Talk:Soka Gakkai/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

A sentence and references under doubts

I am referring to the following sentence: “There has been controversy about the degree of religious tolerance[58] and proselytizing[59][60][61] practiced by Sōka Gakkai members”

1/ the mentioned sources above refer to one example of an SGI teacher accused of proselytizing in a school. There are about 12 million members of SGI. Is this incident sufficient to generelise the one teacher to include the word “members” who can be within the range of 12 million “members”. The editor knew that the official policy of SGI does not approve of described behaviour of that teacher and correctly provided reference to the Charter.

The Q. is: Is it within Wikipedia rules and guidelines to take the example of one person to generalise on the whole group? For example, does Wikipedia see as logically acceptable to say that the Catholic church as a whole is under controversy because one priest was allegedly accused of something? If generalising an event to label the whole organisation is not accepted by Wiki, then the editor should to do something about his editing.

2/ Maybe it is acceptable in Wiki to use blogs as reliable reference, as the editor used here: http://riverdalepress.blogspot.de/2009/03/ps-24-parents-call-for-principals.html but this blog says that the allegation (concerning that teacher) are not certain: “Not everyone at the school gives much credence to the accusations, including some people who work closely with the principal every day. “We only know what we read about in the papers,” said Ms. Trebach, maintaining that she could not confirm or deny allegations of proselytizing or a hate list”.

3/ Duplicating a doubtful information does not make it reliable. The editor brings another source duplicating the same information: http://www.culthelp.info/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=5600. And this source also says that the matter is still under investigation.

I request Wikipedia editors attention to the questions raised.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes Safwan I can't agree with you more, Added to that We have to question the standard of references quoted by @Catflop, daily news papers and people who hate are not authentic sources These are tertiary references with dubious intentions. To this edits by @catflop WP:OR and WP:SYNTH apply so I'm undoing all the recent edits by @Catflop. Have a good time :)!

@ catflop for you >>> WP:OR 'Wikipedia articles must not contain original research'. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented"

WP:SYNTH 'Synthesis of published material that advances a position' Policy shortcuts: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveen Reddy (talk • contribs) 08:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have forwarded the case to the Administrators' Noticeboard. Not only do those clearing tactics of critical issues make the article as a whole questionable (overwhelming amount of SGI-only sources) but it looses of what is left of any quality and readability.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok @Catflop what do you call your tactics and intentions, As I said before Wikipedia is about providing basic information about things. @catflop Your understanding/views are hilarious sometimes, an article on Soka gakkai would naturally have references from the websites related to it with WP:NPOV style presentation of facts. WP:NPOV'Neutral point of view should be followed'. Why the heck some people here are hell bent on promoting negative propaganda. Even though its from so called authentic sources, 'Whats the role of Wikipedia in promoting those views'. I will stand for my views and actions. But here after may be I need to debate on this talk page with other editors (what ever their motives may be) respecting their views and actions (which is questionable/difficult to bear sometimes)before undoing the changes.Naveen Reddy 08:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Catflap here. Sorry Naveen, but your latest editing was one sided and there was no prior discussion on this Talk page about what you see inacuracte or violating Wikipedia's gudlines. I do think that Catflap violated the guidlines, and for this reason I asked a question to be answered by Wikipedia editors: this is the subject of the current section (A sentence and references under doubts in which I raised 3 points). Please consider that I said that Catflap's sentence and refrences are "under doubt" although I strongly feel that there was a violation - and I invited Catflap to review his editing. I could delete the doubtful passage myself but out of respect to Wikipedia environment, I did not and invited for cooperation. I think this is achievable. It is of course upsetting to see sentences based on personal blogs like Catflap introduced ...but this can be corrected and discussed. I suggest to Naveen to undo the editing he did, and leave the page as it was and let's all wait for few days. Let's cooperate and learn. This learning about editing and references is important for us all, we may differ in views but we all are involved in this environment. Let's start anew.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

To @Catflop and @safwan My question to both you guys is (I have asked this so many times before), 'Is this Soka gakkai page on Wikipedia is a debate forum ???' to evaluate or judge something. I'm ok with rest of the content in the article, but when one of you try to mention things like

1. "Soka members prosylate before their mentors" Let them do what ever they are doing or not doing ? 'Who are we/you to judge that' what benefit does it impart to the readers of wiki. This certainly against WP:NPOV guidelines and comes under WP:SYNTH, 'negetive propaganda !'

2. First I should question need for the subhead "Perception and Criticism of Soka gakkai". Wiki readers who come to this page needn't break their heads over the controversies related to it and the debatable claims to and fro the organisation. "Where is the Neutrality approach here" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveen Reddy (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia sometimes is an ONGOING debate, it surely is not used to advocate or propagate faiths or views. What you are doing is trying to silence any criticism of SGI – Wikipedia is not the tool for that. SGI has issues that might not just fit your views, but in order to get an balanced impression issues that surround SGI have to be mentioned. As an editor has pointed out earlier, who himself seems to be in SGI, it would just may be more helpful to if SGI would work on getting rid for reasons to criticise rather than to silence those who dare to criticise. With your actions however you have just yet again proved why SGI is being criticised. Editor Safwan and I have a history of heated debates, but in the end we find a compromise. I shall however inform you that your actions already have been reported to administrators just as by now your derogative and at times insulting style of posting here.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well Lets see, When you see a person continually trying to edit only one sub head which is "Perception and criticism of xyz" for the past so many days, doubts would naturally arise about one's motives and his unbiasedness. I Hope that the Wiki Admins would realize the truth of how far your so called 'balanced impressions' are true ?!! and worth retaining in the article. Naveen Reddy 17:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveen Reddy (talk • contribs)

Where or towards what my attention in wikipedia is directed is simply not your business. This is not the only article I am editing . Apart form that I have quite a few years of experience in Wikipedia as Wikipedia does not only exist in English. Any other issues have been brought to the attention of those who deal with it.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

A fresh start

The previous discussion, heated as it was, can be transformed into a learning environment we all are in. Both Naveen and Catflap hit on correct points - but both also made mistakes. Now Naveen corrcted his hasty deletion and returned Article to where it was (before the latest storm and complaints to the Admin.) - I see this as a proof of his abiding by Wikipedia rules. However, the focus is on Catflap who shared in the editing and the ensuing situation. Please review the central issue that shared in creating the problem, and which is this imbalanced and incorrect referencing as well as stigmatizing, which run against Wikipedia's nature. The truth will emerge sooner or later, so there is no need for any of us to stuff the article with wrong information whether pro or against SGI. Catflap is requested to answer the following points:

I am referring to the following sentence: “There has been controversy about the degree of religious tolerance[58] and proselytizing[59][60][61] practiced by Sōka Gakkai members”

1/ the mentioned sources above refer to one example of an SGI teacher accused of proselytizing in a school. There are about 12 million members of SGI. Is this incident sufficient to generelise the one teacher to include the word “members” who can be within the range of 12 million “members”. The editor knew that the official policy of SGI does not approve of described behaviour of that teacher and correctly provided reference to the Charter.

The Q. is: Is it within Wikipedia rules and guidelines to take the example of one person to generalise on the whole group? For example, does Wikipedia see as logically acceptable to say that the Catholic church as a whole is under controversy because one priest was allegedly accused of something? If generalising an event to label the whole organisation is not accepted by Wiki, then the editor should to do something about his editing.

2/ Maybe it is acceptable in Wiki to use blogs as reliable reference, as the editor used here: http://riverdalepress.blogspot.de/2009/03/ps-24-parents-call-for-principals.html but this blog says that the allegation (concerning that teacher) are not certain: “Not everyone at the school gives much credence to the accusations, including some people who work closely with the principal every day. “We only know what we read about in the papers,” said Ms. Trebach, maintaining that she could not confirm or deny allegations of proselytizing or a hate list”.

3/ Duplicating a doubtful information does not make it reliable. The editor brings another source duplicating the same information: http://www.culthelp.info/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=5600. And this source also says that the matter is still under investigation.

I suggest that we impartially read the above points. Please consider that this is not just an SGI related issue here, it is a Wikipedia related issue. The mentioned points are about whether Wikipedia rules allow for stigmatizing by generalising of one weak and doubtful example (Such as that Catflap brought: an accusation which could be false) - to spread over a world wide organisation which is offically opposed to what Catflap's is trying to portray. We all make mistakes and learn, and I am inviting Catflap to reconsider his editing.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The sentence reads: There has been controversy about the degree of religious tolerance and proselytizing practiced by Sōka Gakkai members.

It does not say each and every member/adherent in SGI is actively engaged in proselytising. What it does say that this in an issue raised by observers, ex-members and the press. Some say that and SGI says different – therefore it’s a controversy. Certainly one could delete the references on the p24 incident (if you search the archive of riverdalepress, which is not a blog, but an online newspaper – the principal had to leave his post by the way), one could also delete the reference about the issues brought up by non-Gakkai staff at Soka University ([1])– its just a few people having issues, one could delete the Montgomery-book reference (Daniel B. Montgomery: Fire in the Lotus, Mandala 1991, p. 185-186 ...a book I would strongly advise you to get a hold of) – its just one author saying so, one could delete the lecture by Levi McLaughlin([2]) it just one person saying that and while we are in the swing of it lets dump Kisala. Okay then this sentence would stand there on its own, unreferenced. It would be an accusation indeed. But this is exactly what references are there for they underline an argument, sometimes one source is not enough another one is then added to round up the picture – references are examples. If I were to follow you argumentation then just about 80% of the whole article would have to go over board, indeed 80% of the complete Wikipedia content, because just one reference says such and such. So even if the references on P24 were gone the sentence would still remain with the rest of the references.

The question however now is what bothers you more? The fact SGI is being mentioned along with proselytising or that it takes place? Would omitting the information do away with the fact that as stated ? I guess not, what we have done then is to hide the issue under the carpet. Not mentioning the issue won’t make the issue go away though, the only one who could by any means resolve the issue is Soka Gakkai.

The issue of proselytising is by nature one of point of view. Any evangelical Christian coming up to you saying you are following the wrong faith, that you may see Satan if you do not admit that you have committed utter sins and that you must repent – in his eyes he is just trying to save your soul in your eyes he could be a pain in the neck and yes he is proselytising.

Wikipedia is not a trial but it gathers information and it goes without saying that there are simply different views on certain issues and nothing more is being said. It does not say SGI IS the prime example for proselytising but that it is an issue it has been and indeed is confronted with. Some editors have basically branded the references as liars and so forth – I would then like to see references that all those authors, lectures and journalist are liars out there to spread ugly rumours, well if that would be the sate of affairs hell would break loose in this article and in others. As for you example on the Catholic Church … well what should I say –Yes. Individual priest and their reported misconduct have caused many Catholics for example in the Netherlands, Ireland and Germany to turn their backs to the church, as to their mind the church was not practising what it preaches. And yes it is a controversy.Its just that the more an Organisation sees itself as perfect and indefeasible, and its members or adherents can certainly say so if they wish, the more you will have people pointing there fingers as to where this is not the case – and here in Wikipedia it must be done.

I can well understand that you may not like seeing this incident being mentioned, but one could say that about occurrences at Soka University too. The fact though that some may find that uncomfortable is no reason not to use them as examples, as not mentioning them one could then easily say “give me an example”. Certainly Wikipedia offers tools and message boards where you could ask for a neutral opinion.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

As you mentioned the Catholic Church look at the section "Contemporary issues" and Criticism of the Catholic Church. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If I follow your idea this would then mean to open up a whole new article ‘Criticism of Soka Gakkai’, one would then have to discuss that with the administrators in advance though – following the example of the article on the Catholic Church a link would suffice and the issues could be explained separately. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Catflap: I imagine that Wikipedia Administartion is quiet busy with various matters, so I will wait again before I submit to them a request to judge your editing and attitude, counting on your possible cooperation.

Please consider following Wikipedia guidelines and remove newspaper references, delete unconfirmed stories. In your words above you say: " some members of SGI are in engaged in proselytising" the word "some" for an organisation of 12 million should refer to at least hundreds of examples, not one disputed and possibly fabricated incident.

