Talk:Soka Gakkai

Might be of interest

Subtracting picture captions, graphs, TOC and references - just focusing on the actual writing, here are some word counts of Wikipedia articles:

• Dali Lama 3,281
• Catholicism 5,471
• Soka Gakkai 10,424
• Buddhism 15,107

• * The Buddhism article has 64 words on the Soka Gakkai. I think maybe the SG article is way too long. Thoughts? --Daveler16 (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Please note that articles dealing with Catholics, Catholicism and Criticism of the Catholic Church are quite numerous. Articles dealing with Criticism of Soka Gakkai for instanced were merged into this one – of which hardly any traces can be found. This is the only article on SG/SGI. When it comes to comparisons I would not compare an article about this group, what some might a call a cultish group or new religion, with a world religion.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It very much might help to create spinout articles on this topic, agreed. In general, for religions and religious movements, the first two are often a "History of" article and a "Beliefs of" article, under some name of those sorts. In some cases, where a group has particular history in a particular country, "[name] in [country]" articles are also useful. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how many scholars in the llast, say, 40 years or so, have found it a "cultish group", compared to those who find it legitimate? That's kind of my point in bringing this up: the entry is cluttered with anecdotes, mostly from the 5os and 60s, that are just that - anecdotes that have nothing to do with SG teachings or influence, but are presented as if they define the organization as much as say, the Min-on. Excuse another analogy, please, but it's akin to "The 2nd Century Christian teacher Origen castrated himself, giving Christianity a reputation as violently prudish", and devoting a whole sun-section to it. I'm not saying whitewash that there was criticism, but the sections on Toda (especially) and Makiguchi was just hard to read - not because they're critical but because there's a lot of unnecessary junk, and they are poorly written. Not to mention the scads of sub sections tacked on at the end that don't strike me as really necessary. And of course there is waaaay too much on Nichiren Shoshu. Shii - didn't you start to winnow some of this stuff out some time ago? --Daveler16 (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Cultish is to my understanding at most parts a very subjective issue the observation by McLaughlin who once said that SGI turned from an organisation lead by Ikeda to one devoted to Ikeda sums it up quite nicely – this comment too seems to have left the article. Cetainly ther are numerous blogs on the issue which do not count as a RS. Here we come to the issue of a leader cult. The difference is that even though SGI seeks media attention not much attention is paid to SGI/SG outside of Japan. I have this article on my watch list and will from time to time contribute on its talk page but quite frankly cannot be bothered to contribute to the article itself which seemingly turns more and more into an advert. I keep my distance to the article as I am an ex-adherent and I wished active adherents would do the same. My understanding and knowledge on issues concerning Nichiren Buddhism has grown considerably since I left SG/SGI and even though still not affiliated with any group I have utmost respect for Nichirens teachings. In days to come the term “Ikedaism” will find its way to Wikipedia I guess. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

In general, as I have kind of been repeating myself saying a little lately, I tend to think our best indicator of the ultimate length of any article is the length of the longest similar article or piece which can be found in any of the professional encycloepdias or similar works. And that, basically, with rare exceptions where those works are either clearly biased and/or remarkably outdated, that our content should pretty much reflect the content of the available reference work, with us trying to "average out" the discrepancies in terms of WEIGHT and in some cases outdated information. That being the case, I would love to see any indicators here what "articles" or short sections in other reference works are known of, and, where possible, links to online versions or some indicator of what they say in them. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, Catflap08, there is certainly no evidence that you are advocating, or advertising for an anti-Gakkai sentiment. --Daveler16 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Gosh or whatever. Ex-adherents and active adherents should under normal circumstances stay out of the article as much as possible full stop. Otherwise no neutrality is given. Please considerate WP:NOTADVERTISING --Catflap08 (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think there is a difference between an adherent (like me for instance) who is willing to acknowledge, allow and even refer to, criticism; and an ex-adherent who regards anything not negative as "an advert". Again: not trying to eliminate the criticism in the History sedction; I just think it can be summarized and shortened, rather than being crammed with anecdotes. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to say that if you are an adherent who is willing to acknowledge, allow, and even refer to criticism of SG, you are a rather unique individual in the history of the discussions here. Like with most people who join a religious type group on their own, or who are adherents of groups which might reasonably called "embattled," at least so far as I can remember in the recent history of this page, most of the SG adherents here have well, had promotional tendencies, shall we say. And I'm not sure that Catflap necessarily said anything non-negative was an "advert," although he might clearly have said some particular non-negative things were. One of the things which might qualify is the SG peace activity, and some of the content relative to it, might be seen as promotional, I suppose, and I really could see that some of that longish section might have real UNDUE concerns. John Carter (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think peace activities are an integral part of the SG's raison d'etre, but the sub section is indeed much too long. A lot of the other stuff at the end seems tacked on for the purposes of criticizing (the entirety of the "overseas perception" of the SG is a 1990's German parliamentary report?)(If this is about the Japanese organization, why Soka U. of America?) My main concern, though, is the history and priesthood sections, which are much too long and difficult to read. And a conscientious reader has to wade through those interminable sections before getting to "what does the SG believe and teach" - which is what I am guessing most searchers want to know. And, John Carter, you are right - Catflap has not singled out a specific item, but if you go back through the Talk Page, whenever an addition is made that is not critical but informative, or a bad reference is removed, or something added to mitigate some negative statements,there follows a comment from Catflap about "advocacy" or "advertising". I maintain (and so does Wikipedia) that there is such a thing as Negative Advocacy; and I (with no special powers of perception) perceive it here.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It might be a bit better indicator of how peace activities were important to SG if we had more real evidence of it in the article. The article seems to indicate that they favor "small group" activities, which is I suppose possibly more effective than some major NGOs, but it is also, at least to my eyes, possible that there isn't much that can be said in an encyclopedic source about such small group activities. I regret to say that the content of the section about the peace activities doesn't really show a lot of what would be called major activities of the kind that generally gets referenced in encyclopedic articles. I'm not sure if you've reviewed the archives of this page, but if you have you will see that there has been some rather obvious cause for advocacy concerns before. There are at least a few reference sources of a broadly encyclopedic type available in some form at Google books. Even the ones that are rather short by our standards might still be useful in getting together some basis for discussion of what should be included in our article. So, for instance, if an article there has only four real paragraphs one of which deals with a specific subtopic as we have them here, that is maybe a good indication that the subtopic in question is significant. We also, unfortunately, tend to be based on independent sources. I've seen a lot of discussion in the past here about certain works of a basically self-published nature here, which would include speeches and that sort of thing. Those tend to really not be the ideal sources for any group, including the Catholic Church, to which I belong, except for formal organizational positions and that sort of thing.

