Talk:Soka Gakkai/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Article too one sided?

I have been exposed to Japanese soka gakkai in real life numerous times, usually in a controversial way and decided to read up on it to get to understand it better.

Reading through this English version it seems all potential controversies or criticisms are put down to over-reacting Japanese media. Which in today's "fake news" crying environment seems a too easy way out, and the whole English article seems all too much in a positive light, where most issues in the world have more than one side to it. And we love Wikipedia as it arrives to accommodate all views of a subject in an impartial fashion, where this article seems too partial.

I have subsequently read the Japanese version, albeit with Google translate, and obviously with most members and public impact of soka gakkai being in Japan that article is a lot more detailed on the criticisms and controversies front. So if the Japanese version can stand up to the supposed majority of SG friendly editors and the same Wikipedia etiquette shouldn't some of the material shared there be included in the English version?

Fact is, SG in Japan is a deeply divisive issue, from my exposure all down to personal experience and not to media over reaction. So maybe there is a case to be made here to accommodate some of the less fawning views. ICBINBFM (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Excuse the typos ;-) ICBINBFM (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@ICBINBFM, welcome to this page. I believe we need new hard-working editors to continually improve this article.

This article certainly should be impartial and reflect current reliable sources. The only disagreement I have is your choice of two words, "fawning" and "fake." Both of those words are very loaded. Let's use impartial words to convey impartial thoughts.

I have also used Google translate to look at the Soka Gakkai articles in other languages (French and German). They are all unique and that probably reflects the sources that are available in different places around the world.

Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that we are free to use sources from other languages. We should be very careful in their use, however, to make sure fellow editors can evaluate and respond to sources in other languages.

No apology is necessary here about grammar. We know that there are editors whose native languages are other than English. Please just do your best and ask on the Talk page when you need help.

BrandenburgG (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@ICBINBFM I'm not at all sure what you mean by "one sided". Criticisms and controversies regarding trrhe Soka Gakkai are prominent in the section on Toda, on the section on Ikeda, and in the Public Perception sub-section. There is also an entire section dedicated to the charge that it is a "cult". These are presented as criticisms and controversies, not as facts; that is probably as it should be, and is where the academic and modern news sources lead us. What is your idea for additional material? Thanks. --Daveler16 (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Spurious editing in "Cult appellation"

Removed edits stating, with no source, that Soka Gakkai controls the Japanese fire department and uses ambulance sirens to spy on citizens.--Daveler16 (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai is a

It is a dangerous sect that supports and washes the brain with fanaticism and worship of a person. Terrible organization, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.135.151.77 (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You don't know what you are saying. Research the reality.Ltdan43 (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Soka Gakkai article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.151.61.121 (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

My dog was killed by soka gakkai gang stalking using public vehicle operated by tax money such as ambulance and patrol car siren.

They should be clarify and apologize these action harmful to human civilization and destroying society

TETSUHEI (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Karel Dobbelaere

@tetsuhei, why did you remove the Karel Dobbelaere (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_Dobbelaere?wprov=sfla1) source? Further, why was it removed without even any discussion on the Talk page?

Dobbelaere is the past-President and General Secretary of the International Society for the Sociology of Religion. He is a specialist in the sociology of religion and an Emeritus Professor at two noted Belgian universities.

You replaced it with unsourced personal opinion. It is an example of outrageous disruptive editing. This must stop! BrandenburgG (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Over the years, many editors have worked to improve this article. The discussions are in the Archives.These discussions all occurred on the Talk Page, as WP policy stipulates. The discussions were sometimes contentious, but have resulted in the best use of respected, current, and often academic sources to convey the most accurate information about the Soka Gakkai -- its organization, its teachings, its history and its controversies -- the editors could construct.

For the past few weeks there has arrived an editor who is acting as if he (or she) and he alone can decide the content of this article. She has been asked to participate on the Talk Page and has not. She has been informed of the inadmissibility of Original Research, and reverts all corrections of same. She (or he)has been told this is about the Soka Gakkai, not another religion's view of the Soka Gakkai, and has ignored that. She's been asked to remove a picture that violates the rules of Wiki Commons, and has failed to do so.

