Talk:Soka Gakkai

---

Previous discussions Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

• Archive 0: Archive notice
• Archive 1: Some suggested Changes
• Archive 1: Points of Contention
• Archive 2: On Religious Freedom and SGI
• Archive 3: Komeito issues
• Archive 3: Purpose of Komeito
• Archive 3: Definition of shakubuku
• Archive 4: Criticism
• Archive 5: Excommunication
• Archive 5: I-Chinen-Sanzen group
• Archive 6: R & J exchange words
• Archive 7: Discussion about legality of methods in some countries
• Archive 8: Nichiren Buddhism, Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism, and SG/SGI
• Archive 8: Different interpretations of WND
• Archive 8: Closing exchanges
• Archive 9: Getting ready to rework the midsection
• Archive 9: Ruby's edits of 2005.11.29
• Archive 9: Suggest new introductory lead
• Archive 10: Who needs a love poem? Give me NPOV!
• Archive 10: Cult reference needs to go
• Archive 11: Rude awakening: where to go from here
• Archive 11: Edits of December 16, 2005
• Archive 11: December 21, 2005
• Archive 12: January–March 2006 (Includes outline proposals for future article configuration)
• Archive 13: Pro & Anti Gakkai Talk
• Archive 14: Discussion Dec 06–Jun 07

SGI voting requests during election time

I know this isn't a source that I can reference properly, but maybe someone who is more familiar with related literature look into this more and find it in published source. My Japanese girlfriend, who is a member of SGI (though not practicing in any serious form) has told me that members of SGI have called her numerous times during Japanese elections, asking her to vote for the New Kemeito Party. They have also asked her to ask her friends, in a very polite way ("if you're not voting this year, could you vote for NKP?") to vote for NKP. I think it is worth mentioning this in the article that indeed SGI is still active in explicitly influencing members votes.

→Different user: I think these issues are touched upon in several sources, I think you could probably do an article check online and then read at the library. The activities you mentioned do happen, but they are limited to the Gakkai in Japan only. The SGI is prohibits the formation of political parties other than in Japan, so this discussion, while pertinent and interesting, is probably best addressed in the wikiarticle for the "Soka Gakkai" instead of here, the "Soka Gakkai International". Japanese social policy and politics are completely different than they are overseas. The parsing out of the different cultural nuances of the Japanese that make the New Komeito a completely valid organization (but only in Japan) is a daunting task. I think it should be done, but in the Japan specific article. The SGI will never have a political party in the West, because in general the West does well in protecting civil rights. In Japan, civil rights are not completely protected as they are here, in the U.S. for example. There's a lot of corruption in government spending that isn't for the welfare of the people, courts do not have strong laws against defamation, or at least, do not have strong penalties, etc. and the ethics of Japanese culture are different than here. In general, Japan doesn't not encourage the freedom of individual expression and often times the media will use bullying tactics to encourage conformity. Please ask your girlfriend about the concept of "the nail that stands out gets pounded down". Individual freedoms are often discouraged, even if it puts the individual in unhealthy circumstances. My mother and relatives are Japanese, I am also relaying their experiences.Tjnebraska 18:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is somewhat common for any church to in some way or another endorse a candidate or party, though in the US it is probably illegal or just a bad idea. Sometimes this is a matter of corruption and other times, my father included being himself a minister, it is simply for a doctrinal reason. Now I am not saying my father ever explicitly endorses people through the church rather as a person giving advice he simply asks that people vote what they believe best represents the expectations and guidelines found in the Bible. So in a sense it can be alright for a group to advocate for a specific party, however if it is presented as a requirement for membership it is quite wrong, if such pressure is ever presented I would suggest writing an essay book about it that can be used as a source. Daniellis89 (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Checking in

Hi I'm glad to read that other SGI members are writing in and also thoughtful non-SGI members. The last time I checked about a month ago, I saw that numerous people changed the wording of the main article in several places to support innuendos rather than proven facts. I was pretty disappointed that not many other people were changing things back to fact, at least for a few months. I appreciate seeing the interest in this article, and the desire for factual representation.

I think the Criticisms and the Praises of the SGI and Daisaku Ikeda both need to be reputably sourced. I think it is okay for any Wikiuser to make changes, as supported by the guidelines. I think it's perfectly reasonable to delete any unsourced criticism or praise. In my opinion, it would be great if someone tried out a more logical arrangement of the article.

I would have to recheck, but I'm pretty sure Wikipedia does not support the use of other websites as being a reputable source, which would mean that the "Rick Ross Institute" link under "Criticisms" should be deleted, but I figure I'd have to put up quite a fight if I decided to delete any criticism of the SGI.

Please make any logical or reliably sourced change to the article!

Just a note: In my Wiki-experience in this article, please sign your posts with your user ID. Some believe that not signing your posts is a basis for discounting a users contribution.

Thanks, Tjnebraska 18:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Not signing is globally unacceptable in wikipedia, and some take it as a membership of "insert imageboard URL here" which is translated as trolling. Daniellis89 (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Careful with amount of members

Please do take care with the number of members. Its seems cummon practice in both, SGI and Nichiren Shohu, to take pride in the number of their members - hence how many joined officialy. No indication how ever is ever given to the number who still practice this form of buddhism, have left for other schools or indeed practice independently. (Unsigned comment added by User 62.214.250.81 at 04:35, 20 July 2007.)