One thing that has been done for some topics in the past is to get together a subpage on the article talk page indicating sources. Maybe we could do something of the same sort here. JSTOR has a large number of articles that at least mention Soka Gakkai, and between it and ProQuest, and any reference sources we can come up with, they might be the best indicators of what to include here and in any potential spinout articles. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

John Carter: I think original SG sources are being limited ot the "Beliefs and Practices" section - "formal organizational positions", as you call them. I may be wrong, but I think they've been eliminated from the History and other sections (if they were ever there in the first place). Also: by your last suggestion, do you mean compile a list of possible sources we can use, and have it as an ongoing section of this Talk Page? That seems like a good idea to me. That way, maybe, sources could be vetted before they become enshrined on the live page, huh? Finally, not sure I understand this part: "So, for instance, if an article there has only four real paragraphs one of which deals with a specific subtopic as we have them here, that is maybe a good indication that the subtopic in question is significant." You mean if a topic keeps coming up it should have its own sub-section? One problem now, as I see it, is that topics that do have their own sections are still peppered all over other sections too. Winnowing those redundancies out is a worthy goal, I think. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

In 1966, the SGI by-laws [which remain in effect] were further changed so that: - The president is also the “official representative” of the Gakkai. - He is manager of all its affairs. - He has the power to convoke the Leaders Meeting (of all 21 responsible officials). - He appoints and dismisses all the other responsible officials. - He appoints and dismisses all the vice-general directors, the directors and all “other necessary officials.” - He holds office for life. - He chooses his own successor. 2602:304:595F:6689:DD78:398:6BBB:99C3 (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Mark Rogow

Tanuki Incident

"One controversial event that occurred was what went down in the Gakkai annals as the "raccoon dog festival incident" which took..."

I think this requires better language. What is meant by "went down in the Gakkai annals"? Whose annals are we talking about? SG's literature about itself? Historical accounts of the SG by scholars? What, after all, are annals? Very imprecise and sloppy language here. BrandenburgG (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

What is sloppy about such a wording? One editor might have used it to describe the events. Finding sources on SG’s past is a tedious task in any language except Japanese, as it is a subject nobody really cares about. The most non-partisan description of SG’s history is the one described by Montgomery. As soon as so called “studies” are supported by SG (i.e. Sold in its bookstores) out goes the neutrality. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

In fact, the section consists of 8 lines of writing, and there is no footnote until the end of the 4th line - half way through it. And this reference is to Montgomery, who does not ever call it "Raccoon Dog Festival", not make any reference to "Gakkai annals". I have run across no scholarship that talks of this incident being preserved in "Gakkai annals", and in fact the only reference to it in any Gakkai publication I've run across is a description of the event in Human Revolution - which does NOT refer to it as "Raccoon Dog Festival". The first part of this section reads like somebody's essay, and appears largely to be made up by the editor.--Daveler16 (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I found the source. It is in Brannen (1968). "This incident, which later became known as the Badger (tanuki) Incident in the annals of Soka Gakkai, gave the organization such a reputation for violence that a religious council of the Nichiren Sho Denomination was called." (p. 92).

It might have been the talk of the town ("in the annals of Soka Gakkai") at that time but in 1968 the Nixon-Humphrey race was the talk of the town here. Neither is the talk of the town these days.

BrandenburgG (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

At any rate it's not referenced on the page. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless someone raises an objection and can find a source beyond 1968 I would like to remove the phrase "in the annals of the Soka Gakkai" for the reasons cited above.

BrandenburgG (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the "annals" simply refers to the "history", as per this definition, of the Soka Gakkai.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit: But isn't using it the way you suggest Original Research? The entry states "One controversial event that occurred was what went down in the Gakkai annals as the "raccoon dog festival incident"..." and there is no evidence that any SG history or publication refers to such a thing - and the phrase implies that it's the SG that calls it "the raccoon dog festival incident", when it quite obviously does not. (This is probably he end of my comments on this particyular topic for now - other fish to fry :-) --Daveler16 (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You could state, "One controversial event that occurred is known as the "raccoon dog festival incident", or something to that effect, if the phrase bothers you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

thank you, will do.

BrandenburgG (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Photo of the Gohonzon

I was looking through the Soka Gakkai wikipedia page and noticed that there is a photo of the gohonzon. Would it be possible to remove this photo as there aren't supposed to be photos of it? Morella.almann (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This comes up a lot. There is a picture of a Gohonzon on the Wikipedia entry of every Nichiren sect I've see, Wikipedia is not bound by its subjects' sensitivities, and if the picture is removed it will be restored almost immediately.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It is because of WP:CENSOR, not about anyone’s sensitives. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Quote: "Wikipedia will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations."--Catflap08 (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand the concern. I also recoil when I see the image. But there is wisdom in the WP policy mentioned above. For example, many Muslims find depictions of the prophet Muhammad to be offensive. Yet there is an article Depictions_of_Muhammad which discusses the matter in detail and includes quite a few images. I think it is in everyone's interest to have an open forum here.

BrandenburgG (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Josei Toda Subsection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality?

I do abstain from editing the article myself in any major way, but I do fear that it is losing track in terms of WP:NPOV,WP:OR and WP:SOAP.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap, please give specifics. Shii (tock) 23:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Shii That’s exactly why I am asking for an RfC. It’s an invite to those (hopefully) familiar on the matter to have a look at the article. It’s the overall tone of the article that still reads rather like an advert or brochure. The religious practice section waffles on too much without getting to point, short and simple, what is the religious practice – apart from definitions. When researching the internet and resources SG/SGI is anything but uncontroversial … a fact that has been a source of discussions for years on the talk page. As I said I personally have decided to abstain from editing the article in major ways as I am an ex-member and I wished still active SGI members would do the same. Also the section on the “Separation” form Nichiren Shoshu (I will change that heading) is misleading, SG/SGI was expelled - full stop. I am not saying this in support of Nichiren Shoshu, but for timelines and facts to be described in a correct manner. The description of events is not neutral – especially when anyone familiar with the matter would privately agree that the reasons for the split was the quarrel between two elderly men, money and influence. The article at this point still tries to portray an aura of SG/SGI being some sort of reformation movement within Japanese Buddhism which to my mind is utter nonsense as laymen still to this day have little influence on SG/SGI’s policies and decision making process. Some sources mentioned in the article portrayed as “scholars” are at a closer look supported/financed by SG/SGI – this however will be taken care of at some point in the future as we are still talking about a fringe movement gagging for attention. Also some provisions should be made to include or define the term “Ikedasim” within the article --- there has not been written all that much at this point about this issue, but the term in short describes what causes SG/SGI for not being regarded Nichiren Buddhist after all. Having said all that what the article needs is more input from those versed in Buddhist Studies and NOT in any ways affiliated with SG/SGI. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where we respond - here, or on the Religion annd Philosophy RFC page? Thanks.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Responding to Catflap08, pretty much point-by-point. I apologize for the length.

First: "It’s the overall tone of the article that still reads rather like an advert or brochure." How one views this, I think, illustrates one’s own prejudice. I see the overall tone as extremely prejudicial against the Soka Gakkai. There are parts that disturb me greatly: Makiguchi was an intolerant failure whose arrest was morally justified; Toda’s success depended largely on terror and intimidation; Ikeda “brainwashed” people – and the Soka Gakkai has absolutely nothing else going for it. The multiple references to the group as a “cult”; the entirety of the “overseas perception” being a report that someone in Germany thinks it’s a cult.