All of that can be seen in the above few topics on this page (starting with the discussion "Citations"). I have also posted on his personal Talk Page requesting that he refrain from making scores of edits every few days soother editors can evaluate the changes, and to participate here on this Talk Page. The response has been another flurry of edits with no discussion.

For the record, HansJohan808 has, since becoming an editor on May 18th (evidently),and through 17:47 on 8July, made 400 edits. Of these. 367 are related to Nichiren Buddhism, possible indicating a single issue editor with an agenda. Of these, 59 have been on this age, the first being June 21st -- 59 edits in a little over 2 weeks.

This is all just for the record, for now.--Daveler16 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Public Perseption

I added a few sentences about the reality of Japanese journalism which is not comparable to journalism in the West.Ltdan43 (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Corrections

Changed the title of "Practices" back to "Practices", and added a clarifying opening sentence. Also, changed the first sentence in the "Gohonzon" section to match what the attributed source (Seager) actually says.--Daveler16 (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Also changed the caption of the Gohonzon picture so that it is relevant to the Soka Gakkai article, rather than impposing the views of another sect on the Soka Gakkai.--Daveler16 (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Removed a "timeline" that had no referenced source, and replaced it with a source that had previously been removed and replaced by said timeline. And while it is fair to note that the Soka Gakkai still has websites that are critical of Nichiren Shoshu, wording changed to reflect that those websites were constructed many years ago. Citation remains.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Made a number of changes correcting grammar and relevance, as well as removing some statements not supported by the cited references.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

There is now a list of performance groups, but no citations. Can that be corrected please?--Daveler16 (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Removed more statements in the "Former Relations..." section that had no, or faulty, references and so constituted Original Research.--Daveler16 (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Made some corrections

Wow, there are a lot of things with no source, or wrongly quoted sources. Changed some in Gohonzon, "Faith Practice and Study", and Chanting.--JackBNimble43 (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Contradicts itself

The article contradicts itself:

T’ien-t’ai (538–597), Chinese Buddhist scholar who upheld the Lotus Sutra, developed a theoretical system to describe the infinite interconnectedness of life translated as "the principle of the mutually inclusive relationship of a single moment of life and all phenomena" or "three thousand realms in a single moment of life" (Japanese: ichinen sanzen).

Then underneath this it has

The "philosophy of life" restates principles formulated by Nichiren:[27] "three thousand conditions in a single moment" (ichinen sanzen), and "observing one's own mind" (kanjin)[28]

Which of these formulated the principles? PeepleLikeYou (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It could be more clearly stated, yes, but there's not a contradiction that I see. The concept originated with Tien Tai, Nichiren expounded on it and put his own stamp on it, and "the philosophy of life" is based on what Nichiren said about ti. So both are true. Does that make sense?--Daveler16 (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Removed picture

A pic of a Gohonzon was added directly under the pic of the Gohonzon that's already here. As there is no need for it, and no need to specify who transcribed it or to use the Japanese word for "altar", I removed it.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Butsudan and altar and not exactly synonymous. A butsudan is the box that holds a gohonzon. The altar is the broader setup. Secondly the transcriber of the Gohonzon is important because it was a signficant part of the history of the Soka Gakkai. It was the Gohonzon that was distributed after the expulsion from Nichiren Shoshu. It is commonly referred to as the "Nichikan Gohonzon". It is also significant that the distributed Gohonzon is an edited version of the original. The remove those statements takes out crucial details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.75 (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Original picture was removed by a new editor, and a new one substituted for it. I changed the caption to English terminology. The explanation of its transcription is in the text so it's not necessary to repeat it in the caption. Major edits should be discussed on the Talk Page, as many editors have worked for many years to make this article as accurate and informative as possible, and have to be given the opprtunity to discuss edits.--Daveler16 (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Blue line?

What does it mean that books have been "bluelined for verification"? (See View History March 3rd)--Daveler16 (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

See wikt:blueline. Editor2020 (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)