Purpose of listing famous SGI members

What is the significance of listing SGI members? Is it to out them, or to imply that their membership is an endorsement and therefore substantiation of the validity of the organization or religion? The latter practice is used frequently by new religions in Japan, especially with regard to non-Japanese; but many non-members of these organizations see this practice as a form of outing and many of the persons named do not appreciate this aspect of their personal lives coming under scrutiny. In this context, listing people this way might also conflict with Wikipedia policy. Just some food for thought.... Jim_Lockhart 02:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is meant to be promotional, the way groups like Scientology use celebrities. Secretlondon 03:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It also appears to me to be, at best, of little importance, probably irrelevant and not encyclopaedic in style and sounds like the sort of thing you´ll find in a promotional pamphlet, some kind of "celebrity endorsement". Not very rigorous. I support removing it. --Sandrog (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents: Listing prominent members of a group seems to be fairly common in Wikipedia. For example, the pages on Zoroastrians and Ahmaddiyya include such listings. Personally, I'm interested, and I'd support the reinstatement of the list. 141.211.134.41 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the point he is trying to make is that in Japanese culture religion is a VERY personal thing. People don't talk about it. The only place you see mention of celebrities as members of the organization are at that organizations meetings. Yes, we often see mention of famous members, because it is good to be proud when one of our own does well. After the Olympics, when Soka Gakkai had multiple members (at least two) that won gold medals, there was much pride in them. It is not however a matter of public interest that they are part of Soka Gakkai. I think Jim may be right on this one. Remember, we are talking about a country where it is considered better to talk about the weather or stand around silent, than it is to ask how the family is doing. This is not a generalization from a random foreigner, this is from a foreigner who has actually been in Japan close to five years. I agree that the cultural context needs to be taken into account when you decide which names to list and which ones not to. Emry (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it matters but I would point out that Soka Gakkai frequently (or at least used to) points out its famous members. I have seen NSA books (obviously this one is before the split with priesthood) where they list famous members, including actors, politicians as well as endorsements and so forth. I have also seen a video which is mostly a lecture by Daisaku Ikeda where there is at least 5 seconds showing Tina Turner chanting at a Gakkai meeting. So it is clear these celebrities are of importance to the SGI if that helps settle this issue.Raving Realtor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC).

Excommunicated?

Excommunicated is the wrong word to use here. The definition is: "officially exclude (someone) from participation in the sacraments and services of the Christian Church." This is not a Christian religion or part of the Christian Church. The word is referring to the Eucharist, or Holy Communion, i.e., ex-communion. Also, it's more of a philosophy than a religion. Religion is the "belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power." There is no "creator god" in Buddhism. (Oh, and I am a member of SGI) DavidRavenMoon (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Excommunicated is the word that SGI uses.

• http://sokaissues.info/split.html
• http://sokaspirit.org/resource/wt/1997-10-17.shtml

Emry (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Excommunicated might have started as a Christian word, but etymologically is has grown to include all religions. (Rachelskit (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

I would agree with Emry: I too am an SGI member and held some leadership positions for several years. There is no question that the SGI leaders state that this lay organization was indeed "excommunicated" by the NS priesthood.Raving Realtor(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC).

The religion does not make the man in most cases unless the religion was the catalyst for the man meeting peers that change the course of history in a significant way (see Free Masons). A link could be provided for an official SGI site with such lists but it does not belong on Wikipedia unless the former is met. woops forgot to Daniellis89 (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone still watching this talk page? A Call for Dialogue

Dear all: I had made comments about wanting to work on this article before, but I'd not ended up with the time to actually do so. In the interests of full disclosure, I am an SGI-UK member and responsibility holder. However, I am also a WP admin and former Mediation Cabal coordinator, so I certainly understand the importance of not "flying one's own flag" in article editing.

Now, I'd actually like the "Criticism" section to stay, at least in terms of what it represents, because I believe it to be important that verifiable criticisms are discussed in the article, in the interests of presenting a fair perspective. However, it's a whole swathe of material that isn't sourced, except for a couple of sources in the first paragraph. It's also got quite a few "weasel word" type generalisations in it. I can't help but think, also, that this article looks more like the result of both pro- and anti-SGI editors venting their opinions versus a coherent attempt at making the subject clear to the reader. I'd like people's input on this, as I'd really love that NPOV warning box to be removed. Criticism should be included, but I think it should be written in specific terms referencing specific sources; also, it isn't necessary to "overguild" the lily, and what should happen is that the counter-perspective is also stated where applicable, with a proper inline source.

This must not be a case of, "Oh, the SGI's already had a lot of positive stuff, so we get to have our criticism without any kind of interference" or "Well, the critics have had their say here, so we can present an exhaustive opinion on the [Daisaku Ikeda]] article how we like." No. That isn't good enough. We need to talk facts from the perspective of what has been printed, not what we believe to be true. My proposed plan of action is:

1. Consolidate each of the topics to clear, logical sections. Much of the material is rather liberally fragmented around multiple sections, with huge pieces of monolithic information going off on their own individual tangents. Conversely, I wonder if the "Criticisms" section should be integrated with the text, so that it might run "Daisaku Ikeda, speaking <when>, stated that [quote/reported speech]... However, Person Y disputes this, on the basis that..."
2. There is no such group of people as "Critics.." There is no International Bureau of General Critique that has a unanimously-negative opinion on every disputed Wikipedia topic. From my extensive past in WP dispute resolution, I have often pictured this unsavoury group of people, The Critics, who appear as a lynch mob in every Wikipedia dispute. We need to eliminate all such usage of generalisations regarding criticism, as we need also to eliminate generalisations of pro-SGI claims, and instead scrupulously and obsessively source every single thing.
3. Write to be read, not to have our opinions heard. If some poor soul was to Google "Soka Gakkai International", they'd get this article, and probably be none the wiser what the SGI even is, let alone both sides of the pro- and anti- SGI movements. Write things once, and write them clearly. Write a clear and detailed synopsis, without being excessively wordy or wishing to include insignificant detail out of proportion to its relevance. At all times, the target audience must be our guiding principle.
4. Contribute our individual perspectives. Regardless of our opinions, both sides have access to information that the other lacks. Whereas I have extensive access to all of the SGI sources, I own no in-print critical publications, and also can't read Japanese. Thus, I'm utterly hopeless when it comes to finding sources for criticisms; and I'm also hopeless following the long-running controversy in the Japanese press. Therefore, the more critical amongst you have skills and capacity that I do not have, and I should be most grateful for your support. Equally, those of us who are SGI members have unparalleled access to official publications, lectures, books and so forth that we can reference.

