed in any major ways to the field of Buddhist Studies. The vehemence and aggressiveness in which SGI attacked its former parent school was unseen in todays Buddhism. So in a way it marginalised itself within the Buddhist world. It’s not the first New Religion to be Nichiren inspired – it is however not a traditional Buddhist school – it’s an organisation with a religious practise with a strong emphasis given to its presidents.--Catflap08 (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, Catflap, then you can write the paragaph about the dispute over whether "SGI is today only remotely Buddhist". Please cite the views on all sides of this question, with sources. That's what NPOV means.

In the meantime, I see you reverted my deletion of the word "derived" from the first sentence. Let me explain. I deleted it not because it is right or wrong, but because the lead is a summary of the article and the article doesn't use the word "derived" and doesn't explain what it means. If someone writes a paragraph to explain what it means, then perhaps we can put it back. But as of now, we can't use it in the lead. So I am going to delete it again.

In all my years of editing at Wikipedia, I think this is the first time I have ever reverted an edit because of a disagreement over content. Except that I am not disagreeing over content. I am saying that the word doesn't belong in the lead. If you want to put it in the article, go ahead. And if you revert me again, that enough. I'm not going to fight about this. We can take it to dispute resolution. --Margin1522 (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Margin1522: The relevant context here is that this is an encyclopedia, not a forum to provide representation for adherents to the movement that is the subject of the article. Categorically speaking, as indicated by scholars to whom there is no other way to describe the groups status in terms of its historically place in the milieu of Japanese religions.

The relevant point of NPOV here is WP:DUE. The notion that SG is anything other than a Buddhist-derived new religious movement is a minority opinion. One of the editors commenting here tried to dismiss the classification as a new religion as some ploy by the Japanese government's Ministry of Education, when their statements are also a reliable source on this matter. Moreover, it demonstrates that most of the pro-SG pov editors here are not students of Japanese religion and history. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Margin1522, for eliminating "Buddhist-derived" from the lede and replacing it with the original "Buddhist" designation. Yes, there is no support for this term in any other part of the SG article.

@Catflap08, your concern about consensus is noted. However Ubikwit did not try to reach consensus when he inserted, quite unilaterally and unannounced, the designation "~-derived" into the SG article as well as several other articles (see my post above). Where was the consensus-building then?

@Ubikwit, you provided two sources which you found on Google Books to support your "Buddhist-derived" contention. The Hardacre book, from what I can gather, is basically exploring the abortion issue through the lens of Buddhist schools. "Buddhist-derived" is a mention, not an exploration and explanation. You then cited Earhart but, as I noted in a prior post, Earhart himself abandoned this classification. In my sandbox I listed 14 citations that support the prior view that the SG should be described as Buddhist. Since we are both reading Global Citizens, I am going to add here some illustrative quotes in which authors clearly express the sentiment of "Buddhist" and not just a tepid "Buddhist-derived."

“In just half a century, the Soka Gakkai has become a world religion.” (Phillip E. Hammond, Global Citizens, p. v)

“Such self-determination can be confusing and alienating, but Soka Gakkai Buddhism teaches that it need not be so. The religion prescribes a ritual response to troublesome areas in one’s life that serves to focus attention on the possible responses and potential outcomes, turning problems into opportunities.” (Bryan Wilson, David Machacek, Global Citizens, p. 5)

“World-reforming religions such as the Soka Gakkai are, in a sense, inherently anti-establishment, viewing change with much greater optimism.” (Bryan Wilson, David Machacek, Global Citizens, p. 6)

“Soka Gakkai may reasonably be regarded as a unique contemporary form of Buddhism in the broader sense. (p.16)....“Buddhist movements may be subdivided, depending on the proportion of constitutive elements in their doctrine and practice into semitraditonal; syncretistic Buddhist; and intermediate type. Soka Gakkai belongs to the semitraditional Buddhist type.” (Nariyoshi Tamaru, Global Citizens, p. 29)

Perhaps there is a gap between scholarship in Japan and that which is available to English readers. It would be helpful then if you were to write an academic article about this topic and submit it to an English language peer-referenced journal for review and publication. An article such as this could become an important source of citations in WP.

Why do I care so much about this matter? There are consequences downstream when someone restricts the passage of water upstream. The carnage of religious minorities today in Iraq and Syria by ISIL can be traced to Wahhabi and Salafi adherents who attempted to define pure vs. heretical strands of Islam. The matter of "Buddhist" or "Buddhist-derived" might seem innocuous and scholarly at this point--but can lead to devastating consequences in decades ahead.

FetullahFan (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You do not need to defend your concern, this does make all the difference in characterizing SGI. But have some sympathy with Ubikwit. Look closer at what you are quoting: not Buddhism itself, but "Soka Gakkai Buddhism", or "Buddhism in the broader sense". Both authors are actually in agreement with the idea that Soka Gakkai is not mainstream Buddhism but an NRM. Personally I would opt for neither "Buddhist" nor "Buddhist-derived" but some compromise between the two, for example "a modern, semitraditional form of Buddhism". Shii (tock) 13:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shii, you are absolutely right. I do respect Ubikwit's scholarship and his long-standing contributions to WP which I see evident on many fronts. I will try to moderate myself. I will also try to suggest some alternative wording which can accommodate the two viewpoints.