You are bringing serious accusations of performance of the whole organisation in matters of legal nature. The cases you mentioned were never judged by any court. Your wording of the sentence to label and sterotype millions of people on account of one disputed example and which is unconfirmed and possibly fabricated - this weakens the article and does not serve Wikipedia. The other example of a dispute between University staff had different explanation against what you mentioned. Soka schools and universities together count perhaps in the hundreds. Over a period of over 30 years of Soka Education, not a single case was reported as violating legal requirement of staff performance. You have no ground to accuse a huge system of schools and universities operating in many countries, based on a weak personal opinion of a teacher who left the system without any legal matter raised.

As this communication will be the ground for my complaint against your editing, I want also to mention that it is unprofessional to use words like

"you may see Satan if you do not admit that you have committed utter sins and that you must repent" followed by " if you do not admit that you have committed utter sins and that you must repent – in his eyes he is just trying to save your soul" - implying here that you are trying to "save SGI" from its sins. You may be on a mission to do so, but this forum, the Wikipedia is not the place to do so, nor even to mention this irrelevant subject.

I would like also to add that your personal statistics of Wikipedia performance: "indeed 80% of the complete Wikipedia content..." is not an argument to justify your peculiar way of editing.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

So what you are basically saying is that to your mind absolutely no proselytising is being practised by members of Soka Gakkai or has been commented on by external observers? Do I undertsnd you right there? And keep in mind that the article does not even touch on the aggressive proselytising methods used in the past. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I would very strongly urge Safwan to perhaps read policies and guidelines more closely. Newspaper articles are in fact very much acceptable references as per WP:RS, particularly if the matter being discussed is comparatively new or any number of other reasons. The statement implying that matters would have to be judged by a court is in fact a red herring. Please read WP:VERIFIABILITY. There is no requirement for matters to be formally adjudicated before they can be included in wikipedia articles. All that would be required would be to meet general guidelines. And it is extremely unprofessional to try to defend opinions based on misinterpretations of policies and guidelines, as I believe is done above.

We are currently in the process of developing a manual of style relating to religion content, including matters of the type being discussed here. I can see no reason for the precipitous and almost alarmist statements such as Safwan makes above. I would urge the editor to review all existing policies and guidelines, perhaps particularly including behavioral guidelines, before offering further comments misrepresenting policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to John

John: Thank you for referring me to the mentioned Wikipedia rules. I did read the recommended part, and I think that the disputed sentence (about proselytizing) which was based on the following reference: http://riverdalepress.blogspot.de/2009/03/ps-24-parents-call-for-principals.html violates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Usage_by_other_sources in its guideline: “Never use ….blogs as a source for material about a living person” – while the mentioned source is a blog, with a defaming accusation involving a living person (the teacher).

I also think that using one example as an accusation involving 12 million people is unacceptable generalization – and I would like to ask for a second opinion from Wikipedia Editors of whether using an event involving one person can be unreasonably stretched to include 12 million people referred to as “members”.

The mentioned blog’s article is no more than a story telling of the worst kind. It records 'point of views' only as well as conflicting opinions about an incident (involving a teacher accused of proselytizing).

Apparently, this quality of reference confirms here only one thing: there were accusations based on rumors - which generated two opposing views. Is this quality of source acceptable in Wikipedia performance? The whole event mentioned in that refrence could have been a fabrication, because the article itself mentions that the accusation “follows weeks of rumor”, and weeks of rumor do not change a rumor into a fact. Based on the blog’s wording itself (that the article is based on rumors) - is sufficient to disqualify the reference from any professional adoption. Further, the reference itself states that there are equal contra-claims about the reported rumors:

“Not everyone at the school gives much credence to the accusations, including some people who work closely with the principal every day. They say they have never been offered a card nor have they been approached to join him for prayers.

“We only know what we read about in the papers,” said Ms. Trebach, maintaining that she could not confirm or deny allegations of proselytizing or a hate list.” Here is a case study for Wikipedia: an article destabilising its own credibility citing: No credence, cannot confirm nor deny, we read about this in the newspaper ...Whom to believe then? It could be argued that the tabloid type refrence here reported a fabricated story just to make noise of it and leave a trace of hatred and doubts about SGI. If the accusers themselves could not confirm or deny the accusation so what is the credibility of this reference?

I still don’t think that this reference is fit for Wikipedia, and I would like to pursue the enquiry further. The article itself mentions: “One staff member, who did not want to be named, said it was a small group of teachers and parents who wanted Mr. Scharper removed because they are now unable to exert as much influence as under the previous administration. Rumors that speak against Mr. Scharper are matched by others that say the allegations are part of a vendetta started by a disgruntled staffer at the school”.

Here we have the words: “rumors, did not want to be named, could not confirm or deny, vendetta, no credence... administration influence, allegations...”. If someone did not want to be named then that person could be under threat. The article itself points to the elements of vendetta and manipulation, so why accept this quality of source, given also the above mentioned challenges to its value and aim?

I want to ask Wikipedia Editors for a second opinion about the validity of accepting the mentioned reference. I believe you were unfair, John, in not rejecting that disputed reference - but I believe in your capacity and impartiality and for this reason I am kindly asking whether it is possible to ask another editor for opinion on the matter. I searched in the files but could not find how to challenge a Wikipedia Editor’s opinion. Appreciate an indication on how to apply to Wikipedia regarding the current matter.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Necessity of neutral editing

This input will be helpful for all of us here to cooperate to make our entries neutral. The false potrayal of SGI as having controversies and religious intolerance is disputed by independant scholars, and this entry here should be added to the subject of dispute with Catflap:

"Soka Gakkai offers a model of transnational religious expansion based neither on religious fundamentalism nor on soft New Age-ism. This study is based on fieldwork in Singapore and Washington, D.C., two global capital cities in secular democracies with very different policies on religious freedom and religious harmony.

I argue that members in these cities are able to hold sectarian religious beliefs deeply while still getting along with others, in part by redefining "dialogue" and placing themselves at the center of what it means to be global. Because the Singaporean government discourages proselytizing in order to maintain social harmony, members of Soka Gakkai have adjusted how they make incursions into the public so their activities do not seem coercive.

Similarly, in the United States, because of its past associations with "cult-like" behavior, Soka Gakkai has publicly distanced itself from activities that appear aimed at proselytizing. The softening of the group's public image through its skillful use of media has contributed to its rapid growth in these two global cities, where potential converts are attracted to the group's (noncoercive) "universal values," J.Funicane, Syracuse University http://surface.syr.edu/rel_etd/7/

This testemony is not taken from a tabloid newspaper as Catflap's some refrences are. I again ask for impartiality and cooperation in editing - in particular now regarding Catflap's questionable statement on SGI Proselytlizing.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I am unable to be sure exactly where the quotes above are taken from. The first quote in what constitutes, basically, the second paragraph is unsourced, so it is impossible to find out exactly where it is from. The second source, from a Syracuse university thesis or dissertation, is unfortunately probably even less likely to meet [{WP:RS]] standards than even tabloid newspapers. Papers that are published in academic journals are very reliable, but theses and dissertations which are not clearly published in such journals in general cannot be said to even necessarily meet the same standards as tabloid newspapers. Ideally, we would seek information from academic journals or other academic publications first, then magazines, trade journals and newspapers would be the next best sources. Theses and dissertations are, unfortunately, even less reliable than those sources. Please try to produce high-quality sources as per WP:RS. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

See [3] – it is certainly not correct to say that there is no controversy (in fact, the book describes it as "one of the most controversial movements in postwar Japan"). This book speaks of "Soka Gakkai and its history of controversy". Both are by University Presses. The little book by Dobbelaere would be useful to use as well; that Signature Books series is a good one. So to the extent that controversies exist, they should be described: an impartial overview should be given. --J N 466 22:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The 2 books you mentioned above (as acceptable references) are not in my possession, but will try to get hold of them. As for using the word “controversy”, impartial researcher should differentiate between a period when of SGI was under the emotionally-driven ways of Nichiren Shoshu Priesthood and the current times of independent SGI, discouraging the previous style of proselytizing (and emphasizing on friendly dialogue instead).

When a book mentions about controversies “in postwar Japan”, this may also refer to a period of half a century ago. It is simply unfair to label and stereotype SGI using inapplicable period and environment, without acknowledging the current reality.

I am surprised by your statement above that : “Papers that are published in academic journals are very reliable, but theses and dissertations which are not clearly published in such journals in general cannot be said to even necessarily meet the same standards as tabloid newspapers”.

This questionable statement was in reference to an "Abstract" of a professional research done by a Doctor of Philosophy in Syracuse University, http://surface.syr.edu/rel_etd/7/ (and whose full research was published within the University’s environment). As for online accessibility of this research, only that Abstract is directly available (while full article requires logging in and entering password). Ok, maybe this professional research is not acceptable as a reliable source in Wikipedia, this is one thing - but I find your judgment about a research you did not even read as being of a lower quality standards than tabloid newspaper – this I find unfair.

The mentioned Abstract of that professional research was endorsed and approved by the Department of Religion of Syracuse University, and it appears on their official website. It is possible that Wikipedia does not accept doctoral theses as references unless they are published in journals, however , to state that a research published within a University and mentioned by the University - does not meet standards that tabloid newspaper achieved – this statement poses a question. I wish I could contact the PhD researcher to ask him about his opinion about this view.

I sincerely wish to obtain another opinion from other Wikipedia Editors on whether an academic work of a PhD researcher published within a University environment is viewed by Wikipedia as less reliable or a lower in standards than a tabloid newspaper. In my understanding, Wikipedia welcomes reliable and accountable institutions such as universities as sources and references, and does not accept tabloid newspapers “storytelling” based on rumors, unconfirmed stories and possible defaming accusation.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Then feel free to leave a comment requesting input at WP:RSN and review the WP:RS page. However, yes, the paper in question is a dissertation or thesis, which was apparently submitted for either a masters degree or doctoral degree. We do welcome universities as sources. However, that basically refers to university presses or academics employed by a university. There is no clear evidence the author of this paper was necessarily an academic employed by the university. He was a student there. Also, honestly, the fact that such a dissertation or thesis might be on a university's website is in no way roughly equivalent to being published by the university. Were it to be published in a journal, that would be different, and several such papers are eventually edited and published in journals. There is no evidence that this one was. And I once again urge the comparatively new editor above to fully review the relevant policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding citations and correcting mistakes

The section Perception and Criticism required more clarifying citations from reliable sources to the presented views, which I added, starting with the first paragraph about world wide perception, then regarding the criticism about the "benefit", further regarding (one sided) criticism Nichiren Buddhism etc. In one sentence the word "Some" observers was used to mention just one observer, and this was corrected, as the word "some" does not apply to one person.Other wording mistakes corrected.(The sentence regarding Proselytizing is still under dispute)SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Religion by Lindsay Jones article on Soka Gakkai

The following material related to controversy regarding Soka Gakkai is to be found in the above title, which is, like I said earlier, considered to be at least one of the most widely respected and reliable sources out there. The material is also almost certainly also to be found in one or more of the bibliographic items for the article. On that basis, I believe content regarding this material is probably worthy of inclusion. The original article can be found on pages 8508 thrugh 8510 of the book, in volume 12.

from p. 8509

"One of the more difficult problems for Soka Gakkai after the latter half of the 1970s was its relations with the Nichiren Shoshu sect, its parent group. ... Nichiren Shoshu had a body of followers amounting to around fifty thousand. Soka Gakkai, through an affiliated organization, grew in strength under the Nichiren Shoshu umbrella until its membership was more than one hundred times the membership of the parent organization. There had earlier been serious conflicts .. over traditional doctrine and the authority of monks after Soka Gakkai emphasized new styles of lay religiosity and the authority of the Soka Gakkai president. [The groups split from each other in 1991].

Another difficult problem involved strong criticism from political rivals... Relations between the Komei Party and Soka Gakkai provoked controversy over whether this was a violation of the principle of separation between politics and religion....

Soka Gakkai has been characterized by its aggressive propaganda asserting that its teachings alone are correct and criticizing other religions and other Buddhist sects. The Shakubuku Kyoten... clearly demonstrated Soka Gakkai's exclusiveness, and few religious organizations have had a long-term friendly relationship with Soka Gakkai. Since the 1980s, ... more organizations have shown an interest in establishing friendly relations with Soka Gakkai."

