Talk:Soka Gakkai/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

A New Section: Who Opposes SGI

Jimmy Wales commented once that editing should be based on honesty and facts. This is missing in the current article and - if not changed - will be the subject of open debate in various scholastic circles. Any scholar reading the current SGI page would realise the similarity of its contents with the style of cheap tabloid newspaper based on sensational nonsense, and the Intro is an example. The Intro should describe SGI based on FACTS not private POV of right-wing Japanese fanatics (fascist, militarist etc…). Jimmy would have agreed that Wikipedia should not favor Japanese tabloid writers. It is lack of scholastic honesty to delete FACTS of world-respected sources, engaged with SGI activities, such as Gandhi Smirti Institute, The United Nations Refugees Agency, SGI presidency of the U N Committee of Religious NGOs (2004 to 2007), Goethe Society, Simon Weisenthal Center…and many other SGI engagement, being FACTS of reality. Scholastic honesty requires that the article (and here: the Introduction) must impartially present SGI true engagements and what sort of activities.

Right wing tabloids POV (brainwashing cult fascist militarists…) should also be mentioned somewhere in the article, perhaps together with "Who opposes SGI". I am proposing a Section on “Opponents to SGI”, which will include factual information about the views of Japanese nationalists, WW II crimes deniers, opponents to humanism and global citizenship, Holocaust deniers, traditional priesthood, and so forth. SGI is best known by both: who gives support and who opposes. I think this is a valid and important Section which can also deal with the controversy surrounding SGI.

Dishonesty in presentation in the current article can be also found in giving a title to Noriega and SGI: this is a typical tabloid propaganda inflating a balloon with a title about a meeting with Noriega (which occurred before his conviction) and gets blind on meetings with other world leaders some Noble Prize winners. Why not Mandela and SGI ? Why not? Jimmy Wales would have agreed that it is dishonesty in presentation to deliberately avoid the truth of other similar meetings with world leaders in art, science, music, politics, environment and peace activists, many Noble Prize winners – and who have the priority to be mentioned. It is also important to present the truth on the reason why these meetings with world figures took place: simply to present Buddhist view on life.

There are many other issues in the article that violate Wikipedia policy and will be accordingly targeted and changed, whatever time it takes. I’ll return to view this Talk page whenever time allows among the heaps of work I have. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Your idea for a section is ridiculously inappropriate. Shii (tock) 13:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Japanese nationalists, WW II crimes deniers, opponents to humanism and global citizenship, Holocaust deniers, traditional priesthood, and so forth - Ridiculous--Catflap08 (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The idea of putting together the real facts said by of world-respected sources such as United Nation, The United Nations Refugees Agency, Goethe Society, Simon Weisenthal Center, Nelson Mandela and Gandhi Smirti Institute as promoting source is Ridiculous.Kelvintjy (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, you can repeat your "ridiculous" judgment once and again. But it will not prevent future edit. I am relying on a Jimmy Wales statement about HONESTY and FACTS that should be the ground to information included in Wikipedia articles. Your POV that editing based on Honesty and Facts in regard to SGI - is ridiculous - does not fit with Wikipedia policy and Jimmy - when future editing will occur - will be asked to be the judge in the following:
Any organization is defined by its activities and engagement in reality. World-respected sources such as United Nation, The United Nations Refugees Agency, Goethe Society, Simon Weisenthal Center, Nelson Mandela and Gandhi Smirti Institute etc... provide a neutral and an impartial and true dimension about SGI activities in reality. These are Facts. Honest editors will not fear facts.
The current article is a PROMOTION to Japanese political interests (of anti-SGI sentiments). It is understandable that opponents to SG feel hurt because with the emergence of SG they lost 8 million votes of Soka members - and (together with various religious fanatics who lost domination) the case of hatred to SGI is becoming their obsession. But this is not SGI problem, it is the problem of fanatics failure to acknowledge the Freedom of Belief. The article now is a cheap sensational ADVERTISMENT, a promotion of political and religious hatred because it is devoid of Facts of who cooperate with SGI, and who is in opposition to SGI.
There is nothing wrong in stating the truth of who opposes and who supports SGI, provided that the information is supported by RS. Your POV that the article should not state the truth about SGI cooperation with the UN and other Human Rights and Cultural institutions - this private opinion will not work. If you are in doubt, then will you be more receptive to reality if such neutral institutions together with professors of various universities would have voiced their view on the matter? There is no escape from the truth. Simply. The longer the dispute about this article and its development - the better the light of neutral facts will emerge.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Godwin's law and WP:WIAPA--Catflap08 (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting that you say this article is "is devoid of Facts". For example: "The Gakkai and Kōmeitō attempted to use their political power suppress its publication. When Fujiwara went public with the attempted suppression, the Gakkai was harshly criticized in the Japanese media." Is this not an Honest Fact? Shii (tock) 16:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Shii, I beg your pardon … SGI is pristine, flawless beyond criticism, don't you feel your head splitting into seven pieces (that’s what can happen you know) -Irony out. If they now will try to portray themselves antifascist let them do it. Ample of material waiting to serve as reference (especially in Japanese) beginning with Makiguchi and his first publications. --Catflap08 (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The Talkpage is not meant to be a show of sarcasm "SGI is pristine, flawless beyond criticism, don't you feel your head splitting into seven pieces ..." This type of sarcasm is the product of a juvenile mind and immature attitude for editing in Wikipedia. And it shows the effect on editors of the Japanese tabloid distortion about SGI and Nichiren Buddhism. This is how this Talk page also displays this level of immaturity and fanaticism, with answers such as: "Ridiculous", Fishy", "Crazy"....These are shouts of immature objections and these words convey the spirit of lack of logic and lack of ability to communicate on a reason-based level.
If you have a RS for what you claim, then go ahead and mention it. HONESTY requires that you have to accept others RS. This is how I understand Wikipedia. If in doubt, let's ask Jimmy Wales, and we will in the future.
The article needs correction from beginning to end, and this will take place slowly even on the span of months or years - until the article is balanced and neutral. Correction will start with the Introduction. The introduction about any organization should contain FACTS about the involvement of this organization, with whom SGI cooperates, what are her activities, aims, and also what are the possible controversies as well.
Controversy has a definite definition in Wikipedia, which - in SGI case - leads to two controversies (currently and continuing. Controversy is about "Contra- Verse" - or Contradicting Arguments, being:/1/ support of SG in Japan to Komeito party -/2/ rejection of SGI to the Priesthood-defined role in teaching Buddhism (which is a major controversy in the sphere of Mahayana Buddhism in general). A private opinion of a paid journalist who half a century ago had the POV that SGI is militarist fascit - this is not a Controversy according to Wiki definition, and if in doubt Jimmy Wales will be asked about that - because the Wikipedia here is used for political/religious defamation, and absolute nonsense compared with Humanism, Nonviolence and working for World Peace supported by many world leaders in art and culture, many Noble Prize winners. Wikipedia is about neutrality, honesty and fair presentation.
A clear mind always distinguishes between FACTS and POVs. Readers should not be intentionally deceived as this article currently aims for. The Intro (and not only, but here we will start from the beginning)- should not dismiss FACTS and put just POVs promoting political agendas. This is dishonesty in presentation and the current Intro manifests dishonesty in presentation, which should include cooperation of SGI with the UN, The United Nations Refugees Agency, Goethe Society, Simon Weisenthal Center, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi Smirti Institute, Peace Proposals, Music Associations ...etc. These are impartial FACTS which must be included in the Intro as these are essential neutral information about the SGI current involvement and continuing activities. I may seem that I am repeating what I said before, but this is the only way that editors (who do not want to hear the truth) may slowly accept reality and come to understand that their biased approach is limiting them. I am sure you can do better, and me too, I work wholeheartedly on self-development including neutrality and balanced attitude. Current article is like someone closing the eyes on reality and searching into dead newspapers of 50 years ago about scandals. This - in itself - is a sign of fear from the truth and defeat before current true reality. The correction to this article may take a long time, and will involve scholars and various avenues. The horizon is open.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I could not care less to be honest what you think. If one looks back into the history of this article it was you who started a point to counter point discussion in the section on critical views on SGI. Afterwards other editors decided to start the article from scratch – that was your action not mine. It is not you who has to decide that references are POV's by journalist and as a last resort brand them as fascist. Please note that most critics of SGI are rather “left” or “liberal”. You however ARE an adherent of SGI so any edit of yours is not likely to be neutral. It just boils down to the fact that you can not stand anyone being critical of SGI. Fascist or not its a cult in my books. Fascism and cults work along the same lines anyway. Each and every edit of yours, each entry in the talk page actually underlines the fact why SGI is regarded with some amount of suspicion. So far you have a history of discrediting editors, to insult them and to discredit the integrity of authors of resources critical of SGI. Again you are the epitome of why SGI is being criticised and you are doing a service to those who do so. So to close this – I am glad for each and every comment of yours as it shows anyone with a right mind what this all about. Changing user ID's won't help much either as your use of language are quite unique – including IP-address. And please do not insist on honorary doctorates anyone in academia knows – they are being bought most of the times.These days they actually rather discredit the one who holds them. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