FetullahFan (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with something like Shii's suggestion. As an alternative, there is also this: "A modern lay Buddhist movement". New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2003, via User:FetullahFan/sandbox. It has the 3 key concepts modern, lay, and movement. It's Buddhist in the wide sense, but qualified: modern (a synonym for non-traditional), lay (which will tell Western readers that this is something different, because normally when they think of Buddhism they think of monks), and movement, which means it's not a school or a sect. I think this comes fairly close to satisfying everyone. --Margin1522 (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@FetullahFan: I thought that I answered some of the questions--particularly in relation to Kawamura and the snagha--but don't have time to dwell on that now. I don't see why people are so obsessed with seizing the mantle of Buddhism in the Soka Gakkai, including their supports among Western academics. Nonetheless, WP:DUE as I mentioned above, is the guiding policy.

I will point out that although Earlhart dropped the organizational schema, he still has to resort to the categorization in describing material listed in the 2nd edition.

"Buddhismus im modernen Japan."... A general description of the historical development of Buddhism in Japan, followed by brief treatment of Buddhist-derived New Religions.

Note that I don't have time to read the "Global Citizens" book, either, but did read the piece by Hurst. She practically admits that she is an adherent of Soka Gakkai, so while there is some useful information in that piece, particularly regarding organization/membership (which seems to be at issue presently here), most of what she has must be attributed if it is useful at all due to her obvious COI.

I did also acquire a copy of the 1966 edition of the Kitagawa book, and want to post the relevant passages below for people to assess, because I don't have time to work on the article.

Excerpt from Kitagawa (1966), pp. 327-331, 339

pp. 327-331 By far the most controversial among all the new religions is Soka-gakkai (literally, The Society for the Creation of Values"), which claims to be a lay organization of the Nichiren Shoshu (literally, "Legitimate School of Nichiren"). Nichiren, be it recalled, had six leading disciples. One of them, called Niko, became the custodian of the temple at Mt. Minobu in the present Yamanashi prefecture, which was the center of Nichiren's activities toward the end of his life. Indeed, it is Mt. Minobu which has been the most sacred shrine of the Nichiren school from the founder's death in 1282 until the present. However, another leading disciple, called Nikko (1246-1333), who was unhappy with Niko's leadership, left Mt. Minobu and established his own temple known as Taiseki-ji (The great stone temple) at the foot of Mt. Fuji. His followers, convinced that Nikko was the real spiritual heir of Nichiren, called his tradition Nichiren Shoshu, and refused to cooperate with other Nichiren sects. The doctrinal system of Nichiren Shoshu was systematized by Nikkan (1665-1726). Unlike other Nichiren sects, Nichiren Shoshii ignores Buddha Sakyamuni and regards Nichiren alone as the savior who should be the object of worship. Nichiren Shoshii painted by Nichiren, kept at Taiseki-ji, is alone efficacious for the salvation of mankind. Although such beliefs were constructed on Himsy scriptural and/or historical grounds, these disciples have kept fanatical faith with the teachings of Nichiren Shoshii, and have prayed for the time when a national ordination center would be established at Taiseki-ji, which would then become the cathedral of the state religion. However, Nichiren Shoshii remained an insignificant minority until the end of the Second World War. Meanwhile, something quite unexpected happened, and rejuvenated Nichiren Sh6shii. Two frustrated schoolteachers, Makiguchi Tsunesabur6 (1871-1944) and Toda Josei (1900-58), were converted around 1928 to the teachings of Nichiren Shoshii. Earlier, Makiguchi had advocated a system of education based on value-creating principles and had established the Value Creation Educational Institute (Soka Kyoiku Gakkai). He insisted on the importance of subjective values for the attainment of happiness, and stressed practical values, namely, gain and profit, together with beauty and goodness, as the goals of education. Makiguchi's religious faith provided him with a new passion for carrying out his philosophy of education. However, convinced that Nichiren alone was to be worshiped, Makiguchi and Toda refused to pay homage at the Grand Shrine of Ise, and they were jailed on the familiar charge of lese majeste. Subsequently, Makiguchi died in prison. After the Second World War Toda, who had been released, restored the movement under the name of Soka-gakkai. He instilled a militant spirit into the organization by inaugurating an unscrupulous and aggressive method of forced conversion (shaku-buku). To effect conversion, troops of young men and women were expected to coerce nonbelievers into accepting the Soka-gakkai faith. Understandably, the activities of Soka-gakkai had a direct bearing on Nichiren Shoshii, too. The enormous success of Soka-gakkai is evidenced by the fact that its membership zoomed from roughly 200,000 in 1953 to 4,000,000 in 1959. According to Mombu-sho, Shukyo nenkan (1965), Soka-gakkai members are listed as adherents of Nichiren Shoshii, which claims to have 14,458,855 members. What is alarming to many observers is the fact that Soka-gakka is organized on militaristic and authoritarian principles, so that the whole operation is under the management of a director-general who presumably will exercise enormous power in influencing the future of Japan. For example, the Coal Miners' Union is confronted with the encroachment of Soka-gakkai. It was estimated in 1957 that approximately 10,000 of the 75,000 unionists affiliated with the Hokkaido regional headquarters of the Federation of Coal Miners were adherents of Soka-gakkai, while at the Yubari mines alone the 13,000 union members included an estimated 3,000 believers. It is understandable, therefore, that the Japanese Federation of Coal Miners in its annual congress in 1957 made the following declaration: "Unless some action is taken against the new religions, they will increasingly disrupt the unity of the workers and play into the hands of management .... " Equally noteworthy is the significant success of Soka-gakkai in the political arena. In 1959, in Tokyo alone, Soka-gakkai's seventy-six candidates for the twenty-three ward assemblies were elected, and their six candidates for the Upper House were also elected. In 1962 Soka-gakkai's nine candidates won their seats in the House of Councilors, polling more than 600,000 votes for the three members of its slate from among the national constituency. Furthermore, the Komei-to (literally, "fairness society"), consisting of the Soka-gakkai deputies in the Upper House, now holds the balance of power between the Liberal Democratic party and leftist groups. Various attempts have been made to analyze the factors that have contributed to the political strength of Soka-gakkai, although it is too early for us to come to any definite conclusion regarding these matters as yet. It is significant to point out, however, that, according to a recent survey, most of the supporters of the Soka-gakkai candidates were women whose ages range from twenty to forty, with a few over fifty. For the most part, their average educational level is that of junior high school, and many of them are engaged in manual labor.149 This class of people, largely neglected by established religions and existing political parties, seems to be looking for religious and political guidance, which some of the new religions are more than willing to provide. p.339 Historically, such a yearning of the Japanese people to restore the idealized state of the golden days, coupled with the notion of the identity of religion and politics (saisei-itchi), has often developed a messianic fervor, especially during political crises. The ethnocentric, messianic restorationism implicit in the indigenous religious tradition of Japan received further stimulus from the apocalyptic notion of Buddhism known as mappo (the coming of the age of degeneration of the Buddha's Law) as well as from the "immanental theocratic" motif of Confucianism, as exemplified by the messianic motif of Nichiren's teaching in the thirteenth century and by the emotionally charged restoration movement influenced by the Shinto-Confucian ideologies in the nineteenth century, respectively. Many observers sense the similar ethnocentric, messianic motif in Soka-gakkai and many other postwar new religions that present the "old dreams" of Japan as the "new visions" of the coming social and political order.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