I think this source is sufficiently well regarded to merit inclusion of such material in the article. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Safwan do you actually know what references are there for? The latest edit does make me wonder indeed. Do read John's contributions carefully !!!--Catflap08 (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

John and Catflap: Thank you for your input above. The content of the mentioned passages from the Encyclopedia of Religion – are already included in the Article. There is nothing new in them. The passages confirm the truth that SG had “…difficult problems …after the latter half of the 1970s … with the Nichiren Shoshu sect…” This is a correct statement and its essence is contained in the Split section.

What is not included in the article (maybe also in that Encyclopedia) is that in 1970, Ikeda outlined the modernizing line of SGI before 200priests who in utter silence listened to the new vision of the SG abandoning the rhetoric style of Shakubuku, changing this word to another, abandoning emotionalism and exclusiveness, declaring the line of Humanism and modenising the organization.

The Actual Proof speaks of itself: no wonder why SG grew to 100 x bigger than the feudal priesthood. Many non-Buddhist scholars admire the religious revolution and courage of SGI against authoritarianism. SG impact on the Japanese society is highly regarded in cultural circles, for example 65% of its membership constitute women, traditionally regarded as inferior to men, and the emphasis on equality, openness, respect is part of SGI teachings.

Now as for this: “Relations between the Komei Party and Soka Gakkai provoked controversy over whether this was a violation of the principle of separation between politics and religion....” So, what happened next? 50 years of controversy, and then what? Controversy originators had to acknowledge their nonsensical controversy. They have no legal stand to support their views. They can do absolutely nothing except for encouraging rumors and cheap media outlets (for ex. tabloid nonsense). The controversy drum is about opposing the “Right of Citizen to Vote”, and SG members have the right to vote under the constitution to any party of their choice. So what is the problem about? If there is a problem with the Kom/SG then let them go to court.

If Wikipedia editors are bringing this issue then it is fair to differentiate the situation from Western religious political parties, such as the Christian Democrates or Buddhist government in exile – these r serious mixing of religion with politics and this is not the case with SGI.

Repeating disgruntled controversies looks like an implicit contempt against the Legal and Constitutional System of Japan as being weak and incapable of resolving their controversy. Continual refrence to controversies without resolution ever, is useful for some political parties in Japan and their supporters in the West to try to manipulate the mind of people for vote gathering and doubts spreading - whenever an election takes place. But this boring repeatation of controversies will not mislead people who understand who has credibility and who has an empty basket: no valid argument.

The empty basket holders, who have no facts to criticize SGI, search in past and dead matters when SGI was dominated by the fanatical priesthood. And as the Encyclopedia correctly mentioned : “Since the 1980s, ... more organizations have shown an interest in establishing friendly relations with Soka Gakkai” – which abolishes the previous ( I think judgmental) wording of ‘aggressive proselytizing’ and which - in any case - was the priesthood effect, not SGI.

All this is supportive to the truth about SGI, the truth that made hundreds of professors and thinkers world wide - some Noble Prize winners - become interested in this phenomenon of lay believers revolution against feudal, authoritative and exclusive understanding Buddhism, opening their heart to humanity and providing interfaith dialogue. In fact criticizing SGI for its openness and interfaith activities is a proof of the validity of its teachings.

The “some observers” attitude - that which does not understand Nichiren Buddhism and wrongly labels it as intolerant - must face the contra argument of the intolerance and violence of others schools against Nichiren Buddhism, and in every intelligent presentation you hear the words: “on the other hand”. Just ‘one-way-criticism’ is not the way of Wikipedia. Citations and reliable refrences are important to clarify ambiguous statements and statements which do not convey the truth and constitute only POV. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

First, I believe the above editor should read WP:TRUTH, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:TPG. I regret to say that I find little if any of the above commentary to be necessarily relevant to the improvement of the article, and I see no indication that these apparently closely held personal opinions are in fact necessarily supported by any reliable sources. Article talk pages are for improving the article and really only for improving the article. Long statements of personal beliefs, which I regret to say is really all I see in the above, have no place on article talk pages. I very strongly once again urge all editors to read WP:TPG, which indicates what sort of comments do and do not belong on article talk pages. I sincerely hope all involved editors will make a bit more visible effort to confine their comments to those which belong on article talk pages, which are, basically, discussing matters of amount of weight to give reliably sourced statements in the article, article structure, phrasing, and the like. I see little if anything in the comment immediately above which even remotely meets those guidelines. If certain editors wish to alter or introduce content, the most productive way to do so is to introduce sources which meet WP:RS standards to support the material they wish to add or change. John Carter (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

John, I agree with what you mentioned: Talk page on Wikipedia is about improving the article contents. In this vision I responded about issues related and mentioned in the article’s contents. However, I understand that I was perceived to provide POV, and that was because I did not add here relevant sources – but point taken – this will be avoided in the future.

As you mentioned all editors should abide by the guidelines, and refrain in particular from personal references or soap opera views, and I want to also strongly disapprove of many entries on this Talk page and which I tolerated in the past, giving here 3 examples of sentences which should not have appeared. I am mentioning these sentences only as examples of what should be avoided in the future, by whoever participate in Talk page:

1/ “When the individual who tells of his/her negative experiences of SGI, some do not hesitate to call that individual a traitor or someone out to destroy the org. having a negative life condition. Is can got as far as questioning the persons integrity”. My comment here is that :If this spirit of entering words on Wikipedia talk is not using wikipedia to spread hatred and rumors, what is it?

2/ "…SGI is the next best thing that happened to the world since the invention of sliced bread..." My comment: whether disrespectful, sarcastic or explanatory of some people's personal beliefs about SGI, this quality of entries should be avoided.

3/ “…that you may see Satan if you do not admit that you have committed utter sins and that you must repent – in his eyes he is just trying to save your soul …” – I believe that such entries and examples do not contribute to improving any article. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You are entiteled to your opinion.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

While there is a slight point to the criticism above, I have to say, having reviewed all three of the comments objected to, that the context in which they were initially made they were not particularly objectionable. We as individual editors are reasonably permitted a certain latitude in how we present the points we wish to make. Sometimes, a little levity can even help a discussion. There do seem to me to have been substantive points related to the language involved made in all three contexts, and what some might describe as quibbling over phrasing on the talk page can be and sometimes is itself less than clearly abiding by WP:TPG. John Carter (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well in my books I am quite happy to almost any remark Safwan made as it says quite a lot … I mean its now out there to stay … okay I replied with some irony at times, but nevertheless it was worth the response. At any rate I feel Wikipedia is not intended to whitewash issues and it it should not be used to defame those who have different options, neither however is Wikipedia intended to take sides. Branding those who have different views as originating from tabloids is not on just as it is as a matter of fact basically intolerable to patronise those who may have not come to see “the light”. Religious matters are by nature controversial. I could mention a range of Safwan's comments, but to be honest I do want to get anyone blocked, I do not want to engage in an edit war. Being neutral is a tedious task even more so when it means to disregard ones own beliefs for a while. I at times too have to take a step back from my beliefs and try to understand what an outsider would make of it. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I edited a sentence (regarding proselytizing) in the Perception & Criticism after applying to the Dispute Resolution page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Disputed_sentence_and_its_sources_on_Soka_Gakkai_page

SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The matter regarding the disputed sentence was discussed at the Dispute Resolution board. The opportunity was open before all parties in the dispute to share in the discussion on the Dispute Resolution board itself. Catflap failed to repond to the points submitted before the board. I will return back to Wikipedia editors to have a say in this disruptive behaviour and continual disrespect to Wikipedia rules.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a moral responsibility

John: I strongly object to your statemnt (2 sections above) that the 3 points I mentioned earlier in that section were : " what some might describe as quibbling over phrasing on the talk page" - if that was what you meant by your comment. The problem is not about "quibbling over phrasing", but about using Wikipedia by some editors to promote rumors, hatred, defaming millions of decent people - such as in this false and aggressive statement: When the individual who tells of his/her negative experiences of SGI, some do not hesitate to call that individual a traitor or someone out to destroy the org. having a negative life condition. Is can got as far as questioning the persons integrity”.

You have indicated that a Talk page is not about POVs, but that it is about about rational, civil and referenced matters. How reasonable is the essence of a statement that: ' someone heared that someone else heard that if someone critcises SGI then a person's integrity is questioned?' Statements portraying SGI in an utterly false picture on Wikipedia page do not contribute to Wikipedia. Refrencing such lies by rumor based tabloids, or internet chat rooms, is a question which will be rasied. Such an attitude of unrestrained tendency to poison the well- if made in a social or legally-responsible forum - would have brought the matter before the court. This is a serious matter. You said once that Wikipedia is evolving, and I respect this broadminded view, which also may develop in making Wikipedia accountable before the court if it was used to incite hatred between people and defamation. Wikipedia should not open its pages to utter lies, and I want to know whether there is any moral instrument or Wikipedia rule that may be used to prevent or discipline an editor who intently uses articles or talk page - as a vehicle for spreading rumors, unconfirmed stories, lies and sterotyping others.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Safawan your latetst edits are not far off vandalism. Your are discussing sources on one page and then delete whole paragraphs. secondly if you have a problem openeing up a link you should say so. --Catflap08 (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Catflap : Your comment above (about a disputed sentence) should have not be posted here but a section above (where I mentioned the reason for changing the disputed sentence and its references).

This space here belongs to the Q. Does Wikipedia have a moral obligation - regarding using Wikipedia pages to spread hatered, false allegations and rumors. Please refrain from obstructing this space - thread about John's possible reply (if wishes to do so) and stop changing the subject. The matter is quiet serious as it relates to Wikipedia rules, not only regarding this page but as a policy as well.I take this opportunity to renew my question to John about whether posts including sarcastic remarks, opinion of one's family members, rumors and lies - contribute to "improving the article". SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Now just wait a minute --- okay gave my opinion on my family mebers belief, which to MY mind is worrying but where did I spread rumors or lies??? --Catflap08 (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)--Catflap08 (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Similarities and Differences with Other Schools of Nichiren Buddhism

I added a new section about the major shared concepts between SGI teachings and other schools - as well as the main differences distinguishing the doctrinal interpretations of schools as far as information is available. I think the location of this important section comes handy after the section on main SGI Practice. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Isults of the lowest kind

Well when posting insults of the lowest kind such as this one. Quote: Hey @catflop I know you are a pimp of Nikken. Don't push your NST ideology and motives here. Get the f*ck out of here you mtf !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.101.227 (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC) It won't be of much help at all … it indeed reveals some people's true intentions … who ever that IP-address in Bangalore belongs to. Please notice it has been reported and archived in the history of this article. Since the above user at least seemed to have spoken in defence of SGI I should however let that user know that I am not a member of NST, but its a prime example of so called religious tolerance practised by adherents of a certain so called religious group.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Catflap a 100% on what you mentioned above. Although I have different views on many theoretical issues on which we were exchanging different opinions - but I have respect to you and I am wholeherated in defending your dignified right to reject bullying and insults. These pages clearly speak about our maturity in excercising the highest of human rights: The Freedom of Expression in the most respectful and rational manner. It is a matter for Wikipedia instruments to verify that source which you mentined above and take action whatever regulations offer. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Some suggestions

First of all let's keep the discussion on how to improve the article, not attack one another. It needs improving. I do see encouraging signs of better co-operation starting to happen.

For a look at an opinion about how religious topics generally should be treated I recommend this. It's an essay, not policy or guideline, but seems to be me to contain much good advice, and could help those with strong personal beliefs understand what is required for an encyclopedia entry.

I also suggest spending some time looking the Religion and Buddhism projects linked in the header of this page, and specifically the lists of recognized content therein. That should help give guidance for what is necessary for a good or featured article.

Try and remember the reader who is likely to be a curious layman. Neutral and informative is better than polemic or technical.

Finally there are interesting factual elements that are not in the article at all (organisation into divisions, regions and sections for instance). I can also imagine a section that discusses the organisation country by country with number of members, regional centres, etc. For the UK for instance there is good hard information available at the charities commission website.

Mcewan (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Should we automate archiving?