Catflap, I did not count how many times you mentioned the word YOU, YOU, YOU, YOU...and on that I say: this personal attack means only the running out of valid arguments and shouting at the messenger, but it is not a big deal for me.
I expected an intellectual and reasonable answer to the argument I am challenging you with, namely about deliberate distortion in the Article, & I said this: " The Intro (and not only, but here we will start from the beginning)- should not dismiss FACTS and put just POVs promoting political agendas. This is dishonesty in presentation and the current Intro manifests dishonesty in presentation, which should include cooperation of SGI with the UN, The United Nations Refugees Agency, Goethe Society, Simon Weisenthal Center, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi Smirti Institute, Peace Proposals, Music Associations ...etc. These are impartial FACTS which must be included in the Intro as these are essential neutral information about the SGI current involvement and continuing activities". This is a big challenge for SGI opponents. The mentioned institutions had mutual activities and publications with SGI, and because these institutions are neutral (SGI opponents may think the UN and other educational institutions are biased) - because these institutions are neutral they will be mentioned in the article, so those who deleted these facts should return the article to its previous neutral and balanced presentation.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm new here, so forgive my butting in. After reading this page, I looked at a number of other entries about various religions - including the Church of Scientology, the Catholic Church and others -- and in NONE of them is every positive statement - or even neutral statement - followed immediately by a qualifier of negative comment. Only the Soka Gakkai entry is like that. Even the sex scandals of the Catholics are consolidated into one small paragraph, and is written (it seems) from the POV if the Church. So why is the Soka Gakkai - certainly less influential than Catholicism and less controversial than Scientology - the only one treated this way? --Daveler16 (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

That is because the Catholic Church has a whole article on the issue. See: Criticism of the Catholic Church--Catflap08 (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

So. Evidently someone who wants to know about criticism of Catholicism has a place to go, and people who just want info on the Church, and what it teaches and stands for, don't have to be subjected to one negative comment after another. That seems to be true of other religious movements on Wikipedia - Sikhism, Lutheranism, Baptist, Nichiren Shoshu are all religions I've looked at. Why is Soka Gakkai being treated differently than other religious movements on Wikipedia?--Daveler16 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai has been involved in a lot of newsworthy events, such as the recovery of the 175 million yen safe. This is the sort of stuff that is notable and needs to be preserved on the page. Shii (tock) 17:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

So... this little sect of Buddhism has had little scandals that "need to be preserved on the page", but these other religions' scandals do not??? The Catholic sex scandals, the accusations of kidnapping and violence against Scientology - none of those "need to be preserved" on their respective pages? But some safe that has nothing to do with the religion's teachings, that no one in the English speaking world cares about - this gets special treatment??? Look, I'm not yet suggesting any changes because before I jump into something ongoing I want to understand what's going on and the established protocals and all. But this is making absolutely no sense, and I'm trying to imagine why this religion is treated differently than other religions on Wilipedia.--Daveler16 (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. Scientology#Controversies lists exactly what you are discussing. Also I don't think an enormous money laundering scheme is a "little scandal". Shii (tock) 03:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Also the page Criticism of Soka Gakkai existed until 2007. It was then decided to merge it with the main article.--Catflap08 (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

What am I talking about? How long can this be? First paragraph: bald statement that SG theology breaks with Nichiren. Second paragraph: statement that SG is recognized for pacifism followed immediately by “been characterized as being "quasi-fascist", "fascist", "militant", "overzealous", "manipulationist" and "authoritarian". Third para: sentence or two about history followed immediately by characterization of “controversial and aggressive recruitment”. Fourth para: mention of world wide expansion followed immediately by “widely viewed with suspicion in Japan and grapples with a reputation of being a "brainwashing cult", as well as a cult of personality centered around Ikeda”. Shall I go on? Pick any place: the SG’s growth explained as the result of threats and violence; the inclusion of some silly incident in 1951, like it’s a cornerstone of SG philosophy; chanting can be used for harm; SG’s pacifism “has been questioned”; all doctrinal pronouncements put through the filter of another religion – one can read through the Scientology entry without encountering immediate arguments with everything good that is said. Re-read the article with an open mind and see if I’m exaggerating. It’s as if the last word is always given to someone who obsessively dislikes SG – which is not the case in the other religions’ entries. Imagine if some disgruntled Catholic theologian wrote the entry for Lutheranism. That’s kind of the impression one gets from the SG entry.--Daveler16 (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, while I'm not completely sure about everything in the above post, I agree that there is a problem here at least in part because of the current non-existence of the Criticism of SK article, and an attempt, however successful or ham-handed, to keep the content on this subject as close to NPOV as possible in the comparatively few extant articles. I suppose I could see a few questions which might be relevant, although I hope everyone realizes I am asking these questions with absolutely no idea about the possible answers to them - that's generally why I ask questions.
1) Is the SG recognized generally as a "legitimate" heir of Nichiren, or, maybe like Baha'i or Ahmadiyyah, is it considered a heretical offshoot of Nichiren? I am guessing this question is primarily about the academic view of SG and academic history views of SG history.
2) There are at least a few article, like I think LaRouche movement, which are, basically, overwhelmingly negative, because the press coverage is fairly consistently and uniformly negative. I don't know much about recent independent press coverage of SG, but I suppose, maybe, based on my ignorance, such could be the same here. Maybe.
3) How many independent secondary sources presenting SG material are out there? We are supposed to use them where possible rather than primary sources, and, at least as of a few years ago, I had real trouble finding anything in independent journals and news magazines, newspapers, etc. available to me on SG. That could skew the matter a bit too.
Any responses? John Carter (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
We can easily compare the words and practices of Nichiren with those of the SGI to see, for example is SGI "theology" breaks with Nichiren. Were one to exhaustively investigate this, there is no doubt of the conclusion: YES. Mark Rogow 22 May 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD27:C349:F9E3:D5AF:EAFF:9EB (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I do not think its a theological debate if at any rate its one on Buddhist studies which has to be substantiated by preferably non-primary sources. I do however think sources will mostly be in Japanese as this debate does take place – so one would have to activate Japanese speakers interested in Buddhist studies. Care should be taken that it does not yet again turn into a we said they said style of article – been there, done that, fed up with it. @ John I know you have been absent for a while. An editor a while ago basically started the article from scratch again. What bucks me a bit is also the fact that SG proclaims peace activism of all sorts but appears not to be very active on the matter apart form proclaiming such activities - not even in Asia. Same goes for human rights issues and protection of religious minorities or religious conflicts (China) – just my two cents. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC) @ John ... good to see you back and active again. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Between some health problems, and computer problems, and other things, life has been kind of weird lately. Being subject to plural "invasive medical procedures" at the same time is something that, after having experienced it, I would never wish on anyone I didn't really despise. But, back on topic, I just checked the OCLC/WorldCat site and there do seem to be quite a few books and recent articles relating to this subject. In general, three of the basic "spin-out" articles for any group don't seem to exist for this one yet. One is the already mentioned "Criticism of" article, and there don't seem to be any clearly extant "History of" or "Beliefs and Practices of" Soka Gakkai articles either. There may also be enough material for at least a few articles about "SG in" specific countries. My early question about "legitimacy" was pretty much about whether the group is, like Baha'i and Ahmadiyya, more or less looked down on by the apparent parent body, Islam for those two, because of it holding beliefs which seem inconsistent with prior Nichiren. There are a lot of Christian "restorationist" groups of that kind as well, which claim to present the "true" beliefs of Jesus and the early Christian community, which the existing nominally Christian churches, in their belief, have strayed seriously and at times heretically from. Regarding peace activism, I might in the next few days be able to check the 2010 4-volume "The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace" to see what if anything they have to say about SG. And, FWIW, a few other newer religious groups, Scientology and the Jehovah's Witnesses, have been seen as having little if any involvement in broader concerns as well.
There are available to me quite a few recent reference books which should have entries on SG. For main articles like this one, I tend to think that the best way to ensure that the main article on a topic is really NPOV is to find as many general reference work articles as possible, and basically structure the main article to more or less mirror them, with any additional material to be included in spinout articles. I can and will get ahold of all the reference articles I can find, and maybe e-mail them at request, but I think it might also be a good idea if anyone wanted to do so to maybe ask Wikipedia's Resource Exchange people for any relevant articles in reference works that can be accessed from the various databanks the Wikipedia Library has subscriptions to, and review them to see what can be found from them. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I've made a request at the Resource Exchange that as many reference articles available to the databank editors as possible on the Soka Gakkai available to those with free subscriptions be sent to me. I don't know how long it will take, if ever, to receive them, but I will let those here know about any progress I make, and, if requested, might well be able to forward such articles to others should they request it. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be kind of strange to characterize as "unorthodox" what is by FAR the largest Nichiren sect. I'd also say that the degree of adherence to what was written in 13th C Japan is a matter of interpretation - otherwise there would be just one Nichiren sect, right? Of course SG members would say that Nichiren Shoshu and Nichiren Shu (for instance) were deviating from Nichiren's intent - but should they then go and plaster that all over those Wikipedia entries? I don't think so. I might check the Nichiren Shu entry to see what the sect teaches - not what someone else thinks is wrong with it. Also: two recent books about the SG, in English, that I am aware of (perhaps you are too): "Encountering the Dharma" by Richard Seager, which is largely positive about the sect; and "Waking the Buddha" by Clark Strand, which I haven't read yet. Strand is a pretty well known Americsan Buddhist scholar and editor of Tricycle, so I'm looking forward to seeing what he says.--Daveler16 (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Your opinions are noted. However, size of a group does not necessarily relate to accuracy of their teachings - ask any Fundamentalist Christian about whether the Catholic Church, whose membership includes roughtly half of all Christians, is orthodox. However, there are cases, such as perhaps the Jehovah's Witnesses and some other Christian groups, and like I mentioned above the Baha'i and Ahmadiyya groups relative to what might be called "historical" Islam, whose teachings seem to be not only "unorthodox", but inconsistent with what some (presumably not including the JWs) would consider the prevailing academic opinion regarding the subject. If, and like I said I don't know, if SG teachings seem to be as seriously at odds with the independent academic historical view of the subject, that is probably worth noting. They would in no way be unique in that regard if they were, of course, but that would be something probably worth --Daveler16 (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)discussing at some length in some article regarding this subject.