I have objected to the prejudicial sources: the reliance on pre-1970 sources over more recent work, and the haphazard use of Japanese language sources (often without accompanying text or translation). This all strikes me (and I doubt I’m alone) as obviously negative advocacy. Catflap seems to think any attempt to mitigate or even just balance some of the negativity – from reliable sources – is “advertising” for the Soka Gakkai. Of course that is not true on the least.

Second: “The religious practice section waffles on too much without getting to point, short and simple, what is the religious practice – apart from definitions..” I am responsible for many of the changes that have been made in the section in recent months. Before my work the section of beliefs and practices was virtually unrecognizable to SG members. Prior editors were intent on defining the beliefs and practices through the lenses of other forms of Buddhism and Nichiren Shoshu. Prior editors could not tolerate expression that the notion of spirituality in Nichiren Buddhism (or at least the SG’s perception of Nichiren Buddhism) sees the expression of spirituality in the victorious mundane life. Nor could they admit that religious practice extends to inner attitude beyond incantations. This was an abject failure in the article and I have worked very hard to find primary and tertiary source material to support a more comprehensive view.

I agree that the first two paragraphs are unnecessary. But I believe the section now reflects the “beliefs and practices of the Soka Gakkai” much better, as opposed to what it had been – the practices of the Soka Gakkai through the lens of Nichiren Shoshu. In my opinion it is still too Shoshu-centric: this entry is entitled “Soka Gakkai” – not “Nichiren Shoshu” – and requires additional work.

Third: “When researching the internet and resources SG/SGI is anything but uncontroversial … a fact that has been a source of discussions for years on the talk page.” I am not sure why this is a concern for Catflap; as I noted, there are plenty of references to controversy in the entry. To the best of my knowledge the only references that have been removed are those with faulty citations. Anti-SGI references are still plentiful but now they are balanced by additional P.O.V.s.

Fourth: “I personally have decided to abstain from editing the article in major ways as I am an ex-member and I wished still active SGI members would do the same.” I believe Catflap is here referring to me. Wikipedia policy states: ““Editors are not expected to have no opinions about a subject.The Community encourages editors with experience or expertise in particular topics to edit the relevant articles. Expertise alone is not advocacy, but if an expert consistently gives undue weight to a particular point of view, that can be a problem.”

I have mostly limited myself to editing the Beliefs and Practices section, and I don’t see what is so bad about someone who believes and practices what the SG believes and practices, working on the section concerning what the SG believes and practices. For an example, look no further than the WP entry for the SG’s former affiliate, Nichiren Shoshu, which is dependent almost entirely on Nichiren Shoshu sources – and I would bet written mainly by Nichiren Shoshu members (I’m not complaining about that, except to argue that same respect be shown the Soka Gakkai entry.)

The edits I have made to other sections have dealt mostly with faulty or misquoted sources, and have not really been very major changes. I hold that I am a good (though still learning)editor. I am calm and slow-working. I participate fully in talk sections. I respect the opinions of others, including Catflap, and had thought, before his/her RfC request, that our interchanges on talk sections were reasoned and respectful.

I believe there is a real boomerang effect here. Yes, I am a member of the SGI but I admit there are controversies that should be explained through multiple perspectives and I refrain from deleting sources who disagree with the conclusions of my sources. In contrast, and here is the boomerang, Catflap admits to being an ex-member but he/she raises objections or reverts when anything positive about the SGI is mentioned.

Fifth: “The description of events is not neutral – especially when anyone familiar with the matter would privately agree that the reasons for the split was the quarrel between two elderly men, money and influence.” “Anyone familiar with the matter would privately agree that the reasons for the split was the quarrel between two elderly men, money and influence.” That’s a prejudicial statement and OR backed up by no sources at all! Much, much larger implications have been drawn – whole books compiled! – by scholars from Oxford University, Berkeley, Princeton, etc.

Sixth. Catflap’s prejudicial POV blinds him/her from recognizing even the most faulty arguments. I know he/she is a more senior editor who has made outstanding contributions to Wikipedia in the past. But that should not give him/her more standing than me while we pursue the RfC. For example he/she writes, “Laymen [in the SGI] still to this day have little influence on SG/SGI’s policies and decision making process” (again, an argument that is unsourced and OR). This argument makes absolutely no sense because the SGI is a lay organization with but a few priests as members in the Orient, those priests having absolutely nothing to do with policy and decision making – which is all determined by laity.

Number 7: “Some sources mentioned in the article portrayed as “scholars” are at a closer look supported/financed by SG/SGI”. Some scholars have written positively about the SGI, and the SGI has subsequently invited them to speak at SGI events, or encouraged (even financially) further study. This has nothing to do with their original writings, which preceded their associations with the SG. Case in point: Clark Strand, who as an editor at Tricycle wrote about the SG and even interviewed its president, and who later had a book published by an SGI subsidiary. I can point to other similar scholars: Seager, Wilson, Dobbelaire, Machacek, Macioti.

Catflap here insults the integrity of some of the most prominent scholars of religion in the world backed by major universities. His/her comment here is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to delete anything but negative statements about the Soka Gakkai. Meanwhile, there are currently seven references to the works of Noah Brannen. Brannen, together with Daniel Montgomery and James White, was trying to understand the rapid rise of the SG in the 1950s and 1960s. Given the tenor of the post-war years—economic turmoil, labor and student riots, massive demonstrations about Okinawa, and displacement from the Korean War—they had a legitimate right to ask whether this unique social movement posed an immediate risk. But forcing us to look at the SG through the lens of these authors is like forcing us to look at the Obama years through the lenses of the Eisenhower and Kennedy years. The overuse of these sources is not neutrality. Brannen in particular is non-neutral because he admits he is studying the SG because it has been more successful in propagation than Christian missionary work.

Number 8. “Catflap’s prejudices disqualify from commenting on any mass movements. The statement, “we are still talking about a fringe movement gagging for attention” is embarrassingly prejudicial. Fringe movement”? The fringe movement has (reportedly) between 10 and 12 million members in 192 countries, an educational system whose college in America has won numerous accolades, several prominent research associations, an art museum and a performing arts production wing. The SG receives invitations to participate in civic events all over the world, is a UN NGO, and has recently organized the first White House conference of Buddhists. Its president has received more honorary doctorates than any person in history (and has delivered addresses as Harvard, UCLA, Moscow University, and many others), and his books are used in university courses, and there are courses about his philosophy at universities in China, the USAW and other coountries. Wikipedia should not be put in the position of pretending the Soka Gakkai is a “fringe” movement when it very demonstrably is not. Not well known beyond Japan, true, but this entry is about the Japanese organization; and, the SGI is a rather active and major player in the world of Buddhism.