I have recently done some work to make the 14 pages of archive conform to the usual convention for talk archives - (they had become orphaned after the article was moved to correct the spelling). As a result they can be accessed and searched from the header on this page. Another consequence is that it would now to be possible to automate future archiving - I have not done this because we should have consensus first. Any thoughts? I think keeping a year's worth of live discussion would be about right. See User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo for details. Mcewan (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Very true: "keeping a year's worth of live discussion would be about right". The important thing is to move ahead and archive discussions as roots and soil for a better article yet to emerge.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Added a new section on Mentor Disciple Relationship

One of the least understood matters about SGI is the Mentor Disciple Relationship. The word "Master" is no more used - after disassociation with the priesthood - and it will be a new knowledge to many readers to know that SGI does not have one Mentor only, but a group of individuals and an original mentor of all humanity, The Buddha, or the life of Buddha, as literature explain. Regards.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed passage about Bodhisattva vow in Ch 16 of LS

I removed a passage saying that the Bodhisattva vow in a stanza in Ch 16 of the Lotus Sutra say's "...to make all persons equal to me..." This isn't a Bodhisattva vow, it was the Buddha's original vow since he attained Buddhahood in the remote/eternal past. - Steve (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually "to make all persons equal to me without the slightest distinction" is from Chapter 2 of the LS", not Chapter 16. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.79.160 (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

After the Split

As is required by Wikipedia rules, citation from independant sources are necessary and should be included in the text of articles. I have added a section : "After the Split" - which includes research artcles and books of university scholars after the Excommunication, and finally the impact of the split on SGI (regarding the excommunication as a spiritual independance).SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally I am trying to stay clear from editing this article in any greater depth and rather add some issues here in the talk. I must admit, that citing Mentraux isn’t really the most neutral source … honestly now, Montraux appears in official SGI bookshops because he comes to a conclusion in his works that puts a positive light on SGI.

The paragraph is anything but unbiased now … it reads as if the ‘excommunication’ was an act of liberation. To some (i.e. those in SG) this might be true, but it then makes one wonder why in the days of the split both sides argued with such vehemence. NST/Hokkeko could then argue that they were liberated form SG influence on temple issues. And anyone familiar with the issue, anyone who witnessed the conflict at the time knows that the verbal (and not always only verbal) attacks between the two groups were in parts well out of order!! Hierarchy and authority did by all means play an important role --- who had the authority on dogmatic issues which would then mean who was in ‘command’ of the lay believers. This would then suggest that SG was, and is, free of any hierarchical structure itself, this however, I would strongly disagree with.

By the way, I think it’s a bad idea if members of the respective groups correct each others views in Wikipedia on such a controversial issue … it just ends up to appear to any external as an ongoing mudslinging – still going on after 20 years +. Both sides simply had and have to this day irreconcilable differences. Using Wikipedia to make one side look better than the other is a bad idea and in the end it will strip both articles off credibility and neutrality.

It might be worth finding a person either in the Japan or Buddhism portal, preferably someone who is not even a Nichiren Buddhist, but who has knowledge on the issue and most of all someone who is neutral. I just believe that when participants of a conflict write about the conflict their views will hardly be neutral. It is also remarkable how much space is given to the split in the SGI article. It might be a challeging task, but the most active authors from both sides should maybe agree on a third neutral author ... get a paragragh composed on the issue in the respective article and then have it locked for the time being. Every now and again when one reads either the article on SGI or Nichiren Shoshu it has changed considerably. I believe its time a solution to this should be found, that both sides can live with ... otherwise in the long run both sides will loose in terms of credibilty here in Wikipedia.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Catflap: Please consider this article as a good challenge for expanding our acceptance of the truth.

You are criticising Daniel Metraux because he expressed a view which you do not like. This person is non-Buddhist and is a respected university researcher. His opinion is not different from B. Wilson and K. Dobberlaere, Richard Seager, prof. Bumann or also Jane Hurst and many others .....who studied the conflict between SGI and N.Shoshu. All of these researchers are authors of articles and books which - if biased - would affect their own professional responsibilities, their credibility and integrety and also the merit of their universities. All of them are neutral, impartial and non-Buddhist.

I don't understand your objection to the fact that the excommunication is celebrated in SGI as liberation, this IS a fact, and if the NST feels the same (liberated) then fine, how great, let all people celebrate liberation.

Wikipedia is about recording impartial facts. If you find any part of article which contradicts facts or is lacking refrence then you have the right to challenge or change it - provided you justify your editing by a proof. I will do this and I am challenging now the section about the Hokkeko, which has nothing to do with SGI. Why to insert that section? To say that Hokkeko gained some members out of the split - this is an acknowledgement of Hokkeko's aim to spread authority over some SGI members (many of whom left Hokkeko later). And what has the article to do with whatever rule of N Shoshu in 1997? And this nonsensical description that SGI members "MOST MISTAKENLY" believe that... what a nonsense! Is this within Wikipedia rules to insert irrelevant advertisment for Nichiren Shoshu / Hokkeko and their rules in 1997 and describe SGI members as having mistaken belief about whatever.....Please bring proofs of why inserting this section is necessary - also: the proof that SGI members are even interested in "priesthood rules" and that they are mistaken in what ever.

Finally, you are asking for a solution to this unending war between the 2 sides. Nichiren Daishonin said it is the Actual Proof that decides. It is the Actual Proof of working for self-development, KosenRufu & humanity is the solution. Attaining Buddhahood and delivering the proof of behaviour is the solution. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I question Metraux not because I do not like his views, but rather because I question his neutrality, same goes for Brian Wilson – something that will surely not bring whole educational institutions to crumble as it happens every day. I am an academic myself and just because an academic says something does not make it intangible to what conclusions he or she may come to. But since we are in the talk section of the article this my opinion nothing more nothing less.

The term liberated seems to me to be a bit over the top … two organisations did not get on with each other, one kicked the other out, loads of harsh words on both sides end of story. I strongly would reconsider that this liberation is a fact though, unless however SG officially says so – it then would be down to the individual member what they make of it, as I do know active SG-members who would disagree with the term liberated, as they feel the issue is coming out of their ears. To say that all SGI-members are human is a fact, to say that the earth circles the sun is a fact, to call it a fact what each and every SGI-member may think or not is quite daring though.

Having said that, the term ‘liberation’ suggest a suppression to be liberated from, which then would make me ask why SG waited to be stripped of its status as a lay organisation? It then would mean that keeping ties with NST was somewhat irresponsible or not? Even more so sending millions of people on a pilgrimage to Taiseki-ji right into the centre of utter evil and let them even pay for it?? Sounds fishy to me. Yet again this is an opinion.

Hokkeko gained members ... sure they did … anyone in SG who sided with the temple went to Hokkeko … some went to other Nichiren Schools … nobody ever said that the majority left SG, but there was a shift in membership – it’s a fact. Since NO Nichiren School ever makes public who leaves it will be hard to find a reference. And certainly both sides will celebrate the lost sheep coming ‘home’.

If you do quote me, quote me correctly, never ever did I say that ‘SGI-Members most mistakenly etc. and so forth’. I myself was a member of SGI in 1997, joined 1986, remained to be until 2005, and it wasn’t until 1997 that ALL in SGI were now officially kicked out by Nichiren Shoshu. I guess NST had some sort of amnesty until then … we all know that the dispute was on its peak by then.

You quite nicely, for the most part, summed up the issue in the article about Nichiren Shoshu in an unbiased manner. I am not a member of NST, but by doing what you did you also gave the space to the issue that it takes up in NST today. The split is in NST now and again refered to not more though. In the SG article it takes up quite an amount of space however as if SG has to justify itself in the aftermath. To me – yet again an opinion- it then seems that SG struggles more than NST who seemed to have moved on doing whatever they are doing. Finally let me say that almost in every language articles on SG in Wikipedia do read like an advertisement, something you said Wikipedia should not be about. You said ‘Please consider this article as a good challenge for expanding our acceptance of the truth …, let me tell you what Wikipedia is also not about – its not about proselytizing. What you consider to be a truth becomes a belief, to which you are by all means entitled to hold dear, when you step out of your own religious system. Adherents to other schools of Nichiren Budhism find other truths than you that they are also entitled to, as do adherents to other Buddhist traditions and other religions. Your ‘truth’ is your personal belief, that I would fight for for you to hold on to, but its not the universal 'truth' to everyone else. It’s a thin line that can easily be crossed, I do too have my beliefs, but I have to identify them as such when writing here.

Having said that in both articles one paragraph is missing … the one about the effects of the split. A paragraph that highlights the suffering that was caused, about the marriages that suffered when one partner held dear to another truth than the other, about insults that were spoken out - online and in life. A paragraph about how the rest of the Buddhist world, Nichiren Buddhism or not, was speechless to witch length both sides went to make the other look bad. A paragraph asking how any of the two sides could seriously be talking of world peace while fighting each other so viscously. Gassho--Catflap08 (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Being an academic yourself, you can also gain from the knowledge of other academics who publish their findings, such as Metraux, Wilson, Dobberlaere, Richard Seager, prof. Bumann, Jane Hurst, and many others. When an independant scholar reads the demand of the Priesthood for ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE AND STRICT FAITH in the H. Priest - for them this is an expression of authoritarianism, to put it mildly. So if they express their openminded perspective, this does not mean that they are siding with SGI.

Nichijun Fujimoto, Nichiren Shoshu Head Temple's chief administrator, 12 Jan.1991 stated: "To talk about the priesthood and laity with a sense of equality are expressions of great conceit. In fact, they correspond to the five cardinal sins…” - what would an impartial academic sense in this but utter arrogance and disdain for ordinary people? However, if you feel strong about correcting other academics, then I do not think that Wikipedia is the best place for publishing your findings. With honest respect to your person and Buddha nature, I must say that you are oblivious of how emotional your views are, and how your statements about the split are based on who was right (the Priesthood, of course) and who was wrong.

SGI members are very clear about rejecting the domination of the Priesthood and about their spiritual freedom, and if not they would not continue in the gakkai, as is the case with some unsure individual. We live in a time of freedom. Each person is free to join whatever he/she sees inspiring. Some do not have any inspiration and sit on the fence arguing about the past. One GREAT results of the spiritual independance of SGI is the change in the system of prayers, from a complicated system invented by the Priesthood (to suit their temples locations, resulting in 5 + 3 recitation of the same Sutra text) into a modern, practical form of one recitation as recommended by Nichiren. This would have been impossible under the Priesthood's "Absolute Obedience" commands and conservative spirit. No where in the Gosho Nichiren recommended what the NST does in prayers. I practiced under the Priesthood for motre than 7 years, and I know how incorrect it was to do the Gongyo the Priesthood way, because - having just 20 min time in the morning for prayer - the time was consumed by 5 lengthy repetation of the text and no time for chanting was left (while chanting time should be longer than recitation time). The GREAT comfort and strong life force experienced by SGI Gongyo is a precious result of the Spiritual Independance. It was the MEMBERS who demanded the change in the form of prayers, and SGI HQ agreed. In itself this is a significant indication for independant academics who see the revolution of lay believers setting the form of prayers rather than accepting silently an authoritative form with Absolute Obedience. So no wonder impartial views support SGI.

I find this exchange meaningful. Please look at the future rather than digging the dead past, and who took divorce "because of the split" etc... The future is more important than the past and the Gohonzon has the power to transform any suffering, starting from our own.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Being an academic myself I am also interested who submits the funding to someone’s work, this at times can be an interesting task. ‘Cui bono?’ is a question that some academics would then tend to ask. So yet again I was not correcting anyone I voiced my doubts in terms of neutrality … not in the article, but here in the talk section. I am not very emotional about the priesthood I just think this whole article is packed with emotions and as I said I stay clear from editing it unless I see something fundamentally incorrect … the article in its current form and underlying theme speaks volumes anyway. And yes you are right especially with many engaged SG-members it’s either wrong or right, with us or against us – a simple view to look at things.