1) "The bottom line is that SGI does not even describes itself as a Buddhist school." Just examining one SGI publication, we see that they chose to call it "Living Buddhism"; that it devotes 14 of its 63 pages to studying a small portion of a writing of Nichiren; that another study article begins "President Ikeda discusses the core teaching of Nichiren Buddhism..."; and that the first two pages of the magazine are kind of a FAQ and the answer to the question "What is the SGI?" begins "Our lay Buddhist organization. That's one quick glance through one small magazine. Can we stop pretending SGI doesn't call itself a Buddhist school?

2)"The relevant context here is that this is an encyclopedia, not a forum to provide representation for adherents to the movement that is the subject of the article". Nor, I hope, is it a forum for other sects whose teachings contradict the subjects, or for portraying the subject in the least flattering light. It seems to me that Margin and Fetullah Fan are arguing for balance, and others are arguing for refutation. What I see here is not one extreme against the other - it's one extreme against the middle. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ubiqwit: Thank you for posting that excerpt from Kitagawa. I collapsed it to make the thread easier to follow, but it's worth reading. We still don't have a volunteer to write the paragraph to explain what "Buddhist-derived" means, so for now I am going to support adding "modern", as I explained above. Maybe we can return to this later.

About the Kitagawa excerpt, one passage that puzzled me was the one about the "ethnocentric, messianic motif" in SG. Messianic perhaps, but ethnocentric? Maybe the book is showing its age. --Margin1522 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the book was written before SGI was founded, which is one of the things that makes judging its accuracy difficult.

Can I suggest an alternative opening sentence? It also fixes the clumsy wording of the membership figure, which may belong at the end of the first paragraph anyway.

"Soka Gakkai (Japanese: 創価学会?) is a Japanese new religious movement grounded in a semitraditional form of Nichiren Buddhism. […] According to its own account, it has 12 million members in 192 countries and territories around the world."

If you can think of a better linking word than “grounded in”, I’m all ears. Shii (tock) 00:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

We could say "informed by the xxx of Nichiren Buddhism". This is usually said about artists (Google "my work is informed by"), but we could use it (Google "religious * informed by"). --Margin1522 (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I volunteer to give it a try....in the morning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FetullahFan (talk • contribs) 02:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I have already done so. I think the wording "Originally a lay group of Nichiren Shōshū" is a bit clumsy, but the rest of this new first paragraph should be an improvement. Shii (tock) 03:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Daveler16:SGI does not describe itself a Buddhist SCHOOL!!! Is that so hard to understand? It is not a „Shu“, never said it is, never said it wants to be. An if you are unable to understand that read upon what a school in Buddhism and Japanese Buddhism especially means. One can not fight and attack traditional forms of Buddhism attack its structures and definitions, but use its definitions when it come in handy. SGI does not even do that and they surely know why, so why do you? --Catflap08 (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Reflections on Lede paragraph

First of all, I appreciate Shii’s edit of the lede paragraph. I think it accommodates everyone’s concerns. Secondly, as a new editor, I am so impressed by the WP process. After a very rancorous discussion we pulled together as a team and came up with a very balanced product. I hadn’t anticipated that such a great accomplishment would be achieved.

My only concern is the word “semitraditional” in the lede sentence. It does not come up very much in WP except in rather obscure articles such as “British nuclear tests in Maralinga,” “2008 Rosebowl,” or “Music of Tonga.” Although it successfully conveys the essence of our extended discussion, I am not quite sure WP readers will grasp it.

May I share the description of the SG reached by Richard H. Seager? “The SG is best understood as a liberal and modernist religious movement, one marked by the self-conscious attempt to adapt Buddhism to the contemporary world. All three presidents of the SG have made unique contributions to this liberal modernism, each in dialogue with a distinct phase of the development of modern Japan, as it moved from self-imposed exile in the mid-nineteenth century to post-war globalization.” (p. xiv).

To solve the lack of clarity in “semitraditional” I would suggest incorporating some of Seager's words into the lede sentence: “The Soka Gakkai is a Japanese new religious movement that has adapted the teachings of Nichiren to the contemporary world.” The rest of the paragraph IMHO stands perfectly. 74.101.191.18 (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You have raised a good point about the word "semitraditional". I think it is an accurate descriptor (used in a reliable source above) but it may not be the best word. The problem with your proposed replacement is that it attributes success to the Gakkai's teachings. As we can't ask Nichiren whether Soka Gakkai has adapted his teachings correctly, this is a metaphysical matter beyond the reach of Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 12:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for your patient and wise leadership. In the unvirtual world we would all owe you a drink.