But the Catholic entry on Wik isn't so transparently edited by fundamentalist Christians - that's my point. Just looked at the "Beliefs" section of the Jehovah's Witness entry, since you mention it. There is nothing there that says "this is not what the Bible teaches" or "this contradicts the Bible" - it just (as the title suggests) states the JH beliefs. My problem is that I'm finding that to be the case for most entries for religions, but the SG is treated differently. BTW, I've tried to find other 3rd party writings that could be considered objective, but so far hacve only found articles by Christian an--Daveler16 (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)ti-cult writers, who consider all forms of Buddhism cultish and wrong. Have you seen the Seager book though? I hope to get the Strand book next week. --Daveler16 (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

So far SG is hardly ever mentioned as a Buddhist sect per se, it does not even describe itself as such, but as a lay Buddhist organisation. As such an organisation it is the largest even though some see it as having passed its peak by the 1980's. So within traditional Nichiren Buddhims Nichiren Shoshu is yet again one of the smallest sects, Nichiren Shu the largest.
Even though, and as an ex-adherent, I refrain from editing this article in any major way. Nevertheless in my opinion the critical issues can be summed up quite easily.
  • The issue of proselytising – past and present.
  • The concept of “Human revolution”: This is the most fundamental difference as this concept per se is not mentioned anywhere within Nichiren Buddhism. It is based and formalised in Ikeda's fictional writing by the same name. Even though the books are based on the historic development of SG they are anything but an exact historic account of events. Some refer to SG therefore as practising Ikedaism.
  • Religious tolerance: Extreme lack of it after the issue with Nichiren Shoshu, not practised in interbuddhist relationship. Not within Nichiren Buddhims let alone other Buddhist traditions.
  • The “lay” issue. Even when compared to Christian protestants (a comparison some would like to see) its hard to detect the lay aspect in its organisational structure and decision making process. So how much is there on lay involvement than just the absence of priests? Most Christian congregation would see at least see an elected “council” or “council of elders “. So the comparison to Protestantism is more than dubious – SG's structure is highly hierarchical and not transparent. Same goes for the decision making process and issues on doctrine.
  • Political involvement. Apart from constitutional issues Komeito's involvement in a coalition which is highly conservative. See Nippon Kaigi.
  • IInteresting enough and maybe even just a side issue the weight given to the Lotus Sutra in daily religious practice of SG adherents has steadily decreased over the years.--Catflap08 (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with your last point. Except for publishing a translation of the Lotus Sutra, publishing Nichiren's lectures on the Lotus Sutra, featuring Mr Ikeda's lectures on the 2 key chapters of the Lotus Sutra in book form, and publishing, and the youth studying, a multi-volume dialogue on the Lotus Sutra, the SG barely has anything to do with the Lotus Sutra. I mean, come on - don't just be making stuff up.

Your point about it not being a sect is just silly, and I don't know what it has to do with anything. There are more SG members than there are members of Nichiren Shu, or Nichiren Shoshu, or any other Nichiren . . . group. That's a fact that cxan't be changed semantically.

Human revolution: obviously, the SG believes it's an important part of its practice, so who is anyone to say "it shouldn't be"? Is there a description in SG literature of what human revolution entails? If so, that's what should be included. If someone wants to say "other Nichiren sects don't teach this", then they should go to the entries for those sects and say so.

Not sure what the point is about religious tolerance. I'm aware of a number of interfaith activities the SG has engaged in in Chicago alone.

The SG entry DOES say that the SG has separated itself from Komeito, so I'm not sure what the point of constantly mentioning Komeito is. There is a Komeito entry so perhaps whatever has to be said about it could be said there?

I think the SG is a lay organization because there are no clerics leading it, guiding it, or interpreting doctrine for it. So I'm not sure what you mean about THAT, either.

More later. --Daveler16 (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Shii (tock) 01:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Daveler16, you write: "I would agree with your last point. Except for publishing a translation of the Lotus Sutra, publishing Nichiren's lectures on the Lotus Sutra, featuring Mr Ikeda's lectures on the 2 key chapters of the Lotus Sutra in book form, and publishing, and the youth studying, a multi-volume dialogue on the Lotus Sutra, the SG barely has anything to do with the Lotus Sutra. I mean, come on - don't just be making stuff up."

Shan-wu-wei's commentaries on the Lotus Sutra number in the hundreds, if not thousands, of volumes. He too gave great weight to the Lotus Sutra but he was criticized harshly by Nichiren. Tientai, though a votary of the Lotus Sutra, was taught by Nichiren to be inferior to Saicho. His works on the Lotus Sutra too number in the thousands of volumes, yet his beliefs and practices were likened by Nichiren to be as useless as "last years calender". Nichiren writes:

"how great is the difference between the blessings received when a sage chants the daimoku and the blessings received when we chant it" to reply, one is in no way superior to the other. the gold that a fool possesses is no different from the gold that a wise man possesses; a fire made by a fool is the same as a fire made by a wise man. HOWEVER, there is a difference if one chants the daimoku while acting against the intent of this sutra". Mark Rogow 05/29/14 sect s

--Daveler16 (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Mark Rogow: Catflap suggested the SG has been consistently de-emphasizing the Lotus Sutra. I listed those items to show that that statement is incorrect. Beyond that, your statements go a long way to clear up what is wrong here. Rather than being an entry for "Soka Gakkai", evidently some people want it to be the entry "What Other Nichiren Sects Think Is Wrong with The Soka Gakkai". I mean - how in the world does Nichiren's criticism of Shan wu wei have to do with the Soka Gakkai? Has the SG addressed this in any of it's literature? Is it a topic at their meetings? Who cares? Other than people who for some reason care about Shan wu wei - who cares? Is this a discussion esoteric differences between Buddhist sects, or an explanation of the Soka Gakkai?--Daveler16 (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

“Your point about it not being a sect is just silly “. This is not about silliness, but SGI is not a Buddhist sect or has it declared itself a school in the sense of a “shu”? Its a self declared lay organisation so if it wants to be regarded as such the use of terms referring to established schools and sects is confusing in the light of Buddhist Studies. Further on most Komeito members are SG members anyone denying the connection or influence is either naïve or detached from reality.

In terms of religious tolerance everyone knows were SG stands.--Catflap08 (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"YUIGA YOGA: This means that the life of Nikko Shonin equals that of Nichiren Daishonin. A Gohonzon called the “Tobi” (Flying) Mandala” is enshrined at Butsugenji Temple in Sendai City in Northeast Japan. It was inscribed co-operatively by the Daishonin and His immediate successor Nikko Shonin. This fact evidences what yuiga yoga signifies.” –Josei Toda as quoted in: From “Lectures on the Sutra” Third Edition, 1968 Seikyo Press.

Please note that no where in the Lotus Sutra or the writings of Nichiren Daishonin, can we find the concepts or words, YUIGA YOGA but in the Shingon esotericism of Shan-wu-wei this is a core principle. Central to Lamanism, an offshoot of Shingon, are the Four Treasures and the most important Treasure is the Treasure of the Guru. The other Three Treasures are subsumed within the Treasure of the Guru. This is known as Guru Yoga. The same goes for the SGI, whether it is implicit or implied. Mark Rogow 05/30/2014

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)What is your point?