What do people think? I'd really like some good, constructive dialogue on the above points, and whether people think this proposed approach would work. I'll go ahead and start it if nobody thinks there's anything severely wrong, but I really want this to be a collaborative effort from all sides. Thanks so much, everyone, for your time and brainpower! Indeed, the key to success here is, I think, by treating this article more as a dialogue between a range of viewpoints than a statement, showing who's speaking at all times. (SGI members: we've been trained excellently to accomplish this. Let's lead the way, eh?) --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of material on excommunication

I have removed the following a reverted the previous material, as this misrepresents the content of the cited source:

However, due to a number of ongoing issues and disputes that existed between the High Priest Nikken Abe and the leadership of Sōka Gakkai, Nichiren Shoshu excommunicated the entire membershipof both the Sōka Gakkai in Japan, as well as the entire SGI (Soka Gakkai International) as its lay organizations in November 1991—although both together easily exceeded upwards of 11 million members worldwide.

Further, there are several problems with the veracity of the removed material:

1. The dispute was not a personal one between these to men, it was doctrinal and between the organizations;
2. The organizations Soka Gakkai and SGI were stripped of their status as lay organizations affiliated with Nichiren Shoshu in 1991. The first excommunication of any individual came in 1992 (and it was of Ikeda personally, not of anyone of the general membership); the general membership were never excommunicated, though they lost their status as temple members much later, in 1997. If you want to present Soka Gakkai's interpretation of how events unfounded, fine; but source it, and don't removed sourced material because it conflicts with it. —–Jim_Lockhart (talk) 06:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Non RS and unreferenced sources

I have removed a non_RS source. Because somebody calls their blog a cult watchdog, or whatever, doesn't change its status. It's still a blog. Which is not a reliable source by wiki criteria. Please consult the criteria for RS if you doubt this.

Similarly, naming an apparent book in parentheses is not sufficient to reference information.

If the criticisms alleged are widespread, as claimed, then there presumably will be no difficulty in finding RS for them. Even then, they will still need to be expressed proportionatly and in the proper context Bluehotel (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Attacking the Soka Gakkai

It is a violation to Wikipedia rules to make defamatory remarks and it is a violation to Wikipedia rules to include unreliable information and/or unverifiable data, and for this reason I have removed the entry titled Soka Gakkai and the Yakuza entered by;121.115.225.89 (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC). The deleted paragraph states that: "In Jake Adelstein's new book "Tokyo Vice", one passage indicates that Juzo Itami was about to make a film on the Soka Gakkai/Yakuza connection before he died under mysterious circumstances". This type of "information" is below any standard of reliability or reason to be included as a "proof" and it degrades the quality of Wikipedia as a source of information. The author also stated that a certain "murder went unsolved for years (the Yokohama lawyer Sakamoto) before it was finally discovered that a religious group was responsible (Aum Shinrikyo)", but this has nothing to do with the subject of the current article, being the Soka Gakkai. The Soka Gakkai - following the steps of Nichiren 1222 - opposed authoritarianism and was the subject of suppression and attacks since its inception. It was banned by the Japanese military authorities during the II W W and had its leaders impriosned for disagreeing with the demands of the oppressive authorities. The same forces which attacked the Soka Gakkai still take now other forms. See: Why the Soka gakkai is Attacked: http://www.buddhawill.com SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC) __________________________________________________________________________________

Rather than retitling and editing the offending passage, wouldn't it have been better to leave it as in and refute it in the text? The rule that you quote seems to me to refer to reference pages, and not Talk pages. Cutting out things out of a Talk page simply because they seem to be offensive runs contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Also, including a link to a pro-Gakkai page makes it seem as though you are suppressing information and attempting to supplant it with your own point of view. SGI should be able to defend itself directly, and there are enough members on this list who are willing and capable of that. (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2010 ______________________________________________________________________________________

Regarding the comment above: Wikipedia pages are not a place for spam or abuse. There is a difference between "Information" and "spam" aimed at abuse. Wikipedia is not an internet vilification tool but a place for reliable or traceable information. The subject of the article is Soka Gakkai, which has nothing to do with Aum Shinrikyo and the forceful inclusion of a terrorist organisation (and which was investigated by the police and the courts) as an 'example' of a 'religious group' is not only meaningless but indicates an intention for abuse of Wikipedia degrading its quality. There was nothing to "refute" in the deleted passages because there was no verifiable information offered. Texts based on : "I heard that someone heard that ..." this meaningless spam is utterly rejected in Wiki practice.

As for what you mentioned " SGI should be able... ", well, it is beyond my ability to tell or to dictate the SG what they should do. My entry about opponents of SGI is very relevant to the subject. The reference includes a documented account of conflict between the SG and her opponents. All the facts included in the mentioned source are traceable and were historically recorded - in particular regarding the dispute with the military authorities during the II W W and the priesthood in early 1990. Please accept that any organisation has opponents and there is nothing wrong in presenting why the SG has opponents - based on quotes from both sides - entered here in the most impartial presentation.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC) ______________________________________________________________________________

Jake Adelstein was a reporter at Japan's biggest newspaper for over a decade. They printed what he learned from anonymous sources on a regular basis. Those sources remain anonymous to protect them, in this case, from the reprisals of the yakuza, but that in no way lessens the quality of information, which is being reported by a recognized authority who would not have written it if he did not have reason to believe it was accurate. For these reasons, it would be fair to cite the allegation that Soka Gakkai is tied to the yakuza.verjus75 (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________________________

Despite the above concerns, the Japanese version of this article (not the Talk page) discusses Adelstein's allegations and the connection to the Goto-gumi. 98.243.172.27 (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What Does Attacking and Criticizing the SGI Have to Do With the Kempon Hokke? September 26, 2010 Mark Rogow

Time , circumstance, and teachings. Nichiren had Nembutsu, Zen, Ritsu, True Word, and Tendai [Mikkyo] with whom to contend...........