I agree, we should neither attribute success or failure to their teachings. I hadn't attempted to imply success but I perhaps should make the language clearer. "The Soka Gakkai is a Japanese new religious movement which bases itself on the the teachings of Nichiren as interpreted by its three founding presidents."

FetullahFan (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good! Your wording helpfully avoids the term Nichiren Buddhism which I am concerned is a neologism (the equivalent term in Japanese is "Hokke-shu" and also covers Tendai). Let's wait a little while to hear any objections, then we can go ahead and implement it. Shii (tock) 15:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is very good at all, because it is more verbose than the present wording and equally as awkward, for one, and it is questionable in terms of its facticity about the "three president". The Soka Gakkai doctrine is heavily indebted to Nichiren Shoshu, and that has nothing to do with the presidents of Soka Gakkai, so the issue is confused from the opening sentence; moreover, it's misleading.

Also, it's common practice to place the name of the sect before "Buddhism" in English, such as "Pure Land Buddhism", ""Zen Buddhism", etc. Here is a link to google search results, 451,000 hits.

I think that the sentence can be improved, but the proposed version doesn't sound appealing. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry the term „semitraditional“ is humbug to say the least. The term is misleading in many ways. While FetullahFan is a devouted memeber oft he Gülen movement and Daveler16’s niece is involved with SGI it does not automatically make them knowledgeable on Nichiren and Nichiren Buddhism. There are certain parameters to which all major lineages of Mahayana Buddhism adhere including the position and veneration of Shakyamuni Buddha – this is also true for Nichiren Buddhism. The grand exception within those traditional forms within TRADITIONAL forms of Nichiren Buddhism is Nichiren Shoshu who place less emphasis on Shakyamuni but on Nichiren. So Nichiren Shoshu are somewhat a minority lineage even within Nichiren Buddhism per se and so are its offshoots which SGI is one of. There is no authority to decide on what is traditional or what is not but the general consensus in literature would refer to monastic traditions and core elements such as the Bodhisattva vow and the three treasures as a guideline. Some Nichiren traditionalists would extend that to the copying of the Lotus Sutra and Mantra as further core elements as prescribed by Nichiren. SGI’s leaders are not known to undergo any Buddhist training may it be in the traditional sense of monastic tradition nor in the modern sense of Buddhist Studies. Nobody in their right mind would therefore attest or attribute traditional or even “sem-traditional” ways to SGI – not even SGI does. This a battle that even within literature is not fought. SGI is Nichiren buddhist inspired, derived, based or what have you, but its neither traditional nor “semitraditional”. Its an organisation that extended Nichiren’s teachings to its own teachings. Even Buddhist liturgy is kept to a bare minimum within daily practice and the teachings of Ikeda are held in greater esteem than those of Nichiren or the Buddha. I have therefore edited the introduction to “originally based on the teachings of Nichiren” as SGI itself distances itself from traditional Buddhism and has also included aspects within its teachings that are neither traditional Buddhist nor traditional Nichiren Buddhist. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The term "semitraditional" came from a reliable source stated above (Ctrl+F). What source are you basing your claim on? Shii (tock) 19:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Catflap08: "the teachings of Ikeda are held in greater esteem than those of Nichiren or the Buddha." You keep saying that. Shouldn't that be in the article, with a source? FWIW, here is SGI's official definition of itself: "The Soka Gakkai International (SGI) is a worldwide network of lay Buddhists dedicated to a common vision of a better world through the empowerment of the individual and the promotion of peace, culture and education." The latter part of that definition is roughly equivalent to "progressive humanism". Is this what you are referring to as "the teachings of Ikeda"? I don't think anyone is denying that progressive humanism has always been a large part of SG. Are you saying that this is a departure from or incompatible with Buddhism? --Margin1522 (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Can I suggest the following?

"Soka Gakkai (Japanese: 創価学会?) is a lay Japanese new religious movement founded in 1930 by educators Tsunesaburō Makiguchi and Jōsei Toda. The Soka Gakkai claims a membership of 12 million people in 192 countries and territories around the world. It derives its worldview from the writings of the 13th century Buddhist monk Nichiren and the organization’s three founding presidents. Its religious views were also shaped by its past relationship with the Nichiren Shoshu sect.

The organization had grown to a size of about 3000 households before World War II when much of its leadership was imprisoned on charges of lèse-majesté. The membership base grew rapidly in the three decades after the war through an explosive yet controversial proselytization campaign. It is now one of the larger Japanese new religions. The movement is publicly involved in peace activism, education and politics. The Soka Gakkai has also been at the center of controversies.

Explanation: I think this accommodates many viewpoints. I believe so much of our conversation has been whether SG is or is not part of Buddhist schools or traditional or semi-traditional teachings. This conversation is trying to define the SG by outside criteria. Is it really, really, really necessary?

Out of curiosity I visited its NY center bookstore yesterday and its well-stocked shelves are filled up with the writings of Nichiren or commentaries. It cannot be said that it was "originally" based on Nichiren when there is currently so much emphasis. Yet the influence of Makiguchi, Toda, and especially Ikeda are strongly represented on shelves as well. I bought several books but am not qualified to determine whether these gentlemen explain, amplify, or digress from Nichiren's teachings. Let's at least give them presence in the lede because the movement is so clearly influenced by them. Thus I think I am hearing the concerns of Ubikwit and Catflap08.