The quote by Nichijun Fujimoto I find very interesting as yet again I must ask that this was a position in NST that did not suddenly come up after or during the split. Having said that a majority of lay members were probably unaware of such rules but high ranking officials of SG surely were not. What the conflict means to me you may ask. Well NST knew all along that SGI was, from their point of view, not exactly in line with the school’s rules and regulation --- but to NST it was far to profitable to keep things as they were. SGI officials knew all along that they had a different view on certain issues; they did not even let their own members know that until NST cut the ties. Personally I believe though it comes down to a very human issue … two ageing men having had lots of unfinished business. Not the fact that both sides had a dispute but the manner in which it was carried out appeared gross to me. To me no side offered a spiritual home anymore. Again you refer to SG-members, the membership comes from all walks of life and yet again some do have different opinions, some even feel that the High Priest then has been substituted by the Honorary President today, a view they certainly would not voice openly, not doing so means in my books that the new found spiritual independence does have its limits too. This is just a hint to only highlight in the article SG’s official position, to then automatically state what all members in the organisation may or may not think is something one finds to be more common to totalitarian regimes. Generally the article needs a general fixing and clean up … What is SGI about, main cornerstones of belief and description of practice. Again it appears that the split has become a corner stone of SGI’s philosophy when just browsing the article.

In my time in SGI we shortened the prayers ourselves when we were short of time – without consent form any HQ, neither myself or anyone that I know asked for a new prayer book … it simply was there one day and we switched to the new prayers … in the old one we prayed for the priesthood in the new one for the three presidents. On a very personal note praying hence meditation is to me not primarily a time issue – it’s a time out for myself to get focused and regain energy and as Nichiren stated reciting the sutra to me is an important part of the practice. Other traditions in Nichiren Buddhism do not have a set standard of prayers but rather a recommended version; some even recite the sutra in their respective mother tongue, some practice the Daimoku some the Odaimoku, some recite more chapters of the sutra than others, some even recite the complete sutra bit by bit every time they pray (than can take several weeks at times). So what may seem revolutionary within your own tradition has been practiced elsewhere all along. So to be honest most of my Wikipedia work is actually not done in the English version anyway and my prime field is Nichiren Buddhism as a whole, but when participating in other Buddhist forums (of all Buddhist traditions) its amazing how SG-members slag off the ordained of just any Buddhist tradition (including other Nichiren traditions) and even the ordained of other faiths. In most cases it turns out to be an utter display of ignorance of other traditions beliefs, structure and history. It’s a pity to watch at times and I wonder what the origin of such behaviour might be.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I am an non-buddhist watcher of this page. I am not going to edit just yet, but I have to say that this section does not seem impartial to me. It's more a polemic for the SGI side of the argument, and also gives undue weight to something which (in the context of an encyclopedia article about one school of one line of one branch of Buddhism) is not especially important. It is clear that very strong views are held within SGI about this matter (as part of their creation story), however that does not necessarily make it important for this article, or mean that only one side (however well-referenced) should be presented at length. I vaguely remember reading a suggestion that the split was in fact motivated by economics - if I can find it adequately referenced I may add that point of view. Mcewan (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

All of them [who are positive about the SGI] are neutral and unbiased but those who are negative about the SGI are not? Very interesting point of view you have. Some such as Levi McClaughlin have been both negative and positive about the SGI...See Dominating Tradition: Soka Gakkai and the Creation of History. Another article you might find interesting is: Can Scholars Be Deceived? Empirical Evidence from Social Psychology and History by Steve K. D. Eichel, Ph.D. Are you saying that those sociologists like Metreaux and Wilson haven't enriched themselves by writing positively about the Soka Gakkai and selling their books in SGI community centers? [Mark Rogow] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.79.160 (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The causes for the conflict between SGI and Priesthood

Without any explanation, someone deleted a section referring to the causes of the split. Avoiding mention of the causes of the conflict - weakens the value and the correctness of the article . For this reason I returened the section about the reasons for the Split.

The following text (in italics) had no reason to be in the article because of its unprofessional, ambiguous and incorrect nature: "The relationship between Sōka Gakkai and the priesthood of Nichiren Shōshū has been historically one of give and take." This view is like a story telling with no professional reasoning nor references. It is a POV. Wikipedia artcles have no space for imaginary points of view. And "Give and Take" what?:" While Nichiren Shōshū profited from a substantial growth of adherents and hence income by donations" - , Sōka Gakkai on the other side profited form the support of an established school of Japanese Buddhism" Who said this? Where is it mentioned? This text is giving the false information about the conflict and speaks about financial gain of the priesthood rather than the doctrinal causes of the split. And also: "the issuing of religious objects of worship, the so called Gohonzon' - this sentence is incorrect as Gohonzons were issued only by the Head Temple until the Split. "Ongoing tensions between the two sides were mostly based on authority and doctrine" If so then what are these doctrinal causes? Why hiding them? The causes of conflict should be mentioned in a short concise manner which I returned back to the article. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Some readers might be interested in this 63 page analysis of the split by a former Nichiren Shoshu priest: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren/wwNy42T1x_s Enjoy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.79.160 (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Archiving of previous discussions

Archives of this page have now been created in such a way as to be accessible and searchable from the header on this page. There is also a partial index of specific discussions (that used to appear here) at Talk:Sōka Gakkai/Archive Index. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcewan (talk • contribs) 13:40, 8 July 2012‎ (UTC)

Incorrect classification of SG

The SGI is a world wide Buddhist movement based on the teachings of Nichiren. This is the correct and impartial description of the SG or SGI. To call the SGInternaltional a 'New Japanese Religion" is a result of ignorance. SG did not introduce any "new religion" and its teachings are based on the Lotus Sutra, humanistic and world wide, International - nothing Japanese related. The classification of religions based on ethnic origin of the founder or location of temples/members is questionable. Anyone who classifies Christianity as Palestinian, or the Catholic order as an "Italian religion" exposes incorrect grounds of classification. To say that SGI is "regarded" by "someone's opinion" as a new "japanese religion" is a sentence violating Wikipedia rules, it is a POV. There are hundreds of scholars world wide who regard SG as a humanistic organisation for peace based on Nichiren Buddhism and their view should also be included. Shall we include these as well at the starting definition to give a balanced perspective? I think this is unnecessary. To exclude the mess of clashing POVs, I deleted the controdictory sentence on how SG is "regarded".SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No indeed. SGI is based on the teachings of the Three Presidents of the Soka Gakkai, some of the teachings of Nichikan with which the mentor agrees and some of the teachings of Nichiren which the mentor agrees. To be considered a Buddhist movement based on the teachings of Nichiren, one must have the same faith and practice as Nichiren. Interfaith based on the Lotus Sutra, for example, is a teaching of Ikeda not Nichiren. More correctly, SGI is based on the teachings of Ikeda, not Nichiren. [Mark Rogow] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.73.71 (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Gohonzon image

I think that the article could benefit from the addition of an image of the Gohonzon as issued by SGI. Does anyone have one? Mcewan (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This page might be useful. It shows an image from Flickr, which contains allegedly all public domain photos, and it also indicates that SGI itself officially has reservations about the making of such images. John Carter (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It would not be appropriate to put up an image of the Gohonzon, because the SGI (like the Nichiren Shōshū priesthood and other Nichiren groups) strongly discourage against/don't allow the taking/displaying of images of the Gohonzon. Mollari08 (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see the significantly huge discussion relating to a similar topic, images of Muhammad, at Talk: Muhammad/images. I am not sure that wikipedia's own policies and guidelines would support not including such images on that basis, although I also acknowledge that for all I know they might permit such if we could find them. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree for adherents of SGI or Nichiren Shoshu a photographic image of the Gohonzon is prohibited. This however is different in other schools of Nichiren Buddhism. In the article of Nichiren Shu I blieve there is a link to a Nichiren Gohonzon (copy) that is issued to its adherents. In this scholl of Nichiren Buddhims there is nothing sacriligious about taking a picture of a Gohonzon.--Catflap08 (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Catflap that there is no specific teaching in SGI (as far as I know) about not showing an image of the Gohonzon. Most of the influence about this matter come from the past association with Nichiren Shoshu. In the same time, if many people in SGI do not feel comfortable with exposing the highest spiritual value, the Object of Devotion, in a casual image on the internet - as cheap as any advertisment - it can be mistakenly perceived in general terms as something like being just a calegraphy or amulet, and this possible effect is disrespectful to the beliefs about the value of the Gohonzon (That Which Should Be Most Respected). The image has a spiritual dimension, and just a physical print of it does not offer its proper meaning - being the embodiment of Buddhahood, or the Life of Buddha. Nichiren defines the Gohonzon as The Object of focus for Observing the Mind of Enlightenment. Such profound concepts cannot be offered by just a print of Gohonzon but traditionally are explained on one to one basis, with wholeheartedness. If the image can be offensive then it should not be posted. Afterall the Gohonzon is not an SGI creation to be so relevant to the subject oif the article. The commonsense can lead us to make improvements to the article in many other ways.RegardsSafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well to be blunt the issue of whether or not a particular image is taboo for a group of people is not relevant here. The policy in WP:NOTCENSORED is quite clear: Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations. And because of its central importance to this sort of Buddhism, the Gohonzon is important, and if I can find an appropriate image of it, I would propose inserting it in the article. It would at least be more informative and interesting than most of the inter-necine doctrinal squabbling that tends to surface here. Mcewan (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand that there is no reason why the Gohonzon should not be presented as an image, after all this is already done on the internet in many places. Iit is meaningful though to explain what the Gohonzon is and probably a hyperlink to the page on Gohonzon would suffice.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I do understand that the Wikipedia policy on this takes precedent, but because of the SGI stance on this that it would be better to not include the image, at least not here specifically. There is already an image of a Gohonzon on the Gohonzon page, so it doesn't need to be placed here as well, as anyone interested in the Gohonzon specifically will go to that page. This page also touches on the different views on the Gohonzon and the SGI and Nichiren Shoshu position on taking/displaying/using images of it. Mollari08 (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There is one option that might be a bit strange, but might work. The SGI Gohonzon isn't the only one. I'm not sure how remarkably different the SGI Gohonzon specifically is, but if it isn't that different we could add an image of a "generic" Gohonzon with a caption saying that the picture is of a Gohonzon, but not specifically an SGI one, indicating that they prefer theirs to not be photographed or published. The key question would be, I guess, how similar the different gohonzons are. John Carter (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't actually matter to the SGI which Gohonzon, because ALL Nichiren Gohonzon are still considered by SGI in the same view. The SGI position on it is that Gohonzon (in general) should not be copied like that. Again, there is no real necessity to have one here as there is already one shown on the Gohonzon page.

The only difference between the different Gohonzon of each of the Nichiren sects is mainly who they are inscribed by, Nichiren Shū use exact copies of one inscribed by Nichiren, whereas Nichiren Shōshū use Gohonzon inscribed by their High Priest. Besides this there is very little difference between them.

Also, just a side note, the Gohonzon which is used by the SGI is not "an SGI Gohonzon", it's actually one originally inscribed by Nichikan Shōnin, 26th High Priest and major reformer of Nichiren Shōshū. Mollari08 (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I wasn't, by the way, implying that the SGI had a Gohonzon which was not in some way recognized by non-SGI as valid or anything, and my apologies if it might have been taken that way. The fundamental question, I guess, is whether the Gohonzon is such a central part of SGI that the page would be incomplete without it. I'm not myself sure one way or another. The Catholic Church article has several images incorporating altars and the Eucharist in it, which is reasonable given the central position they play in that church. If the Gohonzon is of roughly equivalent importance to SGI, then I would think, possibly, that an image either of the Gohonzon, or, perhaps, one of a private devotional center, like a home altar in some Western Christian households, which might incorporate a Gohonzon image as a part of the image might reasonably be included.

It does make sense to me that maybe the "Practices and activities" section should include at least some information on the Gohonzon, which, at present, it does not seem to do. John Carter (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well from what I gather of Commons is that an image of the so called Shutei Gohonzon, a copy of one of Nichirens inscribed Gohonzons, is available. This Gohonzon is issued to adherents of Nichiren Shu. If that image is used a note should be made that this is not an image of Gohonzons issued by SGI, it should also be noted that the Nichikan Gohonzon in use in SGI is an altered copy and NOT identical to the original Nichikan Gohonzon.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The part of the Nichikan Gohonzon which was "deleted" was just the dedication which basically just says who it was inscribed for, which is NOT an essential constituent part of a Gohonzon. The Nichikan Gohonzon used was one in the possession of a Temple which seceded from Nichiren Shōshū in support of the Sōka Gakkai after the excommunication, whose Head Priest gave permission for the Sōka Gakkai to use to provide Gohonzon to it's membership after the Nichiren Shōshū refused to issue Gohonzon to them.