Answer to above : That lengthy almost 10 pages lecture by Mark Rogow , starting with the above sentence about "Time....." is only an abuse to Wikipedia principles. It is even unacceptable in social discussion to bombard others with one-sided view and dominate the speech for over 10 pages - on account of a concise, short and clear delivery of "timely" information.

What is the use of putting 10 pages of one-opinion - "discussion" - if people are going to use the mouse to scroll down the end of that clogging text ASAP? Let the Commonness prevail. And please accept that this particular page is about the Soka Gakkai. not about promoting Hokke Kempon, Nembutsu, Riysu True Word, Tendai or Christianity, Scientology-Aum, etc...all of which are completely unrelated to this Article. Please have discussion on your different matters at private websites. Again: this Discussion is about The Soka Gakkai. For this reason clogging the page with about 10 pages of irrelevant views of personal understanding of other religions - this is a distraction and avoidance of the subject. Inputs which do not respect time and contents are simply not communicative. For this reason I will delete these 10 pages of unrelated Hokke Kempon (which in fact was not mentioned anywhere in SGI literature, nor it is of any relevance to the subject). . SafwanZabalawi (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________________

World Scholars Exchange of Views with SGI

Following invitations from scholars from various Universities around the world, SGI President lectured about Buddhism on 32 lectures. The subject of these university lectures was about Mahayana and Lotus Sutra's teachings: http://www.daisakuikeda.org/index.php?id=156

Many scholars - some Noble Prize Winners such as Michael Gorbachev and Linus Pauling - exchanged views on issues facing humanity and the future. Some of their dialogues which were published in 23 books - were translated into various languages. http://www.daisakuikeda.org/sub/books/books-by-category/dialogues.html

The mentioned books contains an open exchange of views of world figures who are NOT MEMBERS of SGI and who are NOT BUDDHIST, and who are not promoting SGI, but exchanging opinions about world issues and life in general. (Their views were sometimes different from SGI teachings, nevertheless these books constitute an impartial exchange of opinions). For impartial researcher about SGI, these world wide available books constitute a reliable, clear and currently traceable source of un-baised information about SGI perspectives as seen by nonSGI scholars world wide, in the fields of Education, Peace and Culture. Some universities in China had established special departments to study SGI literature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisaku_Ikeda

SafwanZabalawi (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Books on Sōka Gakkai

I came across a reference to a couple of books on Sōka Gakkai which I thought people might find useful in developing this article. The books might add some much needed balance.

• James A., Dator (1969). Soka Gakkai: Builders of the Third Civilisation. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
• James W., White (1970). The Sokagakkai and Mass Society. California: Stanford University Press.

The sect is also mentioned in the following book, in which it is described as "manipulationist":

• Wallis, Roy (1976). The Road to Total Freedom: A Sociological analysis of Scientology. London: Heinemann Educational Books. p. 156. ISBN 0-435-82916-5. Scientology displays a fusion of charismatic and bureaucratic domination also evident in some other manipulationist sects. It was a notable feature of Christian Science during the lifetime of Mrs Eddy, and appears to be characteristic of the contemporary Soka Gakkai.

HairyWombat 00:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

---

That was an "Empty Basket " Argument against the Soka Gakkai.

First of all; this Discussion Page is about the Soka Gakkai and not about Scientology or the Christian Churches or others. Including irrelevant subjects to the discussion is red herring. Adding noise-data instead of related information goes beyond the definition of "Discussion Page".

Example of an "Empty Basket" argument: "Scientology displays a fusion of charismatic and bureaucratic domination also evident in some other manipulationist sects. It was a notable feature of Christian Science during the lifetime of Mrs Eddy, and appears to be characteristic of the contemporary Soka Gakkai".

An irrelevant to the Soka Gakkai someone's criticism to - or support for - Scientology, Christian Science, Aum sect, etc...shows absurdity and lack of arguments.

It is also against Wikipedia rules to quote unreliable sources (such as the quote above) which states that a feature of a Christian sect "...appears to be characteristic of the contemporary Soka Gakkai". Evidently the writer himself was unsure about his own statement, carefully stating "appears to be". Appears to be -this is a clear indication of lack of certainty and lack of verifiability.

Arguments based on "Appears to be" or "maybe" ...have a place in some internet discussion groups but not on the Wikipedia as they degrade the quality of Wikipedia as a reference.

It is also clear that a book which was published more than quarter a century ago - is not a meaningful reference, as we are now in the year 2010. What misleadingly "appeared to be" to that writer over 25 years ago - clashes with the truth of the contemporary situation of support of world scholars, acknowledging{{citation needed, Daniellis89 (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)}} the Humanism of the Soka Gakkai International. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC) __________________________________________________ If the texts are not neutral or a written by proponents of the article at hand, given a controversial nature that it may posses, the source becomes unreliable. Sun Tzu's art of war was published 2600 years ago but it is still relevant today. Furthermore the texts Soka Gekkai uses as a foundation of beliefs are far more than 25 years old, which by your logic, makes them unreliable. To the majority of Buddhists, Soka Gekkai is a cult, just as Aum is a cult in the eyes of Soka Gekkai. All sects are deviations of original doctrine that result in a clash of doctrines which cause them to be mutually incompatible. Appears to and maybe are valid words when used appropriately as they beg the reader to draw a conclusion. The same goes for Appears to be. Daniellis89 (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________ Hi Daniellis89; I agree with your view that it is valid to quote an old document - which is over 2500 years - if the subject was about that “unchanged-in-time” document. But the subject here is about an organisation which developed dramatically in time after freeing itself from the Priesthood influence. To mislead Wikipedia readers by someone’s opinion given 25 years ago as current now about SG and which was AT THAT TIME dominated by the Priesthood, this is unfair to the truth. The Priesthood influenced the SG to the degree of open threats to its leaders position and forcing a resignation in 1979 (making it clear that they had the diecision on SG activities at ALL that time - until 1991, when both became separate).