The Latter Day Saints claim a membership of 15 million with missionaries in 162 countries, it’s a fair comparison. Yet I do not see people arguing in the talk page of that article notions that members of the LDS should not be permitted to edit. The article contains references to primary sources published by the LDS or its arms…and no one raises concerns. It seems that the SG article is being asked to a completely different standard.

Finally: “Also some provisions should be made to include or define the term “Ikedasim” within the article --- there has not been written all that much at this point about this issue”. Catflap, please show us recognized scholars who use the word Ikedaism and I will not argue this point. There are multiple mentions of and references to a “cult of personality” in the article. What would a separate section of “Ikedaism” add except to feed the prejudices of disgruntled ex-members and adherents of other Buddhist sects?

I am not asking Catflap to be banned from the article. Nor am I happy that he/she has decided to distance him/herself. I do ask Catflap to be more self-reflective.--Daveler16 (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Daveler16 To make it short. Your answer shows exactly where you are coming from thanks for that. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC) I am asking for those familiar and versed in Buddhist Studies to have a close look at the article and I am quite aware of the fact for this is to take weeks. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Catflap08. I am sorry, but which of the points above (I believe there are 8) are you objecting to?

BrandenburgG (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not my intention to object or to discuss any of the points mentioned. I started the RfC for other editors versed in Buddhist studies to have a look at the article as RfC stands for “Request for Comment”. For reasons I have explained numerous times I myself abstain, as an ex adherent of SGI, to make major changes to the article. Nevertheless I find that the article’s tone and choice of sources has become generally somewhat unbalanced at lacks objectivity – this may be due to the fact that editors, who “admitted” being affiliated to SGI, have been quite busy restructuring and rewording major sections of the article. Some might not be aware of this, but in academic circles it is normally considered good practice to make others aware to which extent one may be personally attached or affiliated to or with a subject. Since I left SGI ten years ago I have decided to get more familiar with Nichiren Buddhism (its history) and Buddhism in general – hence me just watching this article but not getting too much involved either anymore as I concentrate on the areas mentioned. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, @Catflap, I think your idea to involve more scholars in the review of the article, especially those versed in Buddhism, is excellent. I look forward to their participation. Is there anything I can do to help facilitate this?

BrandenburgG (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08: since you don't want to dicusss "Ikedaism" below - you're right, it was brought up in this section - let me mention here that "it comes up on the Internet" is probably not a good source. Where on the INternet does it come up? Chat boards or scholarly journals? Just wondering. As to your concern about editors affiliated with the SG: again, WP policy states clearly “Editors are not expected to have no opinions about a subject. The Community encourages editors with experience or expertise in particular topics to edit the relevant articles. Expertise alone is not advocacy, but if an expert consistently gives undue weight to a particular point of view, that can be a problem.” (emphasis mine). That italicized sentence, perhaps, applies to you as much as to anyone else. And I believe you are demonstrating the "consistently gives undue weight to a particular point" clause. Anyway, I hope it doesn't really take months, butI'm anxious to see what they have to say.--Daveler16 (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Daveler16 I already stated that in another reply to you that this term is an EXAMPLE and in some time it will surely be listed in Wikipedia. Since parting from SGI I indeed have built up somewhat of an expertise when it comes to the history of Nichiren Buddhism as a whole and have as stated numerous times that due to my former affiliation to SG/SGI I stay clear to make drastic changes to this article itself. Personally I find it unproductive however if one is an active adherent (or closely affiliated) of the group in question to edit the article. The subject of SG/SGI is not anything many here in Wikipedia nor in the realm of Buddhist Studies have on the top of their agenda. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Having done some research at least Seager does mention the term “Ikedasim” apart from that it has popped up in a number of blogs and forums (both not counting as reliable sources). So, just as I said in due course the term will be discussed and explained. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Separation from Shōshū vs Exclusion from Nichiren Shōshū

I changed the heading as the events that took place were not a separation, but an expulsion/exclusion/ excommunication. It might be worthwhile to include a referenced timeline of events that led to the complete exclusion of SG/SGI form 1991 until 1997 with a wording most neutral stating references form both sides. This would be more informative than the existing section. I hesitated to use the term excommunication as to my knowledge the communion is not practiced within Buddhism. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)And when the timeline is to be complete one would have to start in the 1970’s. So far to my knowledge the only timelines available based on facts i.e. documents issued are the ones by Nichiren Shoshu itself (being the party that expelled) and the one issued by Nichiren Shsohu priest urging for a reformation of Nichiren Shoshu. Please bear in mind that some editors do rely on SG/SGI resources (versions) only or resources being supported by SG/SGI – this is simply not good enough. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not permanently objecting to this change. I would like to hold off a bit until we look at the scholarship on this matter. How do scholars refer to it: separation, exclusion, excommunication, or something else? Although we discourage primary sources I am curious about how do both groups refer to this matter in their own literature, and whether there has been shifts over time. I will do some initial work on this and present some findings by midweek (I apologize but we are in the middle of a national vacation this weekend).

BrandenburgG (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@ BrandenburgG This might come across a bit harsh. But why exactly do you have to wait for “Scholarship”? Separation sounds as if a couple decided to separate staying friends – this is not the case here, one told the other twice to pack their bags and leave. When staying with that example of a couple … one kicked the other one out.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is no OR. I thought WP favors reliable sources. What sources discuss "Ikedaism"? I haven't seen any.

BrandenburgG (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all in this thread we are discussing the issue of SGI having been expelled – the term “separation” is misleading and incorrect. The term “Ikedasim” has popped up quite a few times in the internet. In my post I hinted at the fact that some time in the future – not now, not tomorrow maybe even not this year, the term might find its way into Wikipedia as it is being used … as one would expect for terms to be listed and explained in an encyclopaedia. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I have yet again substituted the term “Separation” as it is not correct. Also there is no “Shoshu” but only a “Nichiren Shoshu”. No – I am no adherent of NST. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I am putting aside here "Shoshu" and "Ikedaism." I started this section to discuss whether we should use "separation" or "exclusion." I regard it as OR to say "separation" or "expulsion" or "excommunication" is the right term because of just the etymology of words. I believe we should all work to find out how scholars describe it in the literature. I know that Wilson, Seager, and Strand all talk about a long process of separation and not a point of time (exclusion). All three scholars (perhaps there are more) describe a growing chasm of beliefs that resulted in an inevitable (Wilson) separation. Literature from the SG points to 1977 as a year in which DI began expressing Nichiren Buddhism in very accessible (and liberating) ways, causing a blowback from NS. From this perspective "separation" is a better word than "expulsion" which implies that all was fine and dandy until NS decided one day to pull a trigger. BrandenburgG (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Exclusion is the mildest choice of wording when one side told the other to leave, to get lost or was simply being kicked out. The issue is not about two sides deciding to separate but one telling the other to leave. We could by all means try to change the course of historic events nevertheless it will not change what took place. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Best thing to do is to call for yet another RfC--Catflap08 (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, by the mid 1990's until about 2002/2003 it was universally characterized by both the Nichiren Shoshu and the Soka Gakkai as "excommunication", at least as reflected by the hundreds of posters on a.r.b.n. [Google Groups alternate religion buddhism of nichiren] and the documents cited therein on both sides. 2602:306:BCB1:4169:65C9:F05B:4C2C:CEE (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Mark Rogow 06/11/2015

Actually I find scholarly references to "excommunication" but have not yet found any for "exclusion." For example, in the index of the Wilson and Dobbelaere book (1998), p. 265, the entry is listed "Nichiren Shoshu sect/excommunicates Soka Gakkai 240." The entire section describing the events is entitled "The 1990-1991 Schism of Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai." Hence I renamed the article's subsection using "schism" rather than us quibbling over "exclusion," "separation," or "excommunication." I don't think anyone will disagree on this suggestion.