My point is that the SGI appropriates the Daimoku, the Lotus Sutra, and Nichiren because it can't stand on its own religious and philosophical underpinnings. Just as Shan-wu-wei appropriated Ichinen Sanzen to bolster Shingon, the SGI appropriates the Lotus Sutra to bolster Ikedaism. Mark Rogow 05/30/2014

Mark, care has to be taken not to focus on what differentiates SG from your group but non-primary sources that describe its position in a Buddhist and also wider context. Critical or not. Above I mentioned the obvious issues. Apart form the “Japanese Journal of Religious Studies” its hard to track scholastic material on that. Some of the sociological surveys that kick around I am a highly sceptical of as it appears to me that their authors do seem to have a connection to SGI, especially as they were sold in their own bookshops. The lecture by Levi McLaughlin is one of the few sources that describe its structure. Yet again I guess it will be Japanese material that will highlight SG's organisational structure as in its lack of transparency it is no more different than any groups and traditions based on ordained bodies. Having said that in the latter at least some of the bodies and councils are known or made public in their own publications. Some editors have already started to seek the help from Japanese speaking authors which I think is most beneficial to the article.--Catflap08 (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Most notably and of seminal importance is what differentiates the Soka Gakkai from the Japanese speaking author Nichiren Daishonin. Comparing his writings with those of the Soka Gakkai, one can readily come to perceive the differences between SGI's principles and practices and Nichiren's. This is my contention. Of course, the opinions of other Japanese speaking scholars as to SGI's positions in relation to Nichiren's are interesting but not nearly as definitive as Nichiren as a primary source. Mark Rogow 05/31/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC5C:CCD9:18B7:843D:80FE:BD26 (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I may have contributed to some internecine warfare here. Is this "Talk" area for discussing the relevant Wikipedia entry and any possible changes to it? Or is it where various sects can argue with each other about whose is better? Honest question. I don't want to be involved in the latter, but I would like some changes made to te entry.--Daveler16 (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, another question: Does the exact same etry appear in every language? I mean, if I could read the Japanese Wikipedia entry for the SG (or German, etc), would it be a close translation of the English one (or maybe: is the English a translation of the Japanese?)? --Daveler16 (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Develer16. This is not an internicine conflict. SGI's religion and practice is so divergent from Nichiren's and ours that it should be characterized as a "red on blue" conflict [rather than a "blue on blue" or internicine conflict]. SGI's conflicts [schisms] with the Nichiren Shoshu, the Kenshokai, and with various factions within SGI [Singapore, Italy, Spain, Argentina?, Japan?] may be considered internicine conflicts. Mark Rogow 01/06/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC5C:CCD9:7C8F:7C70:AE6E:9B0A (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Mark Rorow: Perhaps you're not seeing it, but you are exactly illustrating the problem that brought me here in the first place. You belong to a religion that does not think the SG is teaching a correct teaching. Fine. But that could be said of any adherent of any religin about any other religion. So why isn't every entry about a religion peppered with negative comments after every positive comment? Why do people feel compelled to not allow a picture of what the SG teaches and believes, without trying to negate every such statement? Again, it does not appear that Catholics are parsing the entry for Lutheranism, or Scientologists editing the entry for Bahai, or anything llike that for any other religion. Why does the SG get this special treatment on Wikipedia?--Daveler16 (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought that question was already answered, by my statement above regarding the lack of a "Criticism of" page, and I very strongly urge the above editor to read WP:TE which deals with non-productive repetition of questions. There is sufficient basis apparently for a "Criticism of" page, and I cannot see any good reason not to have it created. Perhaps the above editor might consider maybe doing something to actively help develop the relevant content, rather than apparently repeating questions which had I believe already been answered, even if not necessarily to that editor's personal satisfaction. At present, I am waiting for some further reference sources on SG, which can help establish sources for some of the other potential spin-out articles. Others are, of course, free to start them on their own in the interim, particularly if they feel so strongly about perceived problems to this particular article. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - didn't know that's what I was doing. I meant only to pose a rghetorical question to an editor who had challenged a previous statement. Just read the WP-TE instructions. Is it your idea, John Carter, that critical and negative statements about the SG be taken out of their current contexts, and all put into one section? I will be glad to begin editing, but would like it if there were an agreed-upon format for those things.--Daveler16 (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Wikipedia:Criticism Shii (tock) 22:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned before a separate article "criticism of SGI" did exist until 2007. Can always be retrieved from the archives and worked on.--Catflap08 (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

As someone who's done a lot of rhetorical questions myself, I'm really not in a clear position to complain, but do so once in a while anyway. Personally, I think we would all be better off if the material were not explicitly removed before being but elsewhere. Catflap08's apparent suggestion as well, to go to the old Criticism of Soka Gakkai page, the test of which can be found here, and maybe start a page in user space, like at User:Daveler16/Criticism of Soka Gakkai, and copyedit and otherwise improve the page there, possibly with inclusion of some of the material of criticism currently in this page. Then, if and when you are done, notify everyone here of the new article, and we can go ahead and remove the bulk of the material, although we should still follow standard procedure and keep a short summary section here as per WP:SS with a "see also" link to the new page.
Also, for what it might be worth, there does seem to be a lot of information on ProQuest, JSTOR, Newsbank, and EBSCOHost regarding Soka Gakkai. Although almost all of it will probably qualify as reliably sourced from the sources there, there is a real question regarding how much material is useful here, and which extant and potential articles to put that material in. I'll give my existing request for articles/entries from reference sources at least till the end of the week, because I tend to think that they provide the best basic approximations for how to proceed ourselves. If I don't get a response by then, though, I'll start wading through the material myself, and will probably be able to e-mail useful pieces sometime thereafter, hopefully rather sooner than later. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe a separate page, also linked from the SGI article would be best. The key issues are in my opinion the ones on proselytising, structure, finances, religious tolerance, intransparency, decission making process, involvement in politics and the absence of factual peace engagement. If the page is recreated I would suggest semi-protection right from the start. --Catflap08 (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC) This information is already well integrated into the article. Migrating it to a separate criticism page violates a Wikipedia guideline. Shii (tock) 03:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Not true Shii: "Dedicated "Criticism of ..." articles are sometimes appropriate for organizations, businesses, philosophies, religions, or political outlooks, provided the sources justify it; see the "Philosophy, religion, or politics" section above for details." as can be read here WP:CRIT. In the end this is a proposal.--Catflap08 (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe the number of articles and subcategories in the Category:Criticism of religion is a significant indicator that such articles are not in fact a violation of wikipedia guidelines, provided one takes into account that such "criticism" is not necessarily meant to imply purely negative criticism, but rather to be a place for material regarding assessment of the group, aka criticism, from independent reliable sources. John Carter (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

In a way I must also admit that these critical views are will always be challenged by the groups adherents – may it be within this article or in a separate one. Some won't be able to stand the fact that not everybody shares their views. The benefit of the current situation is that the article is protected which eases things a bit in terms of what makes it into the article.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream Christian denominations, for the most part, are ecumenical and refrain from publically criticizing eachother. The SGI has no compunction in criticizing the Nichiren Shoshu, either in public or private, and I have no compunction in criticizing anything or anyone who fails to follow the teachings of Nichiren, least of all those who call themselves Nichiren Buddhists but act against the intent of the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren. Were I to be silenced here or anywhere, it would be expected and it would hardly be the first time nor will it be the last. Mark Rogow 06/04/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC5C:CCD9:A12F:9830:484A:1FF1 (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