It is fair to acknowledge that SG is opposed the spirit of fanaticism whether racial, ethnic or religious http://www.sgi.org/resource-center/introductory-materials/sgi-charter.html and that it has records of working for peace with other individuals and organisations world wide http://www.sgi.org/resource-center/ngo-resources/ngo-resources-overview.html SafwanZabalawi (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC) ________________________________________________

Presidents sention

In the interest of accuacy I have edited the section towards the end of the page which listed the Presidents of the Soka Gakkai as it listed Daisaku Ikeda as being the third and current President, serving from 1960 - present. Ikeda actually resigned as President in 1979 and there have been three Presidents since then, the third being still in office. Ikeda is, however, the current President of the SGI. So I have edited this page to reflect this, showing the successive Presidents and there dates of succession and retirements/deaths. Mollari08 (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{Edit request}} I think an info box would be useful, giving overview info of when the org was founded, what year, current president etc etc. i've already added an image, but am not sure how to add the info box. Steve (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I used the wrong edit request template. It's not because of any conflict of interest, I just don't know how to add the info box. Steve (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but it may be Template:Infobox religious group you're looking for. Just copy it into the top of the article and fill in the parameters as needed. - SudoGhost 18:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the box, but can't get the image of the flag to show in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Milburn (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be fixed now. - SudoGhost 19:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you can't change the name of the parameters, such as changing population to members here, because if it doesn't recognize the parameter name, it won't show up at all in the infobox. - SudoGhost 19:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help! Steve (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the infobox for now, I'll add another one when I find one with different parameters [and I know how to add it now, LOL]. Thanks for your help. - Steve (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Difference between Soka Gakkai and Soka Gakkai International?

What is the difference [if any] between the two? Ikeda is no longer president of SG, but he is president of SGI. Should some info on this be added to the article? - Steve (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This article, on the pic of Ikeda, says that he is current president of SG. But according to the Ikeda article, he was succeeded by Hiroshi Hōjō. I do think this needs to be clarified. - Steve (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sōka Gakkai is the organisation which functions in Japan, the original organisation, whereas Sōka Gakkai International is the collection of all the Sōka Gakkai's organisations in other countries around the rest of the world. Ikeda is the Honorary President of the Sōka Gakkai, but not the actual president, though he is the president of the Sōka Gakkai International. This is probably just a typing error and I've changed the caption with the picture you mentioned. Mollari08 (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining. - Steve (talk) 13:15, 16 February 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)

Gregorian Calendar or Chinese Lunar Calendar?

SGI's Dictionary of Buddhism gives dates as "the fourth month", "the eight month" etc. As far as I know, it never says "April" or "February". I suspect that the dates are actually the Chinese Lunar calendar, and not the Gregorian Calendar. - Steve (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

POV Template added to 'reception'

This section seems biased to me. Statements like: "researchers find that arguments on policy issues and good governance lead Sōka Gakkai members to support New Kōmeitō". Is that passage an effort to promote a Political Party?

Deleting incorrect description about the Split

Various parts of the paragraph about the Split with Priesthood require a radical clean up:

• It is against Wikipedia rules to insert personal or unverified views such as: SGI members often describe their group as Buddhism's first Protestant movement, since its excommunication by Nichiren Shōshū in 1991.[24]. There is no reference to this statement, and - what's worse - the reference [24] associated with it is misleading and biased against SGI: a New York Times article describing "unease" due to SGI growth: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/14/world/a-sect-s-political-rise-creates-uneasiness-in-japan.html.
• The paragraph about the Split has to deal with causes of the Split. The Hokkeko membership is immaterial and has absolutely nothing to do with the causes of the split:

The, the traditional lay group associated with Nichiren Shōshū, experienced a spurt of fast growth in the early to mid 1990s following a split between the Nichiren Shōshū priesthood and Sōka Gakkai over doctrinal and practical differences. The Split is not about Hokkeko, therefore inserting the Hokkeko and and Nichiren Shoshu own regulation ( reference: Nichiren Shōshū nyumon, p. 240) will be deleted as confusing and misleading.

• Again, the paragraph avoids the truth about what caused the split and focuses on Hokkeko membership and Nichiren Shoshu own regulations: these Sōka Gakkai and SGI members lost their standing as temple members unless they renounced their affiliation with Sōka Gakkai and SGI, as per a change to the Nichiren Shōshū bylaws decided two months earlier.[27] SGI members are SGI members and this paragraph is about the doctrinal differences with the Priesthood which caused the Split, and which was mentioned but not explained "a number of ongoing issues and doctrinal disputes between the priesthood and the leadership of Sōka Gakkai"

What are these issues?

• The "Conferral of the Gohonzon" part describes the opinion of the Priesthood: "regarded by the priesthood as the high priest’s prerogative, and lay believers had been long taught to support that view". The Priesthood's refusal to confer Gohonzon on SGI members led chief priest Rev. Sendo Narita of Joen-Ji temple, Tochigi Prefecture, Japan, to offer (1993) a woodblock Gohonzon originally inscribed by the 26 High Priest Nichikan Shonin, to be conferred on SGI members. SGI Gohonzon was not mentioned in the paragraph, which needs an overall shake up.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

All of the information which has been deleted was relevant and important as this section isn't just about the issues behind the Split but also the actual events of the Split and should all be replaced into the section, though you are right about the original first paragraph's reference. This being said, however, it was important to clarify the reasons behind the Split which has now been added in.