I suggest eliminating the "revere the Lotus Sutra" section because from what I could see from my bookstore visit it oversimplifies the practice of the group's members. They, rather than we outsiders, need to have more voice in expressing what their own practice is. I don't sense that SG editors will object to this deletion in the lede.

FetullahFan (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I've read this but don't have any special comment at the moment, other than to point out that SG did not have a "past relationship" with Shoshu, it was a movement within Shoshu. For the purposes of achieving conesnsus I think this may hang on what Ubikwit has to say. Shii (tock) 03:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I look forward to Ubikwit's response. I am anxious to achieve consensus quickly because I want to address two more points in the latter part of the lede before the new semester starts and I go into work overdrive. At that point you won't see me lurking here for several months mist likely. It's been fun.

BTW, @Shii, from what I read in sources, the SG's relationship with NS is more complex than what you expressed. It was not a case of the SG being born within NS and then expanding outward. Rather it was born from Makiguchi's long history of scholarship and then attached itself to NS. I thought at first this might be revisionist but as I am reading Human Revolution, Ikeda's account of the early years of the movement published decades before the split, I find a consistent thread here. Everyone, please hold your fire on responding to this because I don't want this topic to distract from our work at hand.

FetullahFan (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Margin1522: I can not bring into the article facts that are not yet supported by outside views – like some do with AOL sources. I can however mention in the talk page what people report to me still engaged in what is SGI. It would still need Japanese speakers to do this which I am not. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Soka U. of America

I expanded this section so it tells more about the school than that it has problems with environmentalists. Added some current rankings, and a short list of academic topics.--Daveler16 (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You did not only expand but you also deleted. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, Catflap, your sources haven't been discarded. I spent some time recently updating the SUA article, and while doing that I copied your sources over to it, where they improved the new section on the campus. This took some time -- I checked all the links, fixed the dead ones, updated the data, deleted various crufties that had accumulated over the years, and reorganized the content. The new section on the campus focuses (as it should) on the current campus. But it also explains the environmental dispute in detail, which is where your sources were helpful. Thank you.

But as to whether we need to mention the old campus in this article, I don't think so. If there is one thing that every university in the world has in common, it is disputes with the neighbors over real estate. Instead of that, we should focus on what makes it different. Having spent all this time getting SUA article into shape, I was hoping that we could make better use of it in this article. For example, talk about the campus and about categories where SUA ranks #1 or #2 in the US, like percentage of internation students and percentage of students who study abroad. So I'm planning to do that when I get some time. This will involve deleting the material on the environmental dispute from this article. I am definitely opposed to cherry picking incidents from the university's history in order to make it look bad. --Margin1522 (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Before, the section contained but two pieces of information: that the school had problems with environmentalists, and it was allegedly part and parcel of the SG. Those two items are still there.--Daveler16 (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC) The paragraph regarding SUA's rankings should be moved closer to the top as it reflects the perception of the school within the larger academic community. It is also constantly ranked as one of the most diverse schools in the country.Lionpride82 (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Standardisation of Articles

I found that there are a few article that are inter-related with the main Soka Gakkai article. While I appreciate what is being done and discuss in this talk, other article which are not locked for editing are slowly being fill or vandalised with negative perception.

The main article that is taking place is Daisaku Ikeda. You can see that what is being written previously with negative perception in "Soka Gakkai" is being left unedited on Daisaku Ikeda article.Kelvintjy (talk) 06:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that article does seem to have many of the same problems as this one. In the lead, we stated that he hadn't been seen in public since 2010, and that in 2011 Shincho had written that he was terminally ill. So I corrected that and posted a link to a video of him giving a speech in 2013. It took about 5 minutes to find. The first 5 pages in Google were dominated by reports that he was dead. --Margin1522 (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Surprisingly, this video does not appear on the Japanese Wikipedia article talking about his health. Shii (tock) 12:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That have an article on that? I guess I'm not surprised. --Margin1522 (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

After years of observing this article

After years of observing this article there is but one common thread. Some editors spend much of their time downgrading, deleting, defaming, quarrelling over sections of the article that are either critical or non-supportive of SGI’s view of itself. At the same time non-primary sources are hard to be found that support SGI. I really do wonder why that is. On the other hand I have witnessed claims being inserted in this article or on Mr. Ikeda that a closer look can not be substantiated.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be a party pooper here but yet again I do ask myself – why is it that a number of editors do put much time an effort to discredit critics of SGI (may it be editors or sources) that are based on non-primary sources rather than to substantiate, based on non-primary sources, how SGI views itself and it works? Why is that? Why is that an ongoing issue here? --Catflap08 (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Finishing work on lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference: LA Times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citing Nichiren?

I cannot tell from reading various policies if a short quote from the writings of Nichiren would constitute "original research", or is an acceptable citation. If I were to say "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo is considered the true entity of all phenomena", could I reference to a writing (I would of course not include the quote, just the book and page numbers) that says "It is the entity of the true aspect of all phenomena ...What then is that entity? It is Nam Myoho Renge Kyo". Is that okay, or would I have to find a 3rd party who wrote that Nichiren declared etc etc.? Thanks.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all get yourself familiar with Nichiren Buddhism in general with nearly 40 gropus, schools, orgs etc. etc.. Not even mentioning sub-divisions.

• Anything you say that IS such and such is even more problematic in an article on religion as it boils down to beliefs. So it is not really an IS, but a belief according to such and such.
• Anywhere were one cites Nichiren it is important just as in any citation who made that citation.
• Nichiren is not alive so he himself said nothing in English so one would always cite a translation.
• Especially in SGI/Nichiren Shoshu Goshos are used and studied where amongst Nichiren Buddhists there is no consensus that they are deemed to be authentic i.e. authored by Nichiren. These writings are then not condemned for instance by Nichiren Shu, to study those no one is discouraged, but they are regarded as being an apocrypha. To my knowledge Nichiren Shu does not rely on own academic sources such as Rissho University but also external ones like Tokyo University.