The Gohonzon IS one of the two most central part of the Buddhist Practice in the SGI, along with chanting Daimoku, but it wouldn't be detrimental for an image to be absent when there is an image elsewhere on the Gohonzon page, as long as it is at least mentioned that there IS an image of A Gohonzon elsewhere and why there isn't an image here specifically.

An image of a home Butsudan (altar) would be a good idea to have in the "Practices and activities" section to help show the Practices etc. but again WITHOUT the Gohonzon shown.

I do agree that the "Practices and activities" section needs to have more information on the Gohonzon. Mollari08 (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it could be considered debatable if the deletion of the dedication was unimportant or not in the end there is an intention behind any dedication. SGI was in desperate need for a Gohonzon always asked myself why they did not ask one of the priests that sided with SGI to inscribe one or create an SGI-Version. At any rate this no subject here, yet. As mentioned above there is no image of a Nichikan Gohonzon available in Commons. Including one in the Gohonzon article seems fair enough though. --Catflap08 (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This thread shows variety of views about the Gohonzon. I have various photos of cultural activities, music bands, dance etc… on stage where SGI Gohonzon is clearly apparent in the photo. The main reason why a specifically taken photo of the Gohonzon is not recommended - is not to make a cause for treating the Object of Devotion casually as any "item" - and it is for the benefit of those who may think of it as a good-luck amulet or “nice calligraphy”, a cause for superficial thinking about it. The Gohonzon is an embodiment of “Life of Enlightenment” or Buddhanature which we all have, – and I take this opportunity to bow before the Buddhanature of those editors here with whom I have disagreements, regardless. They were also helpful for me.

As for similarities and differences of (physically) inscribed mandalas: all the 120 - or so - mandala Gohonzons available now are based on the definition of the founder, who is the only authority to define Gohonzon:

“The true object of devotion is described as follows: The treasure tower sits in the air above the saha world that the Buddha of the essential teaching [identified as the pure and eternal land]; Myoho- renge-kyo appears in the center of the tower with the Buddhas Shakyamuni and Many Treasures seated to the right and left, and, flanking them, the four bodhisattvas,..” http://www.sgilibrary.org/view.php?page=366

All Gohonzons without exception have the same central bold characters defined by Nichiren as the essence of this Object, and therefore they all are equal in spiritual sense, (regardless of the minor character differences, or a priest’s signature on it, date of issue etc….). The reason is that the essence of the Gohonzon is not in the print itself, but in one’s belief in own and others Buddha nature. It is like the example of a valuable banknote: the value of banknote is not derived from its paper or from the printed characters, words or numbers on it - but from the intangible credibility (or power) it [inherently] possesses.This credibility or value - in regard to the Gohonzon - originates from the [inherently] existing Buddhanature, and it is indicated in the Gohonzon as the effect of the ‘Fusion of the Law of Life and the Human Being’ (the Oneness of Person and Law) appearing in bold characters in the centre in all available Gohonzon.

Quarrels about whose Gohonzon is “better” or “more authentic” are products of various temples fighting for own prestige. SGI was unable to confer Gohonzon on its members until 1993 when the chief priest of Joen-Ji temple in Tochigi prefecture, Rev. Sendo Narita conferred on SGI a woodblock Gohonzon originally inscribed by High Priest Nichikan Shonin. SGI Gohonzon is based on the conferred Nichikan Gohonzon and is the most widespread in the world, however, its spiritual value does not derive from who or where it was inscribed but from its owner’s dedication for enlightenment of self and others (who are interconnected with one's own life).SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Safwan but you do not represent the view of the Soka Gakkai, Toda, nor your mentor:

“Soka Spirit,” has a “featured article of the month” by Dave Baldschun (SGIUSA Study Dept) entitled: "Are All Gohonzons the same?” In that article, Baldschun arrogantly asserts,

“[a]t a time when copies of Gohonzon, some inscribed in Nichiren Daishonin’s own hand, are available over the counter or from the Internet, these examples offer a valuable lesson. Even though a Gohonzon is a Gohonzon, the source is important. We should be aware of those offering Gohonzon and teachings under the guise of Nichiren Buddhism but who are, in fact, propagating views that distort Daishonin’s teachings. In Letter to the Lay Priest Ichinosawa, the Daishonin states, If [sic!] the source is muddy, the stream will not flow clear...”

In an April 30th 2001 memo, “Distribution of Gohonzons” the SGI teaches that distribution of Gohonzon by any means outside of SGI (for example, via the internet, the Nichiren Shu, or the Kempon Hokke) is detrimental to the true spirit of Nichiren’s teachings only propagated within the SGI. Dave Baldshun, drunk with the arrogance of SGI, asserts that receiving, revering, or chanting to such a Gohonzon “would only create confusion and disharmony within SGI’s community of believers and thus may serve to undermine one’s own faith and that of other’s.” He then reafirms the policy of “the conferral of Gohonzon only as within the SGI, "the correct body of believers upholding the Daishonin’s teaching today. We do not support or condone the distribution, receipt, or reproduction of any Gohonzon in any other manner."

Toda teaches:

"We, ourselves, cannot produce the Gohonzon. Since it's the enlightened entity of Nichiren Daishonin, no one has the authority other than the successive high priests who have been the sole heirs to the heritage of the True Law. We take no part in this. Therefore, the objects of worship inscribed by those in the Butsuryu and Minobu factions [of the Nichiren sect] are absolutely powerless. They are worthless because they are fake. In fact, they contain the power of evil spirits. That is why they are dangerous." Former SGI president, Josei Toda, Daibyaku Renge, 98, p. 98.

Ikeda teaches:

"Members of the Minobu school of the Nichiren sect chant daimoku. They have the Gosho Their recitation of the sutra also includes the Hoben and Juryo chapters. And, in the Shoshinkai, which consists of ex-priests of Nichiren Shoshu , and the portions of the sutra they recite and the daimoku that they chant are identical to the practice we observe. Though their religion may seem the same as ours, they lack the single, unbroken heritage of the law recieved directly from Nichiren Daishonin. If one's faith is not based on this line of inheritance, it is worthless to embrace any Gohonzon, for no benefit will be forthcoming. That is to say, "Without the lifeblood of faith, it would be useless to embrace the Lotus Sutra." " Daisaku Ikeda, Buddhism in Action, vol 3, p 254

Is it that I know more about what the SGI actually teaches than you or are you trying to deceive the people? [Mark Rogow] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.73.71 (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Attention Mark: Your input above shows that you misunderstood the question of this thread, which is about Gohonzon Image. The subject was about how does Nichikan based Gohonzon look similar or different from other mandalas. You are mixing here this subject with how SGI views conferral of Gohonzon as a matter pertaining to faith, inheritance etc.... These are 2 different subjects.

As for the question about the Image of the Gohonzon, my answer was based on Nichiren’s writing (the Treasure Tower, the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas..) and this central bold character part of the Gohonzon is common among all inscriptions, making them all equal in terms of the definition of what [characters] constitute Gohonzon. That was what I meant. You mentioned Baldschun's SGI views, and he said literally " Even though a Gohonzon is a Gohonzon, the source is important" - so the first part of the sentence is about this thread, and it says that "Gohonzon is Gohonzon" as a matter of fact in regard to its physical manifestation as a mandala. You have shifted the subject to another part, regarding the source, the conferral and faith.

This thread is not about discussing how each school regards faith in the Gohonzon. Mixing the 2 subjects is not beneficial for this thread nor contributes to clarity. Of course: you can start a discussion group about it but this is a Wikipedia Talk page and its function is not to serve in sectarian wars, but about the article and the question posed.

Each school is free to teach how to receive and practice to the Gohonzon. The passages you mentioned indicate that SGI does not believe in downloading or buying Gohonzon as practiced by some individuals or schools. A Gohonzon which was not conferred by the Samgha, or Community of Believers, does not include in its spiritual essence the entity of the Three Treasures, in which the inheritance by the Samgha is essential, and that’s why it would not be spiritually equal to one which is conferred by the Samgha. From physical point of view, yes, both mandalas can have equally the same characters. But faith-wise, inheritance and Samgha conferral: the mandalas are not the same. However this is a different subject from the question about the image or how the mandala looks like.

I will not respond to ambiguous comments which do not belong here, nor to personal judgements which do not count anyway. Our attitude reveals our quality and beliefs.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all Safwan, you should admonish yourself:

"Quarrels about whose Gohonzon is “better” or “more authentic” are products of various temples fighting for own prestige. SGI was unable to confer Gohonzon on its members until 1993 when the chief priest of Joen-Ji temple in Tochigi prefecture, Rev. Sendo Narita conferred on SGI a woodblock Gohonzon originally inscribed by High Priest Nichikan Shonin. SGI Gohonzon is based on the conferred Nichikan Gohonzon and is the most widespread in the world, however, its spiritual value does not derive from who or where it was inscribed but from its owner’s dedication for enlightenment of self and others (who are interconnected with one's own life)." --Safwan

But I wouldn't expect anything else from you Safwan because you lack a clear mirror. [Mark Rogow] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.73.71 (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am a leader in the Soka Gakkai and I think you should take down the image of the Gohonzon. This is purely due to an issue of respect for it and for yourself. As it represents the most profound state of life and indeed your life to put it on the internet is disrespectful to it and to yourself, and is probably a bad cause for your life too. It may also encourage people to chant to it online rather than get one for themselves, and this would be a very poor substitute and is not recommended. I am not here in an official capacity from the Soka Gakkai but just as a member, but the official Soka Gakkai position is not to allow photos of the Gohonzon at all, and as this is an article about the Soka Gakkai I would ask that you please respect our wishes and remove the image as soon as possible. Thanks. -- Simon Y--30/11/12--

Well you introduce yourself as "I am a leader in the Soka Gakkai" yet you say "I am not here in an official capacity from the Soka Gakkai" this is a contradiction. It therefore boils down to the fact that you are an adherent of the SGI teachings and in a legal sense not a member nor a represenative of SGI. The image is available in Commons. If there are however copyright issues with the image then that should be dealt with Wikipedia Commons. If that is the case any other similar image of a Gohonzon that is not an SGI one could be inserted to give the reader an idea what a Gohonzon looks like. This could be mentioned in the text acompaning the image. At this point deleting the image that clearly is connected to the content of the article is a case of vandalism. This article is about SGI and is not owned by SGI. --Catflap08 (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I am really not sure why you have taken such offence to my comment. I am a leader in the SGI (Soka team leader for SE London) and a member, but I am not here in any official capacity, and am acting on my own, just as a concerned member. It is not an issue of copyright at all, but a religious one, and one of respect. It is primarily out concern for you that I wrote that as you are in essence disrespecting your own life by placing the image of the Gohonzon there. I cannot see the benefit that would be gained from having an image of the Gohonzon there that you know is going to offend members of the SGI. I would ask again that you please take it down but I am happy to have a chat with you about it if you are unclear on the reasons for my objection. ---Simon YT--5/12/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.111.187.210 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to say absolutely that what I said was in no way meant as a threat in any way and if I have caused any offence then I apologise, that was not my intent. I merely meant that as the Gohonzon ultimately represents your own life to treat it with disrespect is the same as disrespecting yourself, which is not good. I know that you are not SGI members and that wikipedia is a secular domain and you may not understand the significance of the Gohonzon. I know you just want to provide information and education to people and that is admirable, but I feel that the image will upset some people as it has upset me, and there is no need for that as an accurate description would be more than sufficient. I will leave the discussion there and wish you nothing but the best. ----Simon YT----6/12/12-----

Suggestion to move a section to another page

I previously added section "Similarities and Differences" between SGI concepts and other schools of Nichiren Buddhism. To support the information with references I had to bring citations from SGI literature. The section has 14 references (from [41] to [55]) and all except one are SGI based; doesn't look too balanced. This may have triggered the tag of "Advertisment" put at the beginning of the page - although the information provided was factual, however, there was no 'third party' verification.