The section which mentions the Hokkekō isn't an unrelated piece, as it illustrates the effects on the Sōka Gakkai resulting from the excommunication, and should still be included. "The Hokkekō, the traditional lay group associated with Nichiren Shōshū, experienced a spurt of fast growth in the early to mid 1990s following a split between the Nichiren Shōshū priesthood and Sōka Gakkai over doctrinal and practical differences. Friction between the two surfaced as 1990 drew to a close, sparking an inflow of Sōka Gakkai members into Hokkekō that accelerated for a while after Nichiren Shōshū stripped Sōka Gakkai of its status as a lay organization on November 28, 1991." This should be mentioned at the end after the initial explanation of the issue, possibly under a sub-heading about the effects of the Split. Mollari08 (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I would agree here with Mollari, also did not only Hokkekō, but also other groups of Nichiren Buddhims experienced a substantial growth and some left Nichiren Buddhism altogether. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:52, 23 April 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)

SGI Teachings and Other Buddhist Groups

As the past section touches upon the subject of difference between SGI teachings and other "ORDAINED - based" sects, it can be beneficial to investigate more. I'll take Nichiren's spirit in his perspective towards these sects. But first, Catflap, : Nichiren would not have agreed with your statement about a slanderous to ordinary people priesthood quote as being "interesting", as you mentioned: "The quote by Nichijun Fujimoto I find very interesting" . Nichiren would have firmly denonced it as a manifestation of arrogance and disdain for lay believers, with a misguided priest claiming superiority on ordinary people, and Nichiren would have added that Arrogance is the first of the 14 Slanders. This perspective erases the need to follow your further statements and details you were digging in and I find weak and meaningless.

If you are interested in understanding the difference between Nichiren Buddhism of SGI and Traditional Buddhism, please try to investigate these short (1 page) articles:

Traditional Buddhism: http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Nichiren_Buddhism_and_Traditional_Schools.html Zen: http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Zen_and_SGI_Buddhism.html Tibetan: http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Compariosn_between_Tibetan_and_SGI_Buddhism.html Nichiren Shu : http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Nichiren_Shu_Buddhism.html PureLand Buddhism: http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Amida_and_SGI_Buddhism.html

You say that "its amazing how SG-members slag off the ordained of just any Buddhist tradition" - well it is not the ordained themselves, but their teachings which is driving people to sufferings. For you, the word "Ordained" may be of huge influence, but this is not a Nichiren spirit, who cared less about titles and authorities. But all in all, catflap, I am optimistic towrads your path, because the Lotus Sutra says that making an adverse connection with it is also a way for future realisation and enlightenment. Welcome back in the Back to the Future to SG activities standing tall against corrupt authorities, ordained or under other covers. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet again your reply speaks volumes. It is very INTERESTING that the word interesting caught your attention more than what I found to be interesting. Interesting enough I did not say that I support the priests view, as I already have mentioned I do not support the teachings of Nichiren Shoshu full stop. Their interpretation of the sangha is somewhat special anyway. Still I do not know why SGI reacted instead of acted. Personally I would not know what Nichren may think … I can only ponder of what he maybe would have thought. The articles you mentioned I already know and yes indeed they are strikingly short … again the official SGI sources are limited and good grief I can only imagine what would happen if one would use the respective schools own material or even use material of non-buddhist.

Thanks for your comment on priests, yes normally they are ordained. So since the average SGI -member would normally not get along with a priest of Nichiren Shoshu all other priests of other Buddhist faiths are out to let people suffer, indeed the ordained of just any other faith too? Is that right then? Never mind that Nichiren himself wore the robes of a priest, never mind that there would be no priests if there were no 'lay' believers, never mind that there would not be a SGI if there would not have been priests. And again no, I do not speak in defence of Nichiren Shoshu. Gassho. --Catflap08 (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Catflap, we do not respect a doctor because he/she is "ordained" with a degree - we respect a doctor because of applying skills and benefiting and easing people's sufferings. The same goes for "priests". Respect for a priest is not due to his - rather - ordination or robe, but his Buddhist behaviour and actions. ( There are many priests who are respect worthy and others who commited crimes, you hear about this in the news). Nichiren was a priest but he did not stick to this category to provide him with any authority or special status. He also strongly disclosed the arrogance of other "ordained priests". Any focus on the "ordained" - manifests a spirit of either arrogance or submission to "spiritual authority". Buddha nature exists in all people and is the highest level of life, no one has any spiritual authority (or Holiness) just because of ordination. BUT many people do not agree, and prefer to prostrate and be submissive.

You see, with the possibility that ANY person can attain Buddhahood (acc.to Nichiren) in one's own circmstances, abolished ALL distinctions of priest and laity and the Gosho is full of such statements . such as: ..."be it priest or lay believer....".

Without you noticing it, you have lot of resentment towards SGI, but you have to admit that SGI does not stop you personally from developing yourself, or from having a correct perspective of evaluating philosophical matters in an impartial way. To be impartial is an important value. To be impartial you should acknowledge the fact that it is other schools of Buddhism which are in strong, aggressive and even poisoned animosity to SGI, attacking, spreading rumours, demeaning ordinary people and the like. You see; we were the organisation of the sick and poor, the most "mean" people in the view of SG attackers. N

Whatever the case, we live in an age of spiritual freedom. People are free to choose. I know some people who could not continue in SGI just because the teachings are challenging. Facing one's weaknesss is the most difficult thing in life. Surpassing one's ego is not easy. Human Revolution and courage to free oneself from limitations require immense efforts and discipline, and some people are simply not into that. Fair enough. But some do not want to acknowledge their own limitations and go on attacking SGI, arrogantly questioning past history rather than making their own achievement and own history of self-development, and creating value.

ALL religious groups insist - of course - that THEIR OWN TEACHINGS are the only correct one. In this regard, you'll acknowledge the broadminded teachings of Nichiren and SGI in the following statement: "In his letters, Nichiren mentioned various non-Buddhist sages and philosophers whose humanistic views were based on the happiness and security of ordinary people: “...the wisdom of such men contained at heart the wisdom of Buddhism” WND 1122 On this subject, P Ikeda comments:

“Nichiren Daishonin writes that some people come to a correct view of life through systems of thoughts and philosophies other than Buddhism. One who encounters the Lotus Sutra but is prejudiced and does not try to comprehend its true greatness is inferior, he asserts, to the wise men and saints of non-Buddhist teachings. He also writes “When one knows the Lotus Sutra, one understands the meaning of all worldly affairs”. (The Wisdom of the Lotus Sutra Vol 1. p 55) SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Safwan we are going in circles. You criticise all priest by just any faith based on your experience. A priest, man or woman, is foremost also human. I find your attitude somewhat intolerant as it seems to be in stark contrast to SGI's own charter regarding religious freedom. Other faiths simply do not have an issue with their priest, ministers, pastors, monks etc. as SGI had with its. For you to dash out at anyone ordained is a bit disturbing. At any rate this is the talk section of an article. Our discussion is about our personal views by now. According to Wikipedia the talk section is not a forum though to discuss personal issues which to me appear to be inconsistent with each other. This article has systematically been stripped of just about any critical or alternative views, not because those views were fictitious, but because they did not fit some editors view of the world. This is not in accordance to Wikipedia regulations. You are quite happy to insert just any source that supports your view, even academic ones, but discard just any opposing views, some even on the grounds of being academic … as can be seen in the Nichren Shoshu talk section. This article therefore lacks neutrality in a big way and when looking at its history you have heavily contributed to that fact. An organisation is not being reviewed by an assumed absence of criticism but rather by the way it deals with it – so the editing policy by some speaks for itself and even reaffirms the alleged inability of SGI to face criticism. In contrast deleting opposing views as is the case in this article can be the source for even greater suspicion. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• There is lot of YOU YOU YOU ...in the text above, but it doesn't matter, really. As for the Wiki articles: instead of complaining here and offering unsubstanitated judegemnts, please be specific in pointing out your arguments in a concrete manner, not a descriptive, judegnental and vague chat. Before I decided to monitor this and other articles there was lot of bias and personal views, even nonsensical statements - rathere than concrete facts suppoerted by references. I introduced and implemented the action that BOTH sides views on a conflict should be included as well as the views of non-committed professional scholar's published research- whatever they are. To face the truth requires maturity, confidence and self-development.

As for the "ordained" and "non-ordained" : If you have an argument to state on Wikipedia article regading this matter please show it. If it correct and referenced it will stay. Other wise it will be deleted according to the rules, and please do not use the talk to bring personal views about this or other subjects.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Well as I said a discussion between us two does not seem to work either. Your trying to use the article who in your eyes was right or wrong. This is beyond the scope of Wikipedia.--Catflap08 (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Changing an incorrect title

The previous title of section " Effect on the Soka Gakkai" is ambigiuos. "Effect" of what? And the text in that section was about the Nichiren Shoshu lay organisation, Hokkeko, not about the SGI. So, this means that the title does not match the contents. If you want to add that Hokkeko (maybe Nichiren Shu also?) increased its membership because of the split then fine, that is the effect of the split on NichirenShoshu, not SGI. This is why I corrected that part leaving the text as it is - however please review the text and try to make it meaningful. If there was an increase how many? 10 people? 10.000 members? and what is your proof? Any source of reference or just a rumour? You are bringing ambigious opinions which date half a centuary ago and without any reference of proof. And it is also consistent with the truth to acknowledge that the Priesthood simply failed to disban or destroy the SGI (as they called for).

Another thing: in the text you refer to that SGI members "MISTAKENLY" believe that they are excommunicated...etc. This is laughable indeed! How do you know? What is your reference that SGI members "most mistakenly" whatever....? This sentence about the "mistakenly" - is just an imaginary opinion and should not be included in Wiki articles. I am SGI member for 30 years, and as millions of others I never belonged to any temple and do not care about Nichiren Shoshu's adminstration rules. What you mention is simply incorrect.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to Wiki Editors stop Vandalism

It is against Wikipedia rules to delete a text without giving a valid reason. There was a section under the title " After the Split", and it contained the following- which I will reinstall. If anyone erases it I will ask for Wikipedia Editors for their judgement on tye subject and whether it is vandalism. The information included is presented by non-SGI, Non_Buddhist, and impartial professors in religion and philosophy in respected universities around the world. It is not acceptable to delete and silence these opinions just because you do not agree with them. If you have other non-Buddhists who have different opinions on the subject please add to the text. We should not fear the truth:

The split between SGI and the Priesthood attracted the attention of various academic researchers in the field of religion and history. Several books were published about the expansion of the SGI after the split, such as Daniel A. Metraux's 2001 book The International Expansion of a Modern Buddhist Movement: The Soka Gakkai in Southeast Asia and Australia and: How the Soka Gakkai became a Global Buddhist Movement . Other studies by independent scholars were the 1998 Oxford University Press book A Time to Chantby B.Wilson and K.Dobberlaere and :”Encountering the Dharma” by prof. Richard Seager , as well as various other publications. According to Prof. M. Bumann, of the University of Lucerne, Switzerland, the cause of the split was the friction between conservatism and openness, hierarchy and democratization: “A spirit of openness, egalitarianism, and democratization pervaded the SG, embodying and giving new life to the idea of self-empowerment. In 1991, these liberalizing developments led to the split between the Japan-oriented, priestly Nichiren Shoshu and the lay-based, globalized SGI”. . In an analysis of books studying the expansion of SGI after the split, Prof. Jane Hurst of Gallaudet University viewed the split as the result of conflict of interest: “lay members seeking religious support for their lives, priests seeking perpetuation of hierarchical institutions". SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well vandalism is normally reported here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. I would however be somewhat careful on that in respect to you own edit history ... at least on the 500 pages one can see.--Catflap08 (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Perception of the Soka Gakkai in Time

The section titled “Reception” is stated by Wikipedia editors to be in dispute of neutrality. Respecting the request not to delete the section (or is it the "not to delete the note" about the dispute?) - I just left that section as it is and initiated a new Section: “Perception of the Soka Gakkai”, including part of the text of the disputed section, expanding and presenting both sides of views about each criticism.