BrandenburgG (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Call it excommunication if you like but it was not a separation. Mentioned by scholars it may be but the term excommunication I find still to be not appropriate. To my knowledge the idea of a “communion” does not exist in NST nor in Nichiren Buddhism and since we are talking about an article which is on religion one could expect, scholars or not, to use the appropriate terminology. The term excommunication might make clear what happened but in the end what happened was that those in SG/SGI who until 1997 did not register with a NST temple were not allowed to enter the grounds of Taiseki-ji nor were they being regarded as NST adherents of any other NST-temple. They were excluded from NST. --Catflap08 (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that excommunicated should be fine. The way I read it is not as being about "communion" in the Christian/Catholic (I guess?) sense, but simply about being ejected and ostracized by the Nichirenshu "community". Maybe some etymological research on that term is in order.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Ubikwit There is no “Nichirenshu community” as the Nichiren Shu is a different sect/school than Nichiren Shoshsu. Nichiren Shu had nothing to do with the quarrels between NST and SG/SGI. --Catflap08 (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, but I was just speaking figuratively, trying to explicate the definition of the term. One could say "Nichiren Shoshu community" instead.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Daigohonzon

Is the DaiGohonzon going to be discussed in the Beliefs and Practices Sections? 2602:304:595F:6689:D46D:8D06:875E:C1F0 (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC) M.Rogow 06/03/2015?

@2602:304:595F:6689:D46D:8D06:875E:C1F0: Soka Gakkai#Gohonzon covers it currently. What would you change? Ogress _smash! 18:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

There had been a sentence about the new SG rules that say the DG is like any other Gohonzon, but it appears someone deleted that. I can't imagine why since it pretty germane to the B&P of the SG, especially as we are pretending they are still somehow connected to Nichiren Shoshu. --Daveler16 (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Daveler16: Oh, can you link the diff? Let's discuss it. It might be because it's already got its own section on the page? Who is pretending SG is still connected to Nichiren Shōshū? SG isn't, and Wikipedia has them listed as a NRM spawned off of the former.

Also, as for your User page, you could just redirect it to your talk page with #REDIRECT [[User talk:Daveler16]] if you don't want to write anything there. Ogress _smash! 21:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Ogress, you are unaware of the Gohonzon purported to have been inscribed by Nichiren on October 12, 1279 and worshiped by Makiguchi, Toda, Ikeda, and all SGI members for more than eighty-three years. I see no mention of the so-called DaiGohonzon on the Soka Gakkai Gohonzon section. Just like the Soka Gakkai in terms of the Nichiren Shoshu, "poof it's gone", so the DaiGohonzon of the second year of Koan by Daisaku Ikeda's decree? 2602:304:595F:6689:DD78:398:6BBB:99C3 (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Mark Rogow

@ Ogress, Mark Rogow, Daveler16: Well if the Dai-Gohonzon is mentioned then it should reflect historic facts. The validity or authenticity of the named object of worship is not being questioned because SGI “ruled” at some point that it is just like any other Gohonzon. As I mentioned in another talk page SG/SGI was quite willing to carry the faithful flock in bus loads to the head temple. It seems rather irrational that SG/SGI raised doubts only after the split with NST as the douts about the authenticity date back until the time Taiseki-ji pulled it out of the hat. It is also worthwhile noting that neither NST nor SG/SGI issue copies of Gohonzons “authored” by Nichiren. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@2602:304:595F:6689:D46D:8D06:875E:C1F0: As I said above, there is an entire section about it under the Beliefs and practices section, as you are demanding: Soka Gakkai#Gohonzon. If you'd like to add clarification in that section, we just need cited material. I recommend you edit the section to clarify that the Dai Gohonzon was the center of worship when Soka Gakkai was part of the Shoshu school, but after it was excommunicated in 1991, blah blah blah. With a very robust cite.

There's a Dai Gohonzon page about this controversy, although like many Nichiren-related articles it is kind of badly-written for the lay reader. I'll admit that I'm not intimately familiar with everything about Nichiren Buddhism and many of the articles are seemingly written by insiders using a lot of jargon. For example, at Dai Gohonzon#Role of the Dai Gohonzon, only Soka Gakkai is mentioned, so it's unclear what the role of the Dai Gohonzon is aside from the intro sentence, where it says, "The Dai-Gohonzon, a mandala inscribed with Sanskrit and Chinese characters on a plank of Japanese camphorwood, is the supreme object of veneration for the Nichiren Shōshū school of Nichiren Buddhism." Ogress _smash! 18:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ogress, for your edification (not sure how much y0u know): The Dai Gohonzon is the central object of worship in the Nichiren Shoshu sect. As Mark noted, there is controversy about it's origin, but NS maintains it was inscribed by Nichiren himself, though he made no mention of it in any extent writings; I suppose you can visit the NS entry to get an idea of what they think about it. The Soka Gakkai has not been part of Nichiren Shoshu since 1991, and even before that - from its inception - it has had it's own concepts and philosophies that were often at odds with Nichiren Shoshu's (you can see from the SG entry that there were constant turmoil and bickering in the relationship, and all 3 SG presidents were, at one time or another, banned from the NS head temple). In the December 14, 2014 World Tribune (publication of SGI-USA), the president of the Soka Gakkai in Japan announced that the "Rules and Regulations of the Soka Gakkai" had been amended, specifically "Chapter 1, Article 2 (Religious Tenets)". Old version: "...it shall accept and uphold the Dai Gohonzon of the 3 Great Secret Laws..." New version: "...it shall uphold the Three Great Secret Laws embodying the fundamental Law of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo..." He explains all this in great detail, and summarizes that the NS head temple "has absolutely no relation to the Soka Gakkai." (pp. 2-3) The disagreements on the Talk Page have been between those who maintain that the SG is and always will be a subset of NS, and that not only its history but also its doctrines should be explained in terms of NS; and those who maintain that the SG has always been its own organization that was but allied with NS until 1991. Both opinions can be well documented, so I guess it's basically a disagreement over the weight given the respective sources.--Daveler16 (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally I do not think any mentioning of the Dai-Gohonzon at this point would do any good. In the end this article would yet again become the stage of a blame game between adherents of parties involved. I do admit that the beliefs and practices section could and should at some point in the future differentiate between before and after the point SG/SGI was expelled by NST – unless more non-partisan (!!!) editors get involved , firmly educated in or familiar with Buddhist studies, I do not see this happening in the near future. Also as mentioned before, and compared to most other articles on Nichiren sects and organisations, I find the overall tone used in the article to be too promotional. Also I know of no sources describing SG/SGI to be a subsect of NST. SG/SGI is just like Shōshinkai or Kenshōkai an offspring of NST being that it is a religious organisation (or religious movement) and not a sect. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree Catflap. The Sho Hondo was built with SGI members' money and trillions of Daimoku to house the DaiGohonzon and, at least in the minds of the SGI faithful, to complete the establishment of the Three Great Secret Laws. It also served, in the minds of many members, to establish Daisaku Ikeda as a "Buddha" on par with Nichiren Daishonin. For these reason's alone, a discussion of the significance of the Daigohonzon to SGI is essential. 2602:306:BCB1:10A9:3565:3FE1:7DF3:D2CE (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Mark Rogow 06/14/15