Wow - go away for a day and there's a lot to digest. I looked at the archived "Criticism" page and think it's fine. It noted controversies and criticisms without being catty or snide (or dogmatic). Might I ask: why was it de-activated? I would have no objection to simply editing the SG page to remove the incessant negativity, activate the old page, and include a link to it on the SG page - as I think someone else has suggested. Also, in response to Catflap's "The key issues are in my opinion the ones on proselytising, structure, finances, religious tolerance, intransparency, decision making process, involvement in politics and the absence of factual peace engagement. " I don;t think the internal workings of the SG are an "issue". Some religins have popular elections, but many don't. including NIchiren Shoshu, whose leasder is chosen by his predecessor in a secret ceremony, or the Catholic Church. But big deal - that's their way, and I likewise don't see how the SGs methods are of some special significance. I also question your statement about "factual peace involvement". What d you mean? Thanks.--Daveler16 (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I should think that the internal structure of SGI is quite a major point of controversy. In the end it criticises Nichiren Shoshu on exactly this issue – being authoritarian and what have you. The appointment of leaders etc is not a public process and hence the decision making process also on dogmatic issues even less transparent than any group based on ordained persons. So where is the lay aspect? The peace activities would be interesting if they would be listed or mentioned apart from the odd letter to the UN. Also SGI's stance on human rights violations which by all means are part of any peace movements agenda. But in the end this process helps to get more Japanese speaking editors on board in order to find more non-primary sources. --Catflap08 (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the organization is a substantial point of contention.
They criticize the priest-to-disciple relationship, etc., which is only a small part of Buddhism overall anyway because most Buddhists don't go on to become priests. Meanwhile, though part of the criticism is that the priest are elitist, the Sokka Gakkai can be seen as having an almost a quasi-military type organization, involving an induction and indoctrination process run by an officer class, with the "layman" representing enlistees.
There are definitely contradictions relating to the organization of Sokka Gakkai and their criticism of the organization of Nichiren and other Buddhist sects. It could be said that SGK is just more politically organized, but Nichiren Buddhism was politically active from the beginning, with Nichiren himself having been temporarily banished from Edo a couple of times for political activity. So organization can be an issue historically as well insofar as SGK is derived from Nichiren.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The Nichiren Shoshu "leader picking process", as well as its internal structure, is not even mentioned in its Wikipedia entry, much less criticized by SG members. I would suggest that that is because, while the SG might think the process is messed up, it recognizes that it is Nichiren Shoshu's decision to do it that way, and that, and a self-governing organization, it is entitled to do it the way it chooses. At the very least, I would say an encyclopedia entry is no place for external groups to argue about how an organization runs itself. And that idea seems borne out by Wikipedia's entries for other religions which (again, sorry) do NOT argue with internal organizational decisions. I would say also that the Nichiren Shoshu entry is a model for what the SG entry should be like. There is no argument or criticism as it's doctrines, practice and history are explained; the closest thing to a criticism is the very last sentence, and even that is more of a statment of differences than an attack on what NS teaches. I think that's a good way to do it. Do you agree?--Daveler16 (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

SGK is technically classified as a "new religion" under the umbrella of Buddhism--see the post on this page of entries in other encyclopedias.
The fact that it is "new", whereas Nichirenshu is traditional, with more than a thousand years of tradition is a substantial issue in light of traditional Buddhist organiation/ordination practices and those of SGK, which portrays itself as a lay Buddhist organization when it is actually more of a "new religion" with Buddhist origins, but a completely different organizational infrastructure, and different methodology for transmitting teachings.
There doesn't seem to be anything comparable to the historical circumstances of any article on other religions, but you haven't specified any.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what the age of a religion has to do with making it's internal dynamic as a subject for debate. Besides, the SG, like Nichiren Shoshu, would argue (and document) that it is practicing correctly the Buddhist tradition as practiced by Shakyamuni as well as Nichiren. That may be beside the point though. My argument is that it's not up to outside groups to say what any orgainzation's internal processes should be (as long as they're not illegal) and the crticism of the SG's process has no place in its Wikipedia entry. Also: I have no idea what you mean by "There doesn't seem to be anything comparable to the historical circumstances of any article on other religions, but you haven't specified any". --Daveler16 (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither the SGI article nor the Shoshu article should have a criticism section. Such sections are inferior to describing the history of each group accurately. Shii (tock) 06:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
If you're not sure about that, you should read WP:COMPETENCE, because you apparently have an insufficient grasp of the subject matter.
The sangha is one of the Three Treasures of Buddhism, and relates directly to monasticism and the transmission of the teachings. SGK has attempted to attack and undermine that, replacing it with something along the lines of a modern bureaucratic structure.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 08:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting to do some editing - that is, composing offline. I'll share it here first when I have something competent. Ubikwit (is that right?) - yes, NS doctrine is different than SGI doctrine. NS doctrine is in the NS entry. SG doctrine should be in the SG entry. They should not be arguing on each others' entries - that's all I'm saying.--Daveler16 (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

In the process of doing so it might be worthwhile to include a link or something where one can read up on what SGI's doctrine is and who decides what the doctrine is. I am saying this as SGI's doctrine is quite obscure and even their guidelines for daily practice seem to change quite frequently it might be helpful to know who decides that. Lays? --Catflap08 (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I've added a new section about the"Criticism of SG" page. --Daveler16 (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Locked for editing? Could someone explain why? Did something happen?--70.181.118.149 (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Never mind = figured out I had been signed off. --Daveler16 (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Soka Gakkai: suggested edit

I think this page should be re-activated - either as a separate entry or as a section of the SG entry. Perhaps it could be renamed "Controversies", which is more in line with similar parts of the entries of other religions.

The SGI and Soka Gakkai have been a focus of criticism and controversy. Soka Gakkai, the Japanese organization, has a reputation for involvement in Japan's political arena. Though officially the two are separate, it is closely affiliated with the New Clean Government Party (also known as the New Komeito Party), a major political party in Japan. Accusations that Soka Gakkai in effect controls New Komeito persist;[2] Soka Gakkai and New Komeito both publicly deny any relationship, and declare that they are separate organizations[1].

Soka Gakkai and Soka Gakkai International are perceived by some critics to be a cult or a cult-like group. Their concerns are that, in the past, Soka Gakkai had placed an emphasis on recruitment, that it demonizes perceived opponents, and that it uses phobia indoctrination and peer pressure. French and Belgian anti-cult movements and parliamentary commissions have also accused SGI of engaging in cult-like practices, but there are groups critical of these governments citing they are religiously suppressive.[3 ] Another point of contention concerns SGI's application of the mentor–disciple concept. According to Soka Gakkai, the mentor-and-disciple relationship is a very important aspect of living a full life, for every human being; detractors see SGI’s version of the mentor–disciple relationship as a cult of personality for its intense focus on SGI President Ikeda. SGI defenders argue that in most cultures, and for most human beings, the idea of looking to those who have come before us, and finding a person who one can feel a kinship with, that one may look to as an example for how to live s life, for guidance, encouragement and support, is a common part of human development, and that their establishing a lasting relationship with such an individual is an important part of life. (no citation for either argument, but it seems okay to me) .

There is controversy about the degree of religious tolerance practiced by Soka Gakkai members. Official materials state all other religions, including other Buddhist denominations, are viewed as valuable in as much as they are able to support the happiness, empowerment, and development (needs citation) of all people. SGI claims that religious tolerance and a deep respect for culture are strongly emphasized in the organization.[4] However, there has been an acrimonious rift between SGI and Nichiren Shoshu. There are doctrinal differences between the Soka Gakkai and other Nichiren Sects – as might be expected between different religions. Other sects place great emphasis on the special efficacy of certain religious objects, while the Soka Gakkai teaches that lreligion should serve life (ref: Strand, Clark Waking the Buddha p. 61), and so is less doctrinaire in its application of Nichiren’s teachings.

As you will see if you compare to the original (here)I removed a few paragraphs - I hope you will agree they are redundant and only re-state what has already been said. There wwere a couple of suggestion, concerning peace activities and theology, which I would have added, but I had asked for clarification on them, and got no reply, and don't want to try to expound on something I don't have a good grasp of. --Daveler16 (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, this is decent. Let's combine this with the "Public perception and criticism" section. Shii (tock) 00:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

To the Administrators: As I stated in my first post, my niece is a Soka Gakkai member and I just happened to look it up on Wikipedia a few months ago. I was shocked by the extremely negative depiction in the entry. My niece has co-workers, neighbors, friends and other family members who know she is a Soka Gakkai member and I am concerned that if they look it up on Wikipedia, they will be alarmed and put off by what they read. It is not fair to any member of the Soka Gakkai to slant the entry to the extreme, i.e. fascist, militant, cult, etc. without an opposing view. It is what I believe to be an injustice that keeps me involved here. I am not sure, but it sounds like the administrators are willing to reach a common ground. I have been researching the activities of the Soka Gakkai and SGI on their web pages and am overwhelmed by their engagement in peace activities, nuclear disarmament, women, gay and human rights and educational exhibits and more. There are hundreds of examples of a respectable, concerned and energetic organization doing great things. I urge you review what I have seen at the following sites. http://www.sgi-sa.org/aboutsgi/about/docs/Activity_Report-2013.pdf http://www.sgi.org/news/all-news.html?start=0 WmSimpson (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You need secondary sources talking about all the great things the group has done. The group's own PR is not suitable for Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 22:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I am getting the shortish article from the 2014 Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism and a shorter article from the 2004 Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism prepared on Word, and may be able to send them out as e-mails to anyone who sends me an e-mail so I can forward the articles to them. Well regarded reference sources tend to be among the better indicators of what we might include in our own articles. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

John Carter: I would like those (I posted my email to your talk). Encyclopedias, I imagine, would be fairly obkective sources, wouldn't they? --Daveler16 (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a great idea, thank you. I've created a new intro using other encyclopedias:

Soka Gakkai is a modern lay Buddhist movement. “Soka Gakkai” translates as “Value-Creation Society.” It follows the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin (1222–82), a Japanese monk who crafted a reinterpretation of Buddhism based on the Lotus Sutra. The Soka Gakkai traces its start to 1930 in Japan, when its founder, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871–1944), published his educational work “Value-Creating Pedagogical System.” By 1941 it grew to some 3,000 members but its refusal to support Shintoism during World War II resulted in its near destruction by governmental authorities; founder Makiguchi was imprisoned and died in custody during the war.[1].