So yes, anywhere were you said Nichiren said such and such a quote would and should be submitted. The best scenario is submit the quote with all major translations in circulation. The bottom line however is that Myoho-Renge-Kyo ist not Nichiren’s “invention” and also the use of it as a mantra as in Namu-Myoho-renge-kyo is disputed by some sources as having been in use within Tendai Buddhism before.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The quotes I refer to are short, and I don't think they (or even the translations) are in dispute as authentic. I will certainly include the name of the translator. --Daveler16 (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Well just make sure not to make them appear universal. Quote the Gosho. Quote the translation you are using and try not to use phrases like “Nichiren said” but instead say according to such and such etc.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with what you said the first time. I really think it's better to stay away from citing primary sources, especially religious texts. It always tends toward original research. Better to stick with secondary sources. If they cite it, then OK, you know it's important. --Margin1522 (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Beliefs and Practices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brainwashing cult and James R. Lewis

On the question of whether to take this to the WP:RS/N notice board, I don’t think that’s the right place for it. Lewis uses the word "stereotyped", so I think it's pretty clear that he doesn't agree with this idea. But the dispute here is about whether reliable sources are being used responsibly, and that's not what WP:RS/N is about. Personally I don't think "brainwashing cult" belongs in the article at all, much less the lead. Following are some reasons.

1. Improper use of the source Suppose a climate scientist wrote a paper that begins "Many climate scientists have been accused of manipulating their data." And then he devotes the rest of the paper to showing why those accusations are false. The paper is about the falsity of the accusations, not the fact that accusations have been made. If we quote only the first sentence and ignore the rest of the paper, the result would be to sow doubt in the reader's mind about the integrity of climate science. Unfortunately this is more or less what we are doing here. We are planting the word "brainwashing" in the reader's mind, despite the fact that the author doesn't believe it.
2. Doesn't say what we say it does We cite Lewis as evidence that SG "grapples with a stereotype of being a 'brainwashing cult'". In Japan, today. But the quote doesn't say that.
3. Dubiousness of the concept itself According to the relevant section in our article on Anti-cult movement, a long list of scientists "have argued and established to the satisfaction of courts, of relevant professional associations and of scientific communities that there exists no scientific theory, generally accepted and based upon methodologically sound research, that supports the brainwashing theories as advanced by the anti-cult movement." Who are making these accusations? Is it just fundamentalist Christians who are horrified that their daughter has become a Buddhist? Given that the idea itself is dubious, it needs extraordinary evidence. We offer no evidence.
4. Offensiveness People have repeatedly asked that this word be removed. If this was a cooperative endeavor, like it's supposed to be, those requests should at least be considered and some attempt made to compromise.
5. Influence of Wikipedia Many of the references on the net that connect SG and "brainwashing" can be traced back to this article. The word is incendiary, and we should make very sure that it is being used responsibly.
6. Doesn't belong in the lead This word was inserted on 04:54 2 December 2013 by Kiruning, who apparently wanted to get it into the lead. But it doesn't appear in the rest of the article. If you ask me, the entire paragraph starting "The organization has been the subject of substantial criticism" should be moved down to the "Public perception and criticism" section. We should have at least one sentence for each cite, and each topic should be critically examined. Then we can consider putting it in the lead.
7. Isn't true Basically, the idea that SG is regarded by the general public as a cult, much less a "brainwashing" cult, just isn't true. Aum, yes. SG, no. As I said above, they are no more regarded as a dangerous cult than the Mormons are in the US.

This is just one example. The same goes for the cite to The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions, which BTW is by Lewis, not Zonta. We seem to be implying that a respected scholar describes SG as a cult. Is that true? If not, then all of the same objections apply. --Margin1522 (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I could not agree with Margin1522 more. Thank you for taking the time to post this. Following your suggestion, I will refrain from posting this on the WP:RS/N notice board with the hope that those of us who are working hard on contributing to this page can reach a consensus on the talk page. Here is the letter I had planned on posting that is on hold:

I would like to request additional opinions about the use of James R. Lewis’ book, “Legitimizing New Religions” (found at http://books.google.com/books?id=hdYSdts1udcC&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=james+r+lewis+anti-anti+cult+soka+gakkai&source=bl&ots=FtDzO9wMy-&sig=bBJaAvGLEW1dS_8YZtM7xCEK4xA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5yD7U82UDJShyASjuoDIBA&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=soka%20gakkai&f=false) in the Soka Gakkai article. A quote from this work is being cited to support a sentence in the lede,

[The Soka Gakkai] is still widely viewed with suspicion in Japan and grapples with a stereotype of being a ‘brainwashing cult’ as well as a [cult of personality] centered around Ikeda.

To substantiate this statement an editor selects this paragraph in the Lewis book (p. 218):

Soka Gakkai also spread to the United States and Europe, where it aroused controversy as a result of its intensive proselytizing activities. Although never as controversial as groups like the Hare Krishna Movement or the Unification Church, Soka Gakkai which in the United States went under the name Nichiren Shoshu of America until after Soka Gakkai broke with Nichiren Shoshu was not infrequently stereotyped as a brainwashing cult, particularly by anticult authors.

To the eyes of WP readers, the charge of a “stereotype of being a ‘brainwashing’ cult” is serious and damning—especially when appearing in a lede--and thus should require a high bar to validate. The Lewis source does not pass this muster.