Democratic modernity

In the section on the exclusion, separation excommunication or whatever the text reads “ the cause of the split was the friction between hierarchical tradition and democratic modernity”. Could anyone specify of what democratic elements this is an indication of? Many Christian Protestant congregations are organised in a more Democratic fashion than SGI is. At this point we need more than just dubious sources speaking of a so called “democratic modernity” but of sources proving a “democratic modernity” in practise. If that cannot be proven out goes the next RfC.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Just that there is no mistake, there may be a difference to what SG/SGI perceives to be democratic in contrast to what is being established and practised in other faiths already. Maybe there is democratic election process in terms of leaders and presidents most are not aware of it would therefore be helpful to clarify that. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it's just buzzwords. Ikeda's word is law and scripture. He's been the head of Soka Gakkai since 1960. Ogress _smash! 10:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It's in the next sentence, isn't it? "A spirit of openness, egalitarianism, and democratization pervaded the SG, embodying and giving new life to the idea of self-empowerment. In 1991, these liberalizing developments led to the split between the Japan-oriented, priestly Nichiren Shōshū and the lay-based, globalized SGI." I realize this doesn't comport with your notions, but I don't think that means you can just call the sources "dubious" and substitute your own ideas for them. I'm still fairly new and inexperienced, but I get the idea Wikipedia doesn't approve of that kind of editing. And Ogress_smash!: Ikeda hasn't been SG president since 1979, and is now 87 years old. He is probably not dictating policy to the rest of the organization. If you can wade through the fores of negativity you will find an occasional sourced reference in the article to his democratization of the SG. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Um the sentence before your cite is actually "Religious scholars have mixed opinions about the split." and the sentences after are "In an analysis of books studying the expansion of SGI after the split, Jane Hurst viewed the split as the result of: 'lay members seeking religious support for their lives, priests seeking perpetuation of hierarchical institutions'. Ian Reader, on the other hand, saw 'corrupt and scandalous behavior on both sides.'"

Ikeda retired as presidente of SG in 1979 ... and became president of SGI, which he remains, as well as the Honorary Presidency over SG. There is a very strong sense in sources that SG(I) is a cult of personality around Ikeda: his writings are literally all over everything SG/SGI prints and there are daily quotes from his works and essays by him read daily by believers. While there are also sources stating SG is democratized by him, that doesn't mean we ignore everything else written on the subject, and the subject of this section remains both questionable and weaselly for sure. Ogress _smash! 20:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, here's SGI's website: daily encouragement: "June 14: Chanting daimoku is the foundation of Nichiren Buddhism. When we chant sonorous daimoku, the sun rises in our hearts. We are filled with power. Compassion wells forth. Our lives are lit with joy. Our wisdom shines. All Buddhas and Buddhist deities throughout the universe go to work on our behalf. Life becomes exhilarating. Daisaku Ikeda, SGI President [Selected from published guidance]" The official e-bookstore: Ikeda books galore! soka-ebook-store. SGI podcast collection: all narrated by Ikeda! podcasts. SGI study materials: includes Nichiren and Ikeda! study materials List of further reading: Nichiren, Lotus Sutra... and Ikeda! List of Further Reading Shall I continue? Ogress _smash! 20:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The question of contradictory sources is one I mentioned a few days ago, above. To which do we give most weight is the question - or do we give equal weight to both. Doing that, inmo, contributes greatly to the unreadability of the entry. Personally I would rather it be unreadable than to give more weight to, for instance, a 1960s Christian missionary than to a 1990s scholar of oriental religion. As to your second point: yeah, there are a lot of books by Ikeda - quite a jump from that to "Ikeda's word is law and scripture". But if that's true, we ought to be getting rid of the pervasive implication that SG beliefs are derived from Nichiren Shoshu's, shouldn't we?--Daveler16 (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum doesn't really promote our discussion... Ogress _smash! 01:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Just because Daisaku Ikeda states, "The Soka Gakkai is the Jewel of Buddhist democracy", nothing could be further from the truth. As I wrote above, In 1966, the SGI by-laws [which remain in effect] were further changed so that: - The president is also the “official representative” of the Gakkai. - He is manager of all its affairs. - He has the power to convoke the Leaders Meeting (of all 21 responsible officials). - He appoints and dismisses all the other responsible officials. - He appoints and dismisses all the vice-general directors, the directors and all “other necessary officials.” - He holds office for life. - He chooses his own successor. This is far closer to National Socialism than democracy. Sorry, hate to be so picky. 2602:306:BCB1:10A9:3565:3FE1:7DF3:D2CE (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Mark Rogow 06/14/15