The Soka Gakkai has grown rapidly since the 1950s under the leadership of its second and third presidents, Josei Toda and Daisaku Ikeda [added to the encyclopedia’s entry]. It is considered the most successful of the many religious movements that emerged in Japan after the war.[2] In 2003 its membership approximated 8,210,000 households in Japan and 1,500,000 individuals outside of Japan.[3]It shared an association with the Japanese Buddhist school Nichiren shō-shū but the two organizations separated in 1991. (Encyclopedia Britannica). Nichiren Shoshu preserves the tradition of Buddhist priests and temples whereas Soka Gakkai members are led by lay leaders and gather at numerous community centers throughout the world. Followers claim its well-organized, colorful, and well-organized structure is the future of Buddhism.[4].

The core of the Soka Gakkai’s religious practice emphasizes chanting the mantra Nam-myoho-renge-kyo(daimoku), propagation efforts through personal contacts(shakubuku), and study. Its main goal is “kosen rufu,” or the spreading of Buddhist ideals to promote peace and happiness in society. Members participate in neighborhood discussion meetings; the organization organizes cultural, educational, and humanitarian activities and is also an NGO (nongovernmental organization) affiliated with the United Nations.[5] (The Encyclopedia of Religion and Society).

The Soka Gakkai formed the Japanese Komeito political party in the 1950’s and it was criticized extensively by political rivals. The Soka Gakkai was also criticized for its aggressive proselytization in the 1950’s and 1960’s, the period of its explosive growth.[6] Starting in the 1970’s the Soka Gakkai began broadening its cooperative activities, expanded its outlook to an international scope, better adapting itself to pluralistic democracy. In the 1980’s Daisaku Ikeda began a series of dialogues with prominent leaders throughout the world and more organizations have constructed friendly relations with the Soka Gakkai. Members of the Soka Gakkai are encouraged to take personal initiative, to actively involve themselves in the community, and achieve personal happiness in their daily lives.[7] [User:Lionpride82|Lionpride82]] (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The more sources the merrier, of course, but this is a complex topic that exceeds the bounds of Buddhism, reaching into the sociology of religion, politics and religion, corruption, etc.
Wikipedia leads are a summary of what is in the article.
The lead of this article reflects the consensus with respect to what is in the article. We've been through this before with people trying to add material to the lead that isn't in the article, etc.
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia with limited space, so the articles can--and probably should--contain any and everything reflected in RS presented here. Other encyclopedia's can be good study guide for some things, but they are generally substantially different from Wikipedia.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
To an extent I agree with the above, but only to an extent. The comment seems to me to suppose that we are not a paper encyclopedia (which is freely granted) so we don't have the limits they have in terms of article content but it seems to me to possibly ignore the equally important fact that as we are not a paper encyclopedia we can have much more extensive coverage over multiple articles than those printed reference sources do. The criteria for a separate article here are also much lower than they are for print sourees. That being the case we can probably do a better job in having a larger number of more focused articles than many print sources have provided they all meet notability requirements of course. I personally agree that I would like to see more content on the cultural and social impact of any number of groups in our articles along the lines of the articles in a recent Worldmark reference book I made a list of artices from at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Encyclopedic articles. At the same time though if (and I don't know this one way or another) another reference source has a good neutral article uch longer and significantly more detailed than our own, it might be difficult to say that we should eliminate data it covers from our articles in favor of other data it doesn't cover, other than perhaps recent changes and such]]. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem with this article in particular is that it straddles so many topical areas, most of which are interrelated and should be examined in a mutually complimentary manner so as to shed light on the organization in its many aspects and evolution from what it was to what it has become.
I'm not an expert on SGK, but have substantial knowledge about Japanese religion in general. As far as the significance of SGK to Japanese religion goes, it's negligible. The Nichiren sect is a thousand years old, and though SGK has origins in resistance to State Shinto theological authoritarianism, Nichiren Buddhism's primary teaching relates to (末法、Mappo, Later Day of the Law) of the Three Ages of Buddhism. In that sense, it can be seen as a Buddhist form of "end of days" millenarianism in some ways, though I don't see it as being apocalyptic. There is not a single mention of that in the article. On the other hand, the Three Ages of Buddhism and Nichiren Buddhism, as well as The Three Treasures are all articles that you might want to add to the list your compiling.
SGK in its present form has less of a relation to Nichiren Buddhism than when it started, as far as I can tell, and has based its organizational ethos on a blatant attack against an even more fundamental aspect of Buddhism, which is monasticism, as I mentioned earlier. They try to portray their organization as a reaction to elitism in the priest caste, but that is only partly admissible. Nichiren Buddhism is only one sect among many long-established sects, but the SGK attack on Buddhist monasticism is practically an attack on all forms of Buddhism.
At any rate, WP:NOTFORUM, and my main point is to show that the topic is rather complex, multifaceted and sprawling. Any attempt to limit material would seem to contradict core policies. :::The creation of spin-off articles might be an option to consider, but would take a considerable amount of work. I don't think Wikipedia has the scope to undertake such work itself, and it may just have to wait until better sources are published in English that examine the topic in more detail at the scholarly level.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't forget that most of the academic publications about Soka Gakkai are about its relationship with Komeito and the possible problems this poses for Japanese society. Shii (tock) 10:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I haven't researched the organization or come across any books on them. But that would make sense, because first, they are basically outside of mainstream Buddhism, no matter what the people that have come into contact with the group in the USA, etc., might think, and there doesn't appear to be anything in terms of doctrine that has theological import to Buddhism. So the main focus is on their political impact. They represent a substantial voting block, on the one hand, and they are aligned with the reactionary LDP, which was installed by the CIA after WWII drawing mainly from individuals that were to be tried for war crimes (see Robert Whiting's Tokyo Underworld for an introduction to that history), on the other hand. That presents a bit of a contradiction from the early history of protest against the same people in power during the period of militarism connected to State Shinto and their collaboration with the LDP, the current PM being the grandson of Nobusuke Kishi (see Kishi and Corruption: An Anatomy of the 1955 System), for example.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a really good intro, following up on someone else's idea of using encyclopedias as sources. I don't see what anyone could argue with. As far as it's foreshadowing the rest of the article - it does do that exactly, without getting into minutiae. I think it's fine. --Daveler16 (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

One person's "minutiae" are to another person a major component of the article. I think the current intro is better. Shii (tock) 01:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Shii: what I mean is that the entry doesn't have to be a forum for argument. Currently it's "something nice/denial" and "positive statement/argument with positive statement". This new proposal eliminates that and, in my opinion, makes the intro (at least) more consistent with the tone of entries for other sects. I think also we have been discussing putting all the criticism in one place, either in its own section in this entry or in its own entry. In that case, it wouldn't have to be peppered throughout, and a reader could get an idea of the SG's actual beliefs and practices, before exploring what other people think is wrong with those beliefs and practices. This goes also to Ubikwit's latest comment: you seem to continue to want to describe SG as it compares to other schools; but I think those arguments would be more appropriate on the entries for those schools, since they are more about those schools. The new intro is, I believe, quite appropriate for this entry. --Daveler16 (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

SGK is not a sect of Buddhism. It is classified as a "Japanese New Religion" by some scholars, at most. Show me an academic source that describes them as a "sect" of Buddhism.
Why don't you try to expand the section on "Beliefs and practices". For example, try describing the content of the book that is considered "canonical"

Ikeda, has produced certain writings which have acquired a canonical status within Sōka Gakkai, such as Ikeda's book "Human Revolution", which in some ways sets it apart from its former parent organization

It's very odd to have zero explication of such a text on a page of this sort.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I've tried a new intro, below in the next section. It uses a few encyclopedias as sources (Thank you, John Carter). --Daveler16 (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

History edit

History Makiguchi: 1930-1944 Tsunesaburō Makiguchi, First President of the Sōka Gakkai Foundation

The Soka Gakkai officially traces it foundation to November 1930, when educators Tsunesaburō Makiguchi and his colleague Jōsei Toda published the first volume of Makiguchi's magnum opus on educational reform, Sōka Kyōikugaku Taikei (創価教育学体系, The System of Value-Creating Pedagogy).[22][23]:49

The first general meeting of the organisation, then under the name Sōka Kyōiku Gakkai (創価教育学会, lit. "Value Creating Educational Society"), did not take place until 1937.[25] The group was a lay organization affiliated with the Nichiren Shoshu, by that time a small and obscure Nichiren Buddhist sect. Makiguchi, who had turned to religion in mid-life, found much in Nichiren's teachings that lent support to his educational theories, though it has been argued that the sect's doctrines and rituals went against the grain of Makiguchi's modernist spirit.[4]:21–32[13] From the very first meeting, however, the main activity of the group seems to have been missionary work for Nichiren Shōshū, rather than propagating educational reform.[13] The membership eventually came to change from teachers interested in educational reform to people from all walks of life, drawn by the religious elements of Makiguchi's beliefs in Nichiren Buddhism.[citation needed][26]:14

Excised:--Daveler16 (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC) "In a 1933 publication by this group, Makiguchi explained one of his educational principles: "We must make our children thoroughly understand that loyal service to their sovereign is synonymous with love of country."[24]" because it is completely irrelevant. The academic validity of the source (fn24, Victoria) has been called into question by at least 2 reviewers (Metraux, and Kirchner and Sato).