I suggest here to perhaps move this section on Similarities and Differences from Soka Gakkai page to Nichiren Buddhism page. For example: the concept of Buddha, Three Trasures...etc... can be then viewed from different views of various schools, (so the sources would not be related just to SGI). This may shorten the article on SGI but enrich the article on Nichiren Buddhism and open the way for wider cooperation between editors regardless of affiliation. Appreciate your opinions.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly object to that! Whoever put the advertisement mark in most probably referred to the article as a whole which is heavily based on SGI-sources and is not written in a neutral manner. Moving the section in question to the article Nichiren Buddhism would but a heavy weight on differences between schools form a SGI perspective. Moving “problematic” sections to another article is no guarantee that the issue is resolved and simply opens up new problems in other articles. I myself added a section that gives a rough idea on how Nichiren Buddhism splits up, any issues how a school distinguishes itself from other schools should be explained within the article of the respective school and I have my severe doubts that you are versed in the 20+ schools that are based on Nichirens teachings. Adding issues like Mahayana and Nichirens Identity by you were already from a perspective that not all schools would subscribe to at all. You included Gosho quotes and not all schools subscribe to Goshos or Goibuns and if they do, not all can agree on authenticity. My suggestion would rather be to take those sections out of the article on Nichiren Buddhism. If you are 100% sure that thats they way the issues are taught by in SGI that's where it should be moved then, doing so you would actually help to what SGI teaches in respect to Nichiren. In my view the Nichiren Buddhism should give a rough overview, show how it generally splits up, refer to general objects of worship, relevant scriptures, practices and then simply link to schools and their articles. I myself was tempetd to delete those section in the article on Nichiren Buddhism but was in no mood for yet another edit war. The reader should know that Nichiren Buddhism is part of Mahayana Buddhism – for the unbiased reader thats enough info on where to locate it on the buddhist map. The section on identity is unecessray as the section on posthumous titles already touches on that. Yet again the reader is able to take a look at the various schools. Same goes for crticism of other schools – again an issue that other Nichiren Schools, especially in which way theiy interact to other Buddhist schools TODAY deal completely different with. So be honest to yourself! You made some grave changes to the article on Nichiren Buddhism – it may just be that they should be moved to the SGI-Article – the reader would then be enabled to understand what SGI's stance on the respective issues are.

Do not get me wrong your sources are heavily one sided, as you are a believer and member of SGI, and it may be best to insert them in articles that deal with SGI. Just be sure that it is SGI's teachings you are mentioning … in the talk section another editor already brought up issues on the Gohonzon to which there were conflicting views. There is no need to duplicate too much information that at a closer look can not be generalised. Nichiren Buddhism is a vast and diverse field and even an academic branch on its own. The fact that Mr. Ikedas portrait was removed form the article dealing on him shows that some in SGI-HQ seem to do take closer look these days since it was due to copyright issues - yet again be sure of what you are doing and insert and reinsert the information where is belongs to. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet again I have to come back on the issue on why maybe the neutrality mark has been set. Switch off all what your beliefs are for a moment . On what a school teaches the prime sources should by all means be within the respective school, as they should know best what their beliefs are. Any issues dealing on how a school and it's teachings are perceived should be from neutral sources. Your edits on Nichiren Buddhism were and are heavily influenced by SGI sources only. You could now maybe object that my entries on Nichiren Buddhism rely on a Nichiren Shu misnisters page. First of all he is quite neutral on why the Nikko lineage came into existence, stating Nikko's views. Why is that? Rissho University which is very important in the training of Nichiren Shu ministers offers Nichiren and Buddhist Studies. Kind of tricky when originating from a Nichiren Shu seminar, but there is a twist. Rissho University by all means is until this day important within Nichiren Shu, but the final brush to the training of its own ministers is been taken care of at Kuon-ji and Ikegami Honmon-ji. It today is a main stream university … to my knowledge none of the Soka- Universities offer neither Buddhist nor Nichiren Studies as part of their Curriculum. What I am trying to say is that one has to differentiate between scholar issues such as history and historic developments and sectarian issues. Until the late 70's even ministers of Nichiren Shoshu got part of their training at Rissho University, one could easily guess this was solely on academic and historic issues as even then dogmatic issues would have been far too grave. So from my point of view there might be several issues within the present article that are problematic. How does SGI view itself and its teaching – the only sources can be the one by SGI. How is SGI regarded from outside – can only be sourced from outside of SGI either critical or not and not influenced by SGI. Views on how it teaches Nichirens teachings i.e. on Mahyana, identity relationship to other Buddhist faiths, Nichiren or not, can only be from SGI-sources. Any criticism can only be from neutral sources, which include sources not supported by SGI or its members.

In your research you may find much more criticism on SGI and Nichiren Shoshu than on any other Nichiren denomination. One reason is its membership (by number) and also its exclusiveness that surrounds any teachings originating from Taiseki-ji and any school that stems from it.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Gohonzon Image on the Internet

Noticing repeated questioning and tension about Gohonzon image in SGI article, I would like to offer the following perspective dealing with Gohonzon on the Internet in general, aiming also for stabilizing the frequent deletion - uploading on this Wikipage:

First it is important for editors to know the copyright and the history of 'ownership issue': The Gohoznon is the Buddha’s gift to all humanity, but in the past, the mandala was regarded as a private property of Priesthood. This was challenged by SGI, who - after the split - was offered permission by supportive priests to reprint copies of Nichikan based Gohonzon.

Copyright issue has legal and also religious dimensions: Only Gohonzon delivered through the 'Community of Believers' is one which is conferred in accordance to the Three Treasures of Buddhism (The Buddha, The Law and the Samgha). Therefore individually obtaining Gohonzon from the internet expresses misunderstanding of one’s Buddhist practice, and expresses an attitude of making light of the Three Treasures of Buddhism, disregarding the Community of Believers. The Gohonzon is found in faith only and not in how the mandala looks like, for example, a copied $ 100 note may look exactly the same as a real $ 100, still it will have no credibility or benefit. Permission of the source of image is very important.

Now why there is a bit of tension here regarding maiking photo of the Gohonzon?

Because the Gohonzon is the Object of Devotion, it should not be treated like one treats any other usual household item - and it is traditionally accepted that making photos of Gohonzon reveals a careless or casual treatment of the mandala (which is , of course, not beneficial). However, even if a photo was made, like in some SGI celebrations or group gatherings - and the Gohonzon is visible at the background of the photo - then it is the intention behind making that photo which count, as Nichiren says: “it is the heart that is important” WND1 p. 1000

I would not personally publish an image of the Gohonzon and- most importantly - because it belongs to the Community of Believers, which delivered it in the first place. Nevertheless, one can treat the image published on Wikipedia page with openmindedness, and with good faith or positive outlook about the intention - and also with awareness about the environment of this public domain medium. It is important to accept the fact that the image of the Gohonzon is already published on the internet on other websites (there are about 120 Nichiren Mandala Gohonzon on the internet - and here now on Wikipedia. Uploaded image does not violate Wikipedia’s guidelines and should be accepted as that, however, there are issues with copyright, and with the wrong descriptions tagged to the image - and this will be questioned sometimes in the future, no hurries.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

As already mentioned: WP:NOTCENSORED However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content.

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 because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations. End of quote--Catflap08 (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is far from the only website to have a photo of the Gohonzon. In accordance with WP:NOTCENSORED though, there should be a way for believers to disable it if they don't want to see it. Shii (tock) 23:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, this is a partial re-post that I made in another section as perhaps this is a more appropriate one. I am a leader in the Soka Gakkai and member and I think you should take down the image of the Gohonzon. This is purely due to an issue of respect for it and for yourself. As it represents the most profound state of life and indeed your life, to put it on the internet is disrespectful to it and to yourself, and is probably a bad cause for your life too. It may also encourage people to chant to it online rather than get one for themselves, and this would be a very poor substitute and is not recommended. I am not here in an official capacity from the Soka Gakkai but just as a member, but the official Soka Gakkai position is not to allow photos of the Gohonzon at all, and as this is an article about the Soka Gakkai I would ask that you please respect our wishes and remove the image as soon as possible. Also, this is not an issue of copyright at all but a religious one, and one of resect for the members of the SGI and for your own lives. It does not matter if the image is available in other places on the internet, it is the fact that you have chosen to put it up, and also have the power to take it down that creates a cause for your life. If you would like to understand more about the religious reasons for not having an image of the Gohonzon on this site then I would be happy to chat with you. Please understand that my only concern is for you and for the respect of the Gohonzon. Thanks. ---- Simon Y-----5/12/12----

as already quoted form wikipedia guidelines "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 because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations."--Catflap08 (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I am also very concerned regarding the possibly implicit threats in the statement above. "Statements like "an issue of respect for it and for yourself", "a bad cause for your life too," could be seen as at least perhaps implying some sort of threat against those who do not agree with the religious beliefs of the editor who made them. As no religion can say with absolute certainty that they are correct in their beliefs, it seems to implicitly violate WP:NPOV and also possibly be some form of legal or physical threat. I would very much caution any editor from making such statements in the future. John Carter (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with John's comment above. Uploading an image of a religious nature on the internet is in no way disrespectful. I would urge all editors, however, not to take the mistaken view (which dislikes uploading the image) - too seriously or as a threat. It's only true that on the cyberspace any person can write here that she/he is a 'leader' in XYZ organisation - and put whatever personal views. Nevertheless, making naive statements that can be interpreted as 'threatening' is absolutely unacceptable, even if the intention was to be 'considerate' or 'caring' - according to a naive and one-sided understanding of the subject. Wikipedia is a secular domain, and users - as well as editors - are benefiting from this wonderful source of information in various aspects - that should be respected and supported.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to say absolutely that what I said was in no way meant as a threat in any way and if I have caused any offence then I apologise, that was not my intent. I merely meant that as the Gohonzon ultimately represents your own life to treat it with disrespect is the same as disrespecting yourself, which is not good. I know that you are not SGI members and that wikipedia is a secular domain and you may not understand the significance of the Gohonzon. I know you just want to provide information and education to people and that is admirable, but I feel that the image will upset some people as it has upset me, and there is no need for that as an accurate description would be more than sufficient. I will leave the discussion there and wish you nothing but the best. ----Simon YT----6/12/12-----

The reasons for why the pic can or rather should not be removed was already quoted. The attacks of removing gohonzon images even within other related articles that do not even show a „SGI-Gohonzon“ continues is even more disturbing. Since other Nichiren groups have no problem with their gohonzon being showed some individuals even seem to press their religious beliefs on to others. Please note that articles CAN be protected against such vandalism.Catflap08 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I will make just one final post on the matter, I think that if people are taking down images of the Gohonzon it is probably for the reason that they are upset by the images on the internet, and I think to call that 'attacks' or 'vandalism' is a little extreme. ----Simon YT---24/12/12----

Simon, let's not get upset by anything. It is reason and the actual proof to be aware of our social circumstances and understand the views of others. I think a mature perspective is the most beneficial for all. Have a Happy New Year all readers.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

To stabilse the article against constant removal/reinstating of Gohonzon image, I suggest closing (or locking up) the image. I don't know how this can be done, but i think it is beneficial. (There are some issues with the description of the tagged image but this is a minor issue and can be addressed later, but the image itself is correct and rightfully presented). There is no any proof that having the image of Gohonzon on the screen is wrong or disrespectful. The wikipedia is a secular field and respect to its guidelines must be maintained.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

How to hide the Gohonzon image

For anyone who is offended by the image, here are brief instructions on how to configure Wikipedia so that it is not displayed to you (providing you have an account).

Note that these instructions come from a help page that is much more comprehensive.

1. Go to your appearance preferences, then click the "Custom CSS" link next to your selected "skin". This will allow you to edit your stylesheet.

2. Insert the following line in the page:

body a[href="/wiki/File:SGI_Gohonzon.jpg"] {display: none;}

3. Save the page.

Once you have refreshed your browser's cache, you should see a caption instead of the image.