@ Daveler16 I agree with Ogress. The use of the term democratic is used as a peacock term even if some sources say so. If anyone conducts any even just superficial research the term “democratic” in terms of SG/SGI’s internal structure does not really come to mind. It might be helpful to illustrate those so called democratic structures from a congregational (group) level to the one of a district, HQ and national level right up to international structures. What sort of democratic process takes place? Who has a say in which matters? Are “leaders” elected?--Catflap08 (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand that your experience was rather negative, but the fact is that there are sources attesting to the modernity and democratization of the SG, and to pretend otherwise is to be doing original research, isn't it? There are sources used -- Victoria, McLaughlin etc -- to present the "cult of personality" opinion, and your attempt to eliminate other opinions seems an extreme violation of neutrality. Look at it from another perspective: if I were arguing for eliminating anything negative based solely on my experience - all members participating in planning, giving their own opinions on doctrine, etc - you'd be screaming "Advert!" or whatever. This is not an "anti Soka Gakkai" discussion board, even if the entry reads like one in places. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Daveler16 It might be helpful instead of changing the subject to give an overview of SGI’s “democratic” structures. As also sources do not elaborate on what those democratic structures are the issue may need a RfC. I would also advise you not to comment on what you perceive to be my “negativity” (is that still the term used as a last resort?). So far neither my nor the question of Ogress has been really answered. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not even sure what "modernity" means, as living religions are modern. That's a WS:WEASEL word. As for "democratization", I'm sort of seeing it being used the same way here. If by "democratic" you mean "doesn't have a high priest", we're not using the word democratic correctly, especially given the citations that seem to demonstrate that Ikeda just replaced the High Priest's role. It's a peacock and/or weasel term as far as I can tell; you argue it isn't, but have shown no cites that describe how Soka Gakkai functions as a democracy. Given all the scholarship there is on both NRM and on Soka Gakkai specifically, can you not find (reliable scholarly) sources? Ogress _smash! 20:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I see also that a search shows that while Soka Gakkai is involved in Japanese politics as a centrist or centre-left entity, its internal workings (including that of SGI) are described as highly regimented, with very marked and distinct gender roles and has an elaborate and hierarchical internal structure. In addition, the organisations goals violate the Japanese constitution's separation of church and state, as SG has a characteristically Nichiren Buddhist eschatological view: SG openly states that the ideal government would be rule by SG and its principles. Indeed, they have gotten in trouble many times for violating election laws, forging ballots, instructing their followers how to engage in voter fraud, and for harassing local voters to try to force their votes. Searching for evidence on SG and democracy has only found me cites showing how they act completely contrary to the notion of democracy in terms of internal structure, external activity, and theological and political goals and actions. Ogress _smash! 20:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08: the "subject" is very clear. You want to ignore what sources say and insert your own opinion into the article, and that's exactly what I'm addressing. Ogress: Where exactly does "SG openly state that the ideal government would be rule by SG and its principles." Every religion I know of thinks the world would be better is its principles became pervasive in society and government - and why wouldn't they? --Daveler16 (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There are entire books on the subject, and they are cited on this very article. Here's one I found on Google books just for you: Fisker-Nielsen, Anne Mette (2012). Religion and Politics in Contemporary Japan: Soka Gakkai Youth and Komeito. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-69424-7..

@ Daveler16 The question raised was the one about “democratic modernity”. Full stop. And you are seriously asking why I believe this article to be written in large parts as an advertisement. It is simply not enough to use that term just because some so called scholar uses it as it is being used to make SG/SGI appear to be democratic – in the last few years that article has been stripped systematically of many critical issues including the ones mentioned by Ogress and many others. I am not even bringin up Buddhist matters may thy concern Buddhism in general nor Nichiren Buddhism as the average SGI adherent would to be able to comment on either of the two. SG/SGI is ANYTHING but democratic nor in any sort a protestant movement. SG/SGI practises a cult of personality. All these issues of happy dance peace activities and World War II victimisation issues without it being proven once that SG spoke up against war atrocities at the time they were taking place. The priest issue boils down to them (the priests) bad, us (SG/SGI) top-notch. Even the issue of a religious practise could not be answered (please do compare other articles on even other religions) … instead of a long waffling. This article and the group it is about is highly contentious and in my books it should be blocked from editing and replaced with an extremely boiled down version until issues have been resolved dealt with. Wikipedia is not a soap box!! So what the issue boils down to is not what the sources give say but that nothing is mentioned about what other sources say. We are talking about a CULT. At least I abstain from editing the article in major ways on that bunch as I was once part of it and I wished its adherents would have the brains to abstain too. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08: thanks for the book. To the point Ogress was trying to make: "In this way, Soka Gakkai as a group does not seek to be part of the state, nor does it seek to be some kind of public religion." (p. 26). Other helpful stuff too. I think your statements speak for themselves about your complete lack of objectivity or fairness concerning the Soka Gakkai. De,pcracy does not mean merely that leaders are directly elected, and if you like, I can insert in the article a list of initiatives and changes that have been initiated from the bottom up. But, unlike you, I do not advocate for OR but prefer not to inject my personal experiences into my approach to editing. And by the way, when it is appropriate, I most certainly will compare this article to pother WP articles on religions.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so since you are unable to state what “democratic modernity” is about I guess it is just the absence of priests. In that case the Roman Catholic Church could be regarded a cradle of democracy as at least they have some sort of election processes – even with lay representatives. And yes, an election process of some sort is a vital sign for any democratic procedure. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's what Dayle Bethel, then of the International University in Osaka, had to say about religion and democracy: "As I observe the Soka Gakkai organization, I see it as running counter to this fundamentalist trend of the times. It is a movement that seeks to develop people who can think and discern for themselves; a movement that rejects authoritarianism because it impedes human growth. Two general types of religious organizations can be observed in the world: dogmatic religions that seek to gain the allegiance of the people through authority and blind faith, and those that seek to develop people who are free-thinking and self-determined." Democracy means more than the direct election of leaders, even in secular society. I think Japan, England and the US (among others) consider themselves democracies, though none has a direct election of its head of state (and the US didn't have direct election of Senators until 1913 or so). As Bethel says, flexibility, non-authoritarianism, and self-motivation are also democratic, and a sight nore modern than a clergy who thinks Beethoven is slanderous.--Daveler16 (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

HoneSTLy, that isn't Dayle Bethel, that's SGI President Ikeda. Ogress _smash! 21:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is quite obvious that there are top down aspects to the SG as well as robust bottom up aspects. In my next posting, and the ones to follow, I am going to explore this phenomenon one source at a time. I am going to start with the book "Beyond Global Crisis" by Terrence Edward Paupp.

I think what is needed here is a discussion of what is and what is not democracy. Also, is there a difference between democracy and democratic? We seem to be stuck on "one person/one vote" as the paragon virtue of democracy. They tried that in Egypt, Libya, and (fingers crossed, jury still out) Tunisia. Lesson learned: just giving a vote does not result in democracy, especially in the absence of the elements of democracy and democratic institutions.

Even in Wikipedia there are many articles about democracy, each offering different perspectives far beyond one person/one vote. I really do suggest that we take the time to look at: creative democracy, deliberative democracy, associative democracy, grassroots democracy, subsidiarity, cellular democracy, and civil society. (I am sure there are others as well)

Because this is an important issue, I think we should look at various sources we are familiar with and try to see what these sources suggest pertaining to the SG and democracy.

BrandenburgG (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

How about we just find a better, less polarising quote? Ogress _smash! 02:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm assume that was a typo (made a few myself), that you meant to say "honestly" amd not "honey", and that it won't happen again. Meanwhile, sorry, Bethel said that, Ikeda quoted him. I include it just for this discussion and have no intention of using it on the love page. --Daveler16 (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Daveler16 LOL it was definitely a typo. OMG. Yeah no, I'm not from the South, I'm a New Englander. I was trying to AGF the sentence. *cough*