Excised: "hekkeko" don't neeed Japanese wordds in an English entyry when there are suffucuent English words --70.181.118.149 (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2014

This page is heavily biased in favor of criticisms that have been written about the Soka Gakkai from critics with often vested motives. This page could easily described as "Criticism of Soka Gakkai" rather than an objective description of Soka Gakkai. I do not ask for all criticisms to be deleted. Instead I ask that some balance be restored to the page. The comments from some reputed observers, such as say Mikhail Gorbachev or Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center that used to exist on this page, but have since been deleted. I call for this page to be revamped, or at least put under articles that do not have a neutral pint of view. Thank you. 122.179.142.144 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. The IP would appear to be an advocate, posting a list of "pro-" sources to support their pov, to the exclusion of "con-" sources..--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sing! 09:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well the case is very simple as some editors have decided in the past to censor all criticism which was based on third party onions some SGI faithful find it hard to get third party opinions on how they would like to see the issue to be described except own descriptions. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverted rewrite

I removed a rewrite that contained:

  • testimonies from Simon Wiesenthal Center and Mikhail Gorbachev (political testimony is an obsession peculiar to SGI; this sort of thing never appears on pages like Scientology or Mormonism)
  • assertion that 1970 book I Denounce Soka Gakkai was full of lies, dubiously sourced to neutral account (if there was any inaccuracy in the book surely Soka Gakkai would have sued?)

I don't think this worthy of discussion. Shii (tock) 03:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this page is that the entire page sounds like a criticism of the Soka Gakkai. Every single action of the Soka Gakkai is viewed from a highly politicized and scandalous viewpoint as presented by sections of Japanese society (such as ultra-nationalists) and media (tabloids like the Shukan Shincho). No attention of any kind is paid to more objective books like "Encountering the Dharma" by Richard Seager from Hamilton College, USA, and "A Public Betrayed" by Adam Gamble and Takeshi Watanabe. Information included within these sources can serve as a means to make this article more readable. A lot of the information in this article are quite simply rumor mongering and gossip. Despite all the criticisms of other religious movements of comparable religious movements like Mormonism or the Baha'i Faith, no other religious grouping is presented in such a negative light. This amounts to tremendous bias and prejudice on the part of the authors of this article or those who refuse to even consider adding some information to this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatrunjaymall (talk • contribs)

No one is prohibiting you from adding new material. Just do so in a manner that adheres to basic editing policies.
Incidentally, the Soka Gakkai is a highly politicized organization, and nothing you say will change that fact, or the fact that the political dimensions of the group are addressed in multiple RS.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@Shatrunjaymall It is easy to say the article sounds negative, but it is hard to say what could make it more balanced. The I Denounce Soka Gakkai incident, for example, is described in both of the books you mentioned. I do not see much difference between the way it is put in those books and how it is described on Wikipedia. If you disagree please help me improve the article. Shii (tock) 14:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

New edited Intro

Soka Gakkai (Japanese: 創価学会?) is a Japanese lay Nichiren Buddhist movement affiliated with Soka Gakkai International (SGI) which has, by its own account, 12 million members in 192 countries and territories around the world. Like other Nichiren sects, the Soka Gakkai reveres the Lotus Sutra and considers repeatedly chanting its title, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo as the correct fundamental Buddhist practice. Unlike other Nichires sects, it has no priests or monks.

Soka Gakkai, and the SGI have been described as "the world's largest Buddhist lay group and America's most diverse".[1] While the organization has been crticized (link to new entry here), it has received recognition for its peace activism, as well as its adaptating of Buddhist principles to addressing real life issues in the 21st Century.(1)

The movement was founded by educators Tsunesaburō Makiguchi and Jōsei Toda in 1930 as a lay organization belonging to the Nichiren Shōshū Buddhist denomination.[12] After a temporary disbandment during World War II when much of the leadership was imprisoned on charges of lèse-majesté, the membership base was expanded to a claimed figure of 750,000 households by the time of Toda's death in 1958, compared to 3,000 before the end of the war.[9][13][14]

Further expansion of the movement was led by its third president Daisaku Ikeda, who began for the organization's international expansion in 1960. --70.181.118.149 (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this suggested revision is more reasonable and current. 66.214.252.44 (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is something incorporating the research of various encyclopedias:

Soka Gakkai is a modern lay Buddhist movement. It is the largest Buddhist sect in Japan with 8 or more million members and an additional 4 million members in other countries. [8] “Soka Gakkai” translates as “Value-Creation Society.” The organization follows the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin (1222–82), a Japanese monk who crafted a reinterpretation of Buddhism based on the Lotus Sutra. The Soka Gakkai traces its start to 1930 in Japan, when its founder, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871– 1944), published his educational work “Value-Creating Pedagogical System.” By 1941 it grew to some 3,000 members but its refusal to support Shintoism during World War II resulted in its near destruction by governmental authorities; founder Makiguchi was imprisoned during the war on charges of lese majeste for refusing to cooperate with government policies promoting State Shinto.--Daveler16 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC) He died .while in custody.[9] [10]

The Soka Gakkai has grown rapidly since the 1950s under the leadership of its second and third presidents, Josei Toda and Daisaku Ikeda. [11] It is considered the most successful of the many religious movements that emerged in Japan after the war.[12] In the early postwar years it was accused of overzealous propagation. [13] It shared an association with the Japanese Buddhist school Nichiren shō-shū but the two organizations separated in 1991 when Nikken, the 67th priest of Nichiren shō-shū, excommunicated the Soka Gakkai after unsuccessfully attempting to bring the Soka Gakkai under his direct control. [14] Nichiren Shoshu preserves the tradition of Buddhist priests and temples whereas Soka Gakkai members are led by lay leaders and gather at numerous community centers throughout the world. Followers claim its well-organized, colorful, and well-organized structure is the future of Buddhism.[15]. Some anticult authors have included the Soka Gakkai on their lists of cults. [16]

The core of the Soka Gakkai’s religious practice emphasizes chanting the mantra Nam-myoho-renge-kyo(daimoku), propagation efforts through personal contacts(shakubuku), and study. Its main goal is “human revolution,” a profound inner transformation within an individual [17] and “kosen rufu,” the spreading of Buddhist ideals to promote peace and happiness in society. Members participate in neighborhood discussion meetings; the organization organizes cultural, educational, and humanitarian activities including the founding of schools, universities, museums, and research facilities. It is also an NGO (nongovernmental organization) affiliated with the United Nations.[18] [19]

The Soka Gakkai formed the Japanese Komeito political party in the 1950’s which was criticized extensively by political rivals. The Soka Gakkai was also criticized for its aggressive proselytization in the 1950’s and 1960’s, the period of its explosive growth.[20] Starting in the 1970’s the Soka Gakkai began broadening its cooperative activities, expanded its outlook to an international scope, better adapting itself to pluralistic democracy. In the 1980’s Daisaku Ikeda began a series of dialogues with prominent leaders throughout the world and more organizations have constructed friendly relations with the Soka Gakkai. Members of the Soka Gakkai are encouraged to take personal initiative, to actively involve themselves in the community, and achieve personal happiness in their daily lives.[21]

--Daveler16 (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I like most of this but the first paragraph does not accord to WP:MOSBEGIN. It should be a brief summary of the whole article for those in a hurry. Also, as an intro it is a bit too long. Shii (tock) 19:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Looked at the guidelines, came up with this for the first paragraph:

Soka Gakkai is a modern lay Buddhist movement. It is the largest Buddhist sect in Japan with 8 or more million members and an additional 4 million members in other countries. [8] “Soka Gakkai” translates as “Value-Creation Society.” The organization follows the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin (1222–82), a Japanese monk who crafted a reinterpretation of Buddhism based on the Lotus Sutra. Since its founding in1930, The Soka Gakkai has been the object of a lot of criticism and even persecution. Unlike other Nichiren sects, Soka Gakkai does not have a class of priests, and its emphasis is on the practitioner rather than dogma.[22]----------------- --Daveler16 (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the intro directly above would be fine with several notable changes: 1). Soka Gakkai does have priests, for example in Singapore. 2). "and its emphasis is on the practioner" should be changed to "and its emphasis is on Daisaku Ikeda.". 3). "rather than dogma" should be changed to "rather than doctrine". Mark R. Rogow 20 July 2014