Mcewan (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no point to a mere summary of teachings

This article mostly just lists things that people can find for free on the SGI website. If you look at the article on Quakers for example, it follows vaguely the same layout as this one, but theology only takes up about 20% of the article. Also, obviously that article relies on tons of third party sources. This article can easily do the same and I will use my Wikipedia-supplied Questia account to start working on that now. Shii (tock) 23:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to send me an e-mail address, I can try to forward any articles I can find on the Highbeam Research site and on JSTOR and ProQuest which might not be available through Questia. And I am more than willing to do the same to any other editor who gives me an e-mail address to send it to, which they can do by just sending me an e-mail. I can then "reply" with the content sent as attachments. But I think one of the more obvious problems has been the comparative lack of really good recent RS material on the subject. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a good step indeed, I was also thinking about improving the article. Thank you John for the offer to send related info, my email adress is gachiriki@yahoo.com.au I must say also that the criteria to edit an article are included in Wiki guidlines. The goal is to make the article impartially - informative, not to make it different or similar to another article.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

True, but the goals are also to make it NPOV and informative in an encyclopedic way, which is to say that it is supposed to cover all the material directly relevant to the subject in a comparatively neutral, non-biased way. In general, if there is sufficient independent reliable sourcing and specific notability for a separate article on "Theology of the Society of Friends" or "Theology of Soka Gakkai", the bulk of that information should be included in that article, with a comparatively short summary section as per WP:SS in this article. It is a good idea to basically try to make sure that this article covers all relevant material. In general, that includes sections on "History", "Philosophy/Theology," "Practices," "Demographics" (# and location of adherents, age, gender, income, or whatever else is widely reported), "Criticism" (outside comments on the group, including any major negative commentary, and, in some cases, "Controvery", in cases like Scientology where certain subjects are widely reported in independent sources, including court documents, but not discussed by the group itself, and/or questions regarding illegal or otherwise generally unacceptable behavior, like, violations of laws, civil rights, etc. John Carter (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a valid reason why university students or researchers would not mention Wikipedia in their work as a reference for reliable information. WP is a great device for accessing quick information about neutral subjects (such as the chemical composition of a certain mineral, what flag a certain country has …etc). However, when it comes to subjects of historical, political or theological content – then articles will inevitably carry an invisible tone of editors’ personal orientation to varying degrees of honesty and maturity - (and perhaps would also carry the invisible stamp-approval of the administration).

You mentioned that the article should include a section on Criticism. The editor who introduced this section (in Soka Gakkai article) was me, well before anyone mentioned the word Criticism. The “ outside comments on the group, including any major negative commentary” you kindly mentioned - are useful tools, and criticism of the SGI by groups such as far right nationalists or religious-terrorism-based group like Aum Shinrikyo - should also be included to the spectrum of criticism.

Are Wikipedia guidelines designed to focus only on negative comments? Isn’t it also fair and impartial to include variety of comments from academic and acknowledged figures such as Nelson Mandela, Gorbachev, Martin Luther King Jr Institute, Gandhi Institute and others?

The word ‘Controversial’ can be used also to describe the procedure and outcome of requests to correct misleading information in articles (when editor applies to Dispute Resolution Board). Depending on personal opinion of an administrator, the subject of Dispute can get shifted away from the core problem, can get avoided by all editors, then the procedure goes to ‘bury” or archive the Dispute – and the misleading information remains on WP article.

I’ll give you a concrete example: it is the following sentence;

“There has been controversy about the degree of religious tolerance[72] and proselytizing[73][74] [75][76] practiced by some of Sōka Gakkai's members.[77]’

Here is a reference to one - and only - incident of claimed ‘religious intolerance’ and which was dismissed by the court. Ill repeat this : the case, which was forcefully inserted in the article as a reference: was dismissed by the Court . I objected to the inappropriate and misleading way of bringing invalid information, disregarding the truth and the opinion of the Law.

The other part of the mentioned sentence in dispute depends on a “rumor’- as a source self-confessed about an isolated and unconfirmed incident, describing it as a rumor, based on unconfirmed personal opinions.

After my request was shelved, I understood that maybe it is ‘good’ to have such nonsensical information in the article, because an intelligent enough reader will not be misled (and will understand that the criticizing side - in these particular matters - has an empty basket).

Nevertheless I contacted three of WP Founders: Jimmy Wales, Rick Gates and Richard Stallman explaining the experienced neglect in WP ‘safety valve’ or procedures to protect against misleading information (for which Dispute Resolution was introduced). Richard Stallman (Free Software Foundation) answered me by email saying that: “It seems to me that Wikipedia needs to reform this process because the process does not in practice function”.

So, it all depends what quality of articles WP editors would finally agree to produce. Knowledge about certain subject can be delivered in a variety of levels, ranging from kindergarten yahoo-groups anonymous Q/A - to highly acknowledged sources truly concerned about academic honesty.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Law is a very tricky thing. In the case you mentioned the court had to decide if there was a case for unfair dismissal. The court had not to rule if SGI was practicing proselytising or if SGI was/is religiously tolerant or not. So when saying that a case was dismissed is one thing to say the testimonies are incorrect is another - which is what you are trying to imply. One could also question SGI’s commitment to freedom of speech. The most famous case in the West was the one against Ms Jones – to say it right away she lost her case too, but why did she loose it? Ms Jones was an employee of SGI, after she left SGI she spoke publicly about ghostwriting for Mr. Ikeda and of other SGI internal issues. What it has in common with the case mentioned above was that both are cases of labour law. Ms Jones was silenced not because of what she said was true or not but because by speaking out in public she was violating the terms of her contract with SGI. Such contracts are known to protect the industry form industrial espionage, but to my knowledge uncommon to religious entities. Why SGI feels the need to do that is up to them. To my knowledge no court has ever said that SGI is or is not proselytising nor that it is or is not religiously intolerant. In both cases the courts decisions were based on the law of labour and law of contract. Finally a courts ruling can not discard the fact that controversies exist. Catflap08 (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Catflap: Careless reading will lead to embarrassing comments - as the one you wrote above. In my entery, my reference to a 'misleading information' (related to a case which was kicked out of court) - was about the way it was handled in Dispute Resolution Board in Wikipedia. Your legal defense of a failed case was redundant.

If you live in a democtartic country you have to accept the Law and the court. In both rumour-based stories you took pains to explain above, the legal system kicked the cases out. The Court is more knowledgeable than you about the tricks and bullying which were contained in the failed cases. Your naming the Law as a "tricky thing" is an embarrassment for Wikipedia TalkPage.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh no in contrast I simply underlined what the cases were about – labour law and unfair dismissal. No court ever had to decide if the experience of ex Soka University staff were true or not but if there was enough for unfair dismissal. In a democracy loosing a case does not make the one who lost liar.Catflap08 (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The ruling of the court was not about whether SGI is or is not religiously intolerant, but simply on the specific issues which were discussed were about employment or labour in a broad way. They were not about the specific issue of SGI's proselytising or lack of same, intolerance or lack of same, or anything else. To assert that the ruling was broader than it was, or that it meant more than it specifically said, is a violation of WP:SYNTH. The court ruling can really only be used to address the specific matters which brought the matter to the attention of the court, and not broader topics. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Catflap and John

/1/ If you are accused of committing an offence against the Law, and the court dismissed the case against you for whatever reason, I repeat: for whatever reason - then anyone defaming you referring to the accusation which was unconfirmed - is violating the law and your integrity.

/2/ If the Court did not rule on religious intolerance, then why would WP article make reference to that Court case allegedly on religious intolerance. This can be seen as a way to use the weight of the word "Court" - just to insert a refrence linking the word Court to a case on 'religious intolerance'- and which was not examined by the court itself because of the sloppy way the whole case was presented and got kicked out.

/3/ You have failed in finding any other reliable case on the subject (of religious intolerance) and this failure prompts you to mention on this WP article a dead and failed case which was dismissed - not once but twice - by the Legal System. Take into consideration the fact that the plaintiff was a professor with a problem related to Old Age. She claimed that she was age discriminated, I repeat: Age Discriminated, because younger professors received more classes than her – and this could be a jealousy motivated impression.

/4/ Your own interpretation of the Court’s ruling to justify mentioning reference to it on WP Article lacks legal credibility . This TalkPage is not a place for legal debates you have took pains to explain - to defend your position . In any case your private opinion about that court case is in essence an Original Research. Let intelligent readers judge for themselves from the Court’s ruling how sloppy, inconsistent and poor minded the case against Soka Uni was:

No. G042935., Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three., April 15, 2011.

Plaintiff Gaye Christoffersen appeals a judgment entered in favor of defendant Soka University of America (Soka) following a successful summary judgment motion.1 Christoffersen does not contend summary judgment was inappropriate based on the evidence presented to the court in the parties' respective submissions;

instead, she argues the court erred by declining to continue the summary judgment hearing to allow Christoffersen additional time for discovery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h).2 We affirm. Christoffersen failed to make an adequate showing under section 437c, subdivision (h), and the court did not abuse its discretion by denying the request for a continuance.

“Plaintiff has failed to submit a declaration detailing what facts she intended to obtain to oppose the motion and why such evidence could not be presented a the present time”.

This talk Page is not about giving a controversial justification for inserting in a WP article misleading information. Again, this is an evidence that there is no safety mechanism in WP to deal with such matters and Richard Stallman's opionion on WP failure to address such issues is quiet clear. Referring to a Court case which was dismissed - and could have been based on false claims and sheer lies - but was inserted in WP article as if the claims were genuine - this will leave a mark on the quality of WP articles.

If you accept that you are not sure that the case was a lie or not - then you should not have referred to it in a affirmative manner.

/4/ I have applied to the Dispute Resolution Board to discuss the matter of putting “Misleading Information” (about religious intolerance) as a reference in WP SG article (as well as stuffing the article with references dealing essentially with ‘rumors’).

After diligently following the matter on various levels, day by day, responsible administrator(s) was (were) not able to deal with the matter, nor other editors had shown capacity to deal with the subject, probably fearing that the subject related to misinterpreting a Court Case on WP.

I am satisfied now with keeping that disputed sentence (about religious intolerance) in the article - as a proof of bias based on referring to unreliable allegations and rumors in this article.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The COURT had not to decide if THAT interview or report was true or not this was case of labour law/law of contract. The interview was NOT the the object of the dispute. The report was about the ongoings at the named university. To assume that because they lost their case their testimonials or experiences (a term you should be familiar with) are rumours or lies (as you seem to imply) is an assumption and you thereby are trying to question their intergrity. Any reader with an average intelligence will realise that this is, was, and never wanted to be, anything else than a newspaper article. You do not seem to realise that what you are doing is trying to preselect what sort of information should be made available and which not. In the history of this talk section one can easily see that your are continuously trying to label any critical information lies and rumours - this is something you have done yourself. Other editors have warned you about that. In other words you place your judgement above anyone else's judgement. This is a a form of censorship and manipulation of the article. Catflap08 (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Getting upset , Catflap, prevents you from rational understanding of the subject. And this frequent usage of the word ‘YOU’ - attacking the messenger , in your comments – means that you simply failed in understanding the subject. I’ll try to explain it to you in a different way. Before I do that, please let the “other editors” who you say “warned me” – speak for themselves. One’s position does not get stronger by referring to ‘others’ who ‘give warning to others’, nor this is any academic way of thinking.

Now I’ll explain to you the subject from a new dimension. You have inserted in the Article a reference about an allegation (I repeat: an allegation – an unproven claim by a former professor at Soka Uni, a claim which could have been fabricated and based on lies) and this was your reference (number 72 in the Article).

This mentioned reference was published on March 10, 2011. Now, you could not have missed to read that the presented information was updated on March 12, 2011. It is below any academic standard of truthfulness and impartiality to avoid mentioning the updated information about the same subject you are referring to, and which states that the Court kicked out the case introduced by that professor: http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2011/04/former_soka_university_profess.php

Inserting misleading information on Wikipedia is defeating Wikipedia. Even kids in schools are encouraged to search for other sources of information than Wikipedia as a reference. An Encyclopedia which contains falsehood or misleading information (or reference to rumors) is defeating itself. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You do not seem to get it.Catflap08 (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move to Soka Gakkai

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sōka Gakkai → Soka Gakkai – - per WP:JATITLE honor the current anglicization used officially by that party. The official website of this organization uses "Soka Gakkai" without macron. Book sources also favour "Soka Gakkai" over "Sōka Gakkai". --Relisted Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC) JoshuSasori (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Support, per Fisker-Nielsen's Religion and Politics in Contemporary Japan (2012), Hammond and Machacek's Soka Gakkai in America (1999), and Métraux's The Soka Gakkai Revolution (1994). Kauffner (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Support, better to use a typable name since it's available. Shii (tock) 05:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.