Well, I have to say that's really difficult to discern from the original source. Do you have a hard copy? The electronic version is only a snippet and it definitely looked to me like Ikeda. Is the original source of his quote provided? I did not find that quote anywhere but in Ikeda's speech. Like, one hit only, it was SGI newsletter and only a tiny portion was visible. Ogress _smash! 23:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I still feel, as I said below, that the page is so polarised that we should literally stick to RS for statements like that. There's a quote right there. How about we just let the scholars say their bit, because interpretation is unnecessary and obviously causing a great deal of strife. I have no objection to RS that say something about SG's equalising force, I just feel like with all the OR that goes on we should limit ourselves to that quote and not precede it with "democratic modernity". Would you be comfortable with that compromise? Catflap, what about you? Ogress _smash! 23:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It's from a speech Ikeda gave in L.A. in 1993, and it's included in a book called "To My Dear Friends In America", p.119. As to your other point: an editor (Margin1522) once suggested including quotes form sources, rather than characterizing them. I think that would get a little unwieldy, but I (and I think Ubikwit and others) include the pertinent quotes in the footnot, where practicable. I think that helps readers, actually.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Daveler16: I'm talking about an existing quote. It's already on the page. "A spirit of openness, egalitarianism, and democratization pervaded the SG, embodying and giving new life to the idea of self-empowerment. In 1991, these liberalizing developments led to the split between the Japan-oriented, priestly Nichiren Shōshū and the lay-based, globalized SGI." I'm not suggesting we add anything. Ogress _smash! 23:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I found the quote using your information, and while I can find some information about the original text, Issues Between the Nichiren Shoshu Priesthood and the Soka Gakkai. Soka Gakkai International. 1991., what I note about it is that it is published by SGI. I'm once again concerned about the RS nature of this quote. Dale Bethel spent the last half of his life as dean of a university he co-founded based on the principles of Soka Gakkai's founder, who he also wrote a book about. Ogress _smash! 23:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

democratic modernity?

In the section on “Schism and Excommunication, 1990-1997” the text reads “ the cause of the split was the friction between hierarchical tradition and democratic modernity”. Could anyone specify of what democratic elements this is an indication of? Many Christian Protestant congregations are organised in a more Democratic fashion than SGI is. At this point we need more than just dubious sources speaking of a so called “democratic modernity” but of sources proving a “democratic modernity” in practise. The source cited only states a REVIEW on a book and does not cite the book nor a scholar per se on the subject. Ongoing talk page discussions did not help to define how democracy is defined within SG/SGI. Even though RfC’s on SG/SGI do not really catch a lot of attention these days I will try my luck.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh for pete's sake, every time you can't win an argument you're going to do a RFC? Just FYI, In have asked a few editors who actually edit this page to take a peak, on another subject. The pones I've contacted have all, I think, shown a greater degree of objectivity than is usual on this Talk page, and have at least a passing knowledge of the subject matter.--Daveler16 (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Daveler16 When editors find themselves at an impasse, a RFC is appropriate. However, I think this is not clearly worded and I urge Catflap08 to clearly describe the issue. You don't RFC for someone else to do research, you provide information and ask for comment on it. "The editors are at an impasse regarding X because of Y." Please rewrite it so someone will actually comment. Ogress _smash! 21:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08, I really do understand your frustration. In an ideal situation we would not only have neutral scholarship that has been peer-juried but also double blind empirical studies. In general this depth of research is usually not available in the social sciences as a whole. It is not at all surprising that we have limited sources in the research on the SG.

The limited sources come in many flavors:
1. Dated sources, often from as far back as the 1960’s, sometimes with openly prejudicial viewpoints.
2. Primary sources from SG literature.
3. Sources drawn from Japanese tabloids, often rumor-based, arguably neutral but often with hidden anti-SG agenda.
4. Japanese sources that are listed by editors but which cannot be scrutinized because of the limited number of Japanese-speaking editors working on this article.
5. Sources from junior scholars, often dissertations.
6. Sources written by SG members or ex-SG members, often with anti or pro SG predispositions.
7. Sources written by reputable scholars who later become SGI advocates on the basis of their studies.
8. Sources that were written by reputable scholars but with the cooperation of SG offices
9. Tertiary sources that rely on all of the limited material above.

The state of research on the SG is obviously in the earlier stages and hopefully will improve with the years. I believe that we editors are collectively helping to attract future researchers and eventually there will be a gold standard.

But for now I think it is counterproductive to say this limited study is better than that limited study. I think we should err on inclusive rather than exclusive. At the same time I think it is important to clearly note in the article or talk page the biases and limitations of the research fellow editors have cited. BrandenburgG (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress and @Catflap08- I think you’ve lost sight of what your roles are as editors. We are here to summarize the academic dialogue on the Soka Gakkai, while giving the most weight to the most reputable sources. What you believe doesn’t matter. Speak with sources! Stop repeating, “ Many Christian Protestant congregations are organized in a more Democratic fashion than SGI is.” So far Daveler16 has presented two sources that clearly back up the claim that the SG embraces democracy and that their democratic/ modernist leanings were at the heart of their schism with the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood. Present to me a source that is more reputable and substantial than Embracing the Dharma(which was written by a noted academic and published by University of California Press), then we can debate.

Too many times on this page we exchange opinions and beliefs, instead of evaluating sources and crafting language that reflects the spectrum of academic critique on the Soka Gakkai. Lionpride82 (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I have not lost sight of it: Daveler16 has provided his own interpretation of a cite that could easily just be used on its own. I said nothing about protestantism; my objections are not the same as those of Catflap. By all means, let us speak with sources, not speak with sources and preface a perfect cite with our own interpretation of that specific cite. Ogress _smash! 23:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

In this discussion about the SG and democracy I fully realize that there is a difference between the talk and the walk. However, both are important for the purposes of this article. What is the SG talk about democracy? What is its walk, does it live up to its rhetoric with its organizational operation?

The Paupp book is text-based analysis of Ikeda’s writings, drawn from his annual peace proposals submitted to the U.N., his dialogues, newspaper articles, speeches, and organization publications. I would like to include in the article a mention of themes Paupp picks up on that support elements of democracy. From a quick look in the index (pp. 417-420) I see demystification, dialogue, discourse, global citizenship, human rights, globalization, humanitarian competition, inclusionary government, tolerance, and transnationalism. (Lacking from the book is a discussion about the role of women which is major oversight by Paupp because it is a frequent theme within the body of Ikeda’s work, now up to 150 volumes, I believe.)

Let me restate that this is an objective account of what Ikeda writes about the elements of democracy. The accompanying discussion would be the conclusions of scholars about whether or not the SG models these stated ideals.

I would be happy to post this but want to gain some consensus first. BrandenburgG (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

History Section

In the history section changed the sub-subtitle "Makiguchi: 1930-1944" to "Makiguchi Years: 1930-1944" and likewise for "Toda: 1948-1958" and "Ikeda: 1960." I think this is more accurate because we are talking about the SG during these years rather than each of these individuals (there are already separate pages for each of them).

I also moved some of the subsections to sub-subsections under "Ikeda Years: 1960-"

I don't think that anyone will raise an objection to this so I just went ahead and did it. No hard feelings if someone wants to revert so we can have more discussion. BrandenburgG (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have update the history section by adding the leader into the history section since this is about SG and not SGI. Unfortunately, there is not much information on the other 3 leaders of SG.Kelvintjy (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That's because Ikeda is still the leader of SG. Your addition of new sections has no basis in reliable sources Shii (tock) 08:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)