I think this is mostly good, and I'll see if we can try to replace the current lead. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources but most of the claims being made are found in the article anyway. Shii (tock) 23:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, and this is not the standard process by which a lead is written. It does not reflect the content of the article in a summary manner.
Furthermore, the Sokka Gakkai is not a sect, it is a lay movement. See [[1]].--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I am quite impressed by the progress that has been made since I last dropped into the Talk page. First of all, I think you editors are actually quite lucky. I've been working on a couple of other controversial articles, Gulen Movement and Gulen Movement Schools. There is hardly any action on the Talk page and I feel lonely and way too powerful.
Let me make a few comments and then I will disappear for a few weeks. Ubikwit, there is a history here that you may not know. The Soka Gakkai page was the victim of constant edit warring. The result was an article that obviously curdled milk for some people. I was the one who swooped in and made the suggestion to start with the lead paragraphs and draw information from neutral encyclopedias. I think you are right that this is not typical for Wikipedia. But I think it is a good model for other pages that are controversial and locked down.
It seems a lot of the warring editors have locked their guns in the gun cabinet and started to collaborate. I can see a lot of research obviously took place, a lot of Talk page, and the result is not perfect but a passable good start.
I suggest that you guys keep plowing through the rest of the article, paragraph by paragraph, and create an article that encompasses all viewpoints. Please, try to avoid power struggles; if you enjoy constant fighting, get married.
I'd like to invite everyone to visit my pages and provide me feedback.

FetullahFan (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I must admit I'm mystified why it is so vitally important to some that the word "sect" not be used to describe the SG. I don't know how the SG describes itself - it seems to me I've seen "organization", "movement", and "sect". But I do know that the word "sect" is defined in more than one dictionary as an offshoot of a larger religious circle (and the SG is certainly that) and that the Wikipedia definition of "sect" has a link to "Buddhist", and the SG is listed there. Since the practice of the SG entails a religious ritual, it has to be characterized somehow as a "religion" don't you agree? And so, a "sect"? All that being said, I have no objection to the words "movement" or "organization". As I say, I'm still not clear on why it's so urgently vital. --Daveler16 (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

In recent religious stueies the word has come to be used for groups who see the prospect of ultimate or highest salvation or equivalent to be available exclusively to its numbers. Having said that, if that point is equally clear without the word itself, I can't myself object to removing it. John Carter (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
In relation to Buddhism, my understanding of the use of sect in religious studies is used to refer to a group that formed in relation to either the adaptation of a new interpretation of a sacred text or focus on a form of practice by a prominent teacher, a new teaching by a teacher that has risen to prominence. There haven't been any new sects that I'm aware of since the Kamakura era in Japan, when several new sects came into existence, including the Japanese Rinzai and Soto schools of Zen (with Dogen being a prominent Zen master, and Japanese Pure Land and New Pure Land sects, as well as Nichiren. Those sects came into being in part due to great social upheaval in a historically transformative period.
In later periods, even when a great teacher was active, such as the 17th century figure Bankei, his teaching wouldn't bring about the formation of a new sect per se.
Accordingly, calling the Sokka Gakkai a "sect" of Buddhism would be a gross misrepresentation.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ubikwit. In Buddhism the term "sect" is more likely to be used to describe the various schools within Buddhism, hence traditional forms of Buddhism. Since SGI seems to be eager to underline the fact that it is so much different and "lay based" as in contrast to traditional forms of Buddhism why use a term that it does not even use to describe itself? In the end it is not a “Shū”.--Catflap08 (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

New edited Intro notes

  1. ^ Carson & Cerrito, Thomas & Joann (ed.). New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol 13 (Second ed.). Thomson Gale. p. 298.
  2. ^ Doniger, ed. (1999). Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions. Merriam-Webster. p. 1020.
  3. ^ Jones, Lindsay, ed. (2005). Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 12 (2nd ed.). Thomson Gale. p. 8508. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
  4. ^ Ellwood, Robert S., ed. (2007). The Encyclopedia of World Religions, Revised kEdition. DWJ Books LLC. p. 427.
  5. ^ Stone, Jacqueline (2004). Buswell, Jr., Robert (ed.). Encyclopedia of Buddhism (Vol. 2 ed.). Thomson Gale Macmillan Reference USA. p. 781.
  6. ^ Jones, Lindsay, ed. (2005). Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 12 (2nd ed.). Thomson Gale. p. 8508. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
  7. ^ Jones, Lindsay, ed. (2005). Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 12 (2nd ed.). Thomson Gale. p. 8508. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
  8. ^ Hammond & Machacek, Phillip E. and David W. (2010). Melton & Baumann, J. Gordon & Martin (ed.). Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices (Second ed.). ABC-CLIO. p. 2656. {{cite book}}: line feed character in |title= at position 57 (help)
  9. ^ Carson & Cerrito, Thomas & Joann (ed.). New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol 13 (Second ed.). Thomson Gale. p. 298.
  10. ^ Hammond & Machacek, Phillip E. and David W. (2010). Melton & Baumann, J. Gordon & Martin (ed.). Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices (Second ed.). ABC-CLIO. p. 2657.
  11. ^ Jones, Lindsay, ed. (2005). Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 12 (2nd ed.). Thomson Gale. p. 8508. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
  12. ^ Doniger, ed. (1999). Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions. Merriam-Webster. p. 1020. {{cite book}}: line feed character in |title= at position 19 (help)
  13. ^ Hammond & Machacek, Phillip E. and David W. (2010). Melton & Baumann, J. Gordon & Martin (ed.). Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices (Second ed.). ABC-CLIO. p. 2656.
  14. ^ Buswell Jr. & Lopez Jr., Robert E. & Donald S., ed. (2013). The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism.
  15. ^ Ellwood, Robert S., ed. (2007). The Encyclopedia of World Religions, Revised Edition. DWJ Books LLC. p. 427.
  16. ^ Zonta, Michela (1998). [ed James R Lewis The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions]. Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-57392-222-6. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help)
  17. ^ Buswell, Robert E, ed. (2004). Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Macmillan Reference USA/Thomson/Gale.
  18. ^ Stone, Jacqueline (2004). [[Soka Gakkai|Buswell, Jr., Robert]] (ed.). Encyclopedia of Buddhism (Vol. 2 ed.). Thomson Gale Macmillan Reference USA. p. 781. {{cite book}}: line feed character in |editor1-link= at position 6 (help)
  19. ^ Hammond & Machacek, Phillip E. and David W. (2010). Melton & Baumann, J. Gordon & Martin (ed.). Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices (Second ed.). ABC-CLIO. p. 2656.
  20. ^ Jones, Lindsay, ed. (2005). Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol.12 (2nd ed.). Thomson Gale. p. 8508. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help); line feed character in |publisher= at position 8 (help)
  21. ^ Jones, Lindsay, ed. (2005). Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 12 (2nd ed.). Thomson Gale. p. 8508. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
  22. ^ Strand, Clark (2014). Waking the Buddha. Middleway. p. 74. ISBN 978-0-9779245-6-1.

Issue on “the split”

I made the separation issue again a separate point in SGI’s history. Although some, even current SGI members, say quite bluntly it was a money and power issue the facts are quite simple. SGI was stripped of its status within Nichiren Shoshu same goes for its members later on – those are the simple facts. SGI was kicked out. Any views on how each side regarded the issue should and must be regarded as views as the facts speak for themselves there is NO beating around the bush on this one. I would however advise any editor to be careful to beat the anti-authoritarian drum when it comes to SGI’s current structure. Many editors spend much time here to make a bogeyman out of everyone who holds different or critical views on SGI rather to focus on defining SGI’s belief structure. Some may find the current version of the article overly critical of SGI but this is due to the article’s history as it once was entirely based on primary, hence SGI’s own, sources. I know it’s a bit difficult to find non-primary sources on SGI that describe what SGI’s religious practise is all about – but that has its reasons. SGI defines itself largely on conflict – them against us. Once an editor complained why this article can not be more descriptive like the one on Nichiren Shohsu and Nichiren Shu. The thing is – they have a doctrine that can be described and that does not change in every blue moon. Even their historic conduct and misconduct can be described in a larger historic context. Adherents of SGI however try to portray it with a halo that simply does not match reality. Hence secondary sources that would confirm such halo are hard to find.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Revision drafts

There has been a complaint at the Teahouse about the use of footnotes on this Talk page. I'd like to remind everyone that the Talk page of an article is for discussing the article, not for developing revision drafts (complete with footnotes). If we want to develop extensive revisions, then we should create a subpage under the Talk page and do it there. Or the editor proposing the revisions can create the new version as a subpage on his own User page, and invite other editors to comment on that. About creating subpages, see Wikipedia:Subpages. Thanks. -- Margin1522 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soka_Gakkai/Archive_11&oldid=1136232825"