First of all, James R. Lewis is specifically referring in this quote to the Soka Gakkai in the United States and Europe. The Soka Gakkai article, however, by consensus of all the editors, is about the organization in Japan. The quote uses past tense verbs (“it aroused,” “went under,” “was not”) whereas the statement in the article is examining current—not—past perceptions (is still widely viewed with suspicion). These two points alone should disqualify its use.

It is essential to note that Lewis uses this quote as a mere literary foil. As such he feels no need to support it by providing citations. He claims no field trip to research Japanese public perception about the Soka Gakkai nor any link to Japanese sources. This is simply his perception about public perception of the Soka Gakkai and thus needs no research from any sociologist, political scientist, or anthropologist. He doesn’t care because his goal is not to examine public perception but to drop a casual statement that makes his larger case for legitimizing new religions as can be seen from the book’s title, “Legitimating New Religions.”

In fact, he spends the rest of the book pushing back, undoing the statement he dropped, explaining that the contention is false. For example on the prior page (217) he states,

For over half a century, one of the most controversial new religions in Japan has been Soka Gakkai. Although this group has matured into a responsible member of society…

Lewis goes on to explain why—in the past—public perception was negative, fanned by negative publicity.

Until relatively recently, it also had a high profile as the result of sensationalist and often irresponsible media coverage. Apparently as a direct consequence of the social consensus against this religion, some scholars have felt free to pen harsh critiques of Soka Gakkai—critiques in which the goal of promoting understanding has been eclipsed by efforts to delegitimate Soka Gakkai by portraying it as deluded, wrong, and/or socially dangerous. This body of ‘scholarship’ presents a useful case study for the paradigmatic manner in which it exemplifies inappropriate approaches to the study of religious bodies.

Anyone familiar with Lewis’ work knows that he is one of the foremost scholars of the 'anti-anti-cult' movement. Over and over again in this book he makes statements such as,

It is thus important to note that almost all mainstream academic researchers reject the popular stereotype of new religions deceptively recruiting and brainwashing their members, and that almost all of the studies supporting the notion of cultic mind control are so obviously biased that mainstream social scientific journals routinely do not publish them

(p. 159). It is cruel from this perspective to use the casually-dropped foil sentence of Lewis to support the designation of a “stereotype of being a ‘brainwashing cult’” being applied to the Soka Gakkai.

In conclusion, the claim of “brainwashing cult” is so serious and emotionally-charged that it merits the highest level of scholarship to substantiate. It alarms readers who may not be aware that the concept has lost scientific legitimacy. It certainly is misrepresentative to use the Lewis quote to support this statement. As an increasing number of people rely on Wikipedia for neutral and accurate reporting, irresponsible editing should be called into question. We have to go further than to search Google Books with a term such as "brainwash Soka Gakkai" and dump into an article anything that pops up.

FetullahFan (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources say on a given topic, and Lewis is reliable for those statements.

You can't say that Aum is a brainwashing cult, on the one hand, and then dismiss the concept on the other in an attempt to reject a source. This article does not judge the concept, only reports that it has been applied to SG. The comments are attributed to people in the "anti-cult movement".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

My dear @Ubikwit, you do not address the specific points that Margin1522 and I make. Margin1522's point about the Aum v SG is clear. What authors are you claiming place Aum and SG at the same level of brainwashing cult? When you say, "This article does not judge the concept, only reports that it has been applied to SG" I think you must concede that "it [brainwashing-cult accusation] has been applied to" is a pretty low bar for a lede. Maybe somewhere else for WP readers who want to explore nuances, but not the lede which forms the primary take-away for most readers. "Has been applied to" includes casual mentions, word droppings, rumors, trolling. A lede should require more than that. "We report what reliable sources say on a given topic, and Lewis is reliable for those statements"--Both Margin1522 and I point out that he uses the statement in question as a foiSl--and then spends the rest of the book debunking it. I would like you to respond to Margin1522's analogy about the environmental scientists who use a statement such as "some scientists deny climate change" and then spend the rest of the article debunking this. They shouldn't then be described as supporters of climate change denial.

Since you and Shii are the Japanese-fluent editors of this page, can you provide translations of the relevant passages of the Yanatori and Furukawa books?

FetullahFan (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Since we are on the topic of James R. Lewis, I would like to address this problematic statement in the lede: "Some anticult authors have included the Soka Gakkai on their lists of cults.[15]" Lewis book The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions is the only source being used to substantiate this statement. First of all, Lewis is not a representative of "some anticult authors"--in fact he belongs to the school of anti-anti-cult authors and most of his career has been devoted to questioning the anti-cult movement. Secondly, what sentence in this article is being used to substantiate that the SG is a cult? This is a book, as its title shows, that describes cults, sects, and new religions. In which of these three categories does Lewis place the SG? FetullahFan (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your position regarding the use of Lewis as a source. It doesn't matter if he is an "anti-anti-cult" NRM sympathizer or not: the statement in his book is purely factual. Whether he "debunks" whatever you claim he debunks or not is irrelevant, and amounts to something like using WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to dismiss a source. I suggested that you take it to RS/N, you agreed and then reversed that decision for some reason. Furthermore, I suggest that you read the Wikipedia article on James R. Lewis (scholar)--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Lewis is a reliable source for the fact that "obviously biased" accusations have been made. Except that we leave out the part about "obviously biased" and simply repeat the accusations. Fetullah and I are calling that irresponsible.

Look, this is not that hard. Ask if Lewis would approve of the way we quote him. If the answer is no, then we can try to do better. One example of how to do this is our article on Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That article relies heavily on the work of the Ostlings and the Tanners. We explain who they are -- they even have their own articles. Do the same thing with the people making these brainwashing allegations. I doubt they have their own articles, but we can check what other books they have to their credit, their publishers, reviews, etc. Call those people as witnesses for the prosecution. As witness for the defense, call Lewis. Let the reader know who is saying what. Yes, we should insist on reliable sources, so I don't see how anyone can object to this. --Margin1522 (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

And no, I didn't say Aum was a brainwashing cult. I said it was a cult. First things first. When I just said that I'm dubious of the whole idea of brainwashing, can't you assume that I meant what I said? --Margin1522 (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The assertions about "bias" are irrelevant, because they rely on your analsysis. The statements used from Lewis are simple representation of fact. It doesn't matter whether Lewis agrees with "anti-cult movement" critics of G or not. ::::Moreover, I suggested above that the Wikipedia article on Lewis be read, where there are statements such as this

A prolific author, Lewis won a Choice Outstanding Academic Title award for Cults in America in 1999.[10] The Choice review described it as a "very readable book" that offered a "balanced overview of controversies centering on cults in America", containing basic information on several dozen groups, as well as the more general conflict between "anti-cultists" seeking government assistance to eliminate cults, and religious "libertarians" defending religious liberty even for disliked groups.[10] The review stated that while Lewis differed with the anti-cult view, he presented "arguments and references from both sides – respectfully and in language free from insinuation or invective.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not my analysis, it's a direct quote from Lewis. That's what he thinks. The problem here is that you aren't responding to any of my points. I gave a number or reasons why I think "brainwashing" doesn't belong in the article -- Lewis wouldn't like the way we quote him, the word is offensive, other editors want it out, the idea itself is dubious, etc. But you keep saying none of that matters. The only thing that matters is that I want it in the article and I have a source, so it stays. But why do you want it? There are a million things we could put in. Why this? I'm not even saying that we absolutely can't have it. Let's find one of these anti-cult authors and let him make his case. Then we can discuss it. --Margin1522 (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, I see that someone has been bold and deleted the whole thing. That was pretty drastic. But before we descend into a full-scale edit war, let me remind everybody that the 3R rule applies to all reverts and deletions. Let's not do that 3 times within 24 hours. We seem to have a couple of people who are on the verge or over it already. --Margin1522 (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The word is offensive, and that is why he brings up the fact that it has been used to described SG, and addresses those in the anti-cult movement that do. Lewis has been criticized for being something of an apologist for NRMs, and whether or not he would like how his source is used is irrelevant--he wouldn't deny the facticity of his statement, at any rate. The idea in its full-blown version has been rightfully criticized, but the term is a common parlance for criticizing forms of indoctrination and the like, which are not entirely dissimilar to "shakubuku".

I'm not convinced by the other arguments you made. The correct route to get opinions of uninvolved editors is the RS/N.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, then, maybe FetullaFan should go ahead with his plan. Ever since joining this discussion I've focused on the most inflammatory content and asked whether the sources making those statements are reliable sources themselves. In many cases it turns out they aren't. If we have to have it in the article, I think a journalist would approach it by saying something like this:

SG is controversial. It has been called a "force for good in the world" by Amnesty International and a "brainwashing cult" by anti-cult activists.

That's in the lead, with material to back it up in the article. I think there should be plenty of material about SG to keep everybody happy, as long as we attribute everything, explain who the sources are, and make it clear that Wikipedia isn't passing judgment. --Margin1522 (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

" It doresn't matter if he is an "anti-anti-cult" NRM sympathizer or not: the statement in his book is purely factual." Ubikwit, you seem to be using a source that says "this is wrong" to endorse "this is right." I think the same can be said of the Watanabe LA Times article, a direct quote from which is: "'He has read every book I teach, and he knows them better than most educators,' he said. 'He is not a cult leader. Cult leaders don't read Plato.' “ Perhaps, instead of "sources" that say "Someone else says...", if you had a source that actually says, we could see if thatv one passes muster? --Daveler16 (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Margin1522: That sounds like a reasonable approach, but there is also the "cult of personality" characterization as well. No one has time to track down the sources making some of these characterizations and build the main body of the article.

@Daveler16: I think that this issue has been raised before, but it would be helpful if you could read WP:SECONDARY.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, this is a very troubling paragraph for a lede. IMHO a lede should be impeccable and accommodating. It should be based on impeccable sources.

I, too, am extremely uncomfortable with the use of the Lewis source. Frankly speaking, it churns my stomach to see authors' words being used against their intent. Fishing for quotes is not suitable scholarship for a lede. I would approve of the Yanatori source somewhere else, in a section that delves into the public perceptions of the SG back in the 60s and 70s, but not to describe current perceptions which is what this paragraph purports to describe. I dislike the use of encyclopedias, tertiary sources, simply because they are not transparent; the authors and editors, although respected scholars, do not provide a track record on the data they use to justify their conclusions. Furthermore, I agree with FetullahFan that the Furukawa citation should be translated or removed.

I very much like Margin1522's suggestion, "SG is controversial. It has been called a "force for good in the world" by Amnesty International and a "brainwashing cult" by anti-cult activists" and think we should immediately implement it. I think it would be unquestioned--until we get to a new generations of editors.

BrandenburgG (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's another thing I don't understand. The lede now says, "The organization has been the subject of substantial criticism over the years,[10] especially in the first few decades following World War II.[11][12][13][1][14]". What is "few decades"? Two, three, four, five? This is imprecise language and our readers deserve better. All four sources quoted here were printed in the 1960's and 1970's (the 1990 Kitagawa book was just a paperback edition of his work from the 1960's and without modification). Therefore these citations can be used to substantiate "the first three decades" after the war, not the "few decades.". I suggest an immediate change. BrandenburgG (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)