The disputed text of "Reception" section is not only biased but borders with using the Wikipedia to introduce nonsensical statements such as: “Outside observers have looked upon SGI’s version of the mentor and disciple relationship as a cult of personality for its focus on SGI President Ikeda as well as the two preceding presidents (and founders) Jōsei Toda and Tsunesaburō Makiguchi.” Outside Observers? Who? There are hundreds of academics who are “Outside Observers” and who do not view the SG as operating on Cult of Personality. Besides, it is just meanigless to state that the cult of personality is extended to 3 Founders of SG 2 of whom who long passed away, and without any supportive reference to this view about cult of 3 personalities. The disputed text mentioned also Nichiren and Shakyamuni as Mentors, so are these also included in the cult of their personalities? Regarding the Cult of Personalities, the SG founders went to prison opposing the cult of Emperor Worship and the third president stood against the Cult of High Priest Worship and Absolute Obedience (to Person of the H.P.): http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/NShoShuP13.html

The disputed section contains defaming and unsubstantiated claims such as:
“There has been controversy about the degree of religious tolerance practiced by Sōka Gakkai members”. What is this “There has been”? Where? When? Any reference? The insertion of such unsubstantiated and imaginary thinking - this is using Wikipedia to put divisive and biased views, which the claimant would have been unable to claim in any professional or legal statement. The Section of “Perception about the Soka Gakkai” traces the impressions it created since early development with focus on main points of criticism and offering references for variety of views including non-Buddhist observers.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Catflap, just a calrification: please remember that Wikipedia is not an instrument for lecturing others on what you believe is correct. Your consistent chnaging of the text to introduce the views of whatever sect about what is Master Disciple - this is irrelevant, and please stop lecturing like you did here:

Most of all though it is, traditionally, a personal relationship between two individuals in order to seek knowledge it can be a lifelong bond or be terminated by either side

Your personal understanding of what is "Most of all though it is traditionally..." .. lacks clarity. The text here is about Mentor in SG being a modern naming of the concept of Master in traditional Buddhism - that's all. It is not to hammer the reader with an irrelevant lecture about the "meaning" of Master as some think it is. Those interested to know more about Master and Mentor - have access to refrences. BTW, the way you presented Master was a marriage which ended in devorce as you say: : raising committment in a life long bond of 2 individuals, which can be terminated!!! .This understanding of Master Disciple it is controversial. In SGI literature: the Gohonzon is regarded as the oroginal Mentor - as well as individuals who were or are Mentors. The concept of Mentor in SGI is much more than the weak description you brought, it is not between just 2 individuals but includes millions of disciples and the Mentor is not one Master but a range of Role Models in behaviour including Nichiren's life, mnifested in the Gohonzon. So, your bringing a narrow defintion from your understanding of traditional Buddhism should be balanced by an SG perspective on the subject - but this is not the place for that nor the article is a lecture.

Would you please accord with Wiki rules and kindly EXPLAIN what you are editting and why. To do the changes silently - without declaring what you did and why - this is not consistent with editing and openness. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all not every change has to be explained in great lengths in the talk section. Wikipedia has this nice little tool to comment why and what has been done in the brackets. If changes are minor it is also mentioned. Secondly the paragraph is about the criticism that SGI faces. What it is not about is to decide whether the criticism is right or wrong – it is just there, it exists. What you consider hammering or a lecture (any lecture I read or attend is considerably longer) is simply information.

It briefly explains the core and nature of the criticism and what it is about. And yes in traditional schools this relationship is sometimes defined a bit like a marriage that either side can terminate or not even enter into. It is also no invention that, traditionally, this relationship is a personal one – the information is referenced. So it’s not saying that the traditional concept is better or not, right or wrong, but explaining the nature of the criticism. It comes natural that this traditional definition is in contrast to SG’s definition – otherwise it would not be a controversial issue. Its more than obvious that you are a member of SGI and therefore you will find it hard to understand any critics anyway. This article however is not owned by SG nor by its members, any critical views should and must be mentioned and the content of that criticism should be explained.--Catflap08 (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Since I had to got to work I could not elaborate. SafwanZabalawi, your position is more than obvious in either article contributions or talk sections. Once and for all though Wikipedia is not a platform to present SGI's view of the world (certainly one has to mention it in order to understand where they are coming from), but appart from SGI's view of the world what is also part of the article is how the world views SGI. That the view of others is not always in accordance to the organisation you are a part of comes as no surprise. In case of the master-disciple relationship it should be noted, why this issue is a source of controversy and part of it is that key elements are simply treated different in what one calls 'traditional' Buddhism. The reader should be made aware of that – nothing else. There is nothing wrong adding a section about the Mentor-Disciple relationship in SGI as it is one of the corner stones of its philosophy. Combined with the paragraph about SGI criticism the reader would then get a balanced view. While we are talking about it it would be best to do away with the reception/perception section in simply call it critical views. Those views exist and have the right to be mentioned and before you end up in a SGI jargon this has nothing to do with defamation etc. Without knowingly doing it … the way you edit the article … the way you speak in various talk sections you prove the old and most common criticism of SGI – that is does not know how to deal with opposing views. I know SGI members as friends and even family members and to them SGI is the next best thing that happened to the world since the invention of sliced bread … they even contribute the end of the cold war to SGI - but sorry, not everyone shares that view. Some regard SGI a cult, some even say its not Buddhist at all.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Catflap, I'll respond to the positive side of your various comments, and say YES, the word "Criticism" should appear in the current section.

As for your personal issues, your friends, family members - Wikipedia is not the forum for this chat. Besides, you have belittled your family members comparing their mind of spiritual belife as valuable as the "invention of sliced bread" - your words.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Perception and Criticism of the Soka Gakkai

I have changed the title from just "Perception" to "Perception and Criticism" of the SG, because I found the word "Criticism" in each of the observations made in the text (about various activities and beliefs of the SG). As Catflap kindly mentioned, Criticism is also a valid point to mention, and I agree. However, in every intelligent presentation: the 2 sides of the accusation/criticism must deliver to the reader their views. We do not live in the Middle Ages where only a "Traditional" criticism" occupies the text without the other side's view. This principle (of offering the perceptions of the 2 sides of the story) was behind editing the paragraph of Mentor/Master - Disciple, which occupies now almost 5 lines of description of both views. References are provided from both sides for deeper study if needed by readers. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:39, 5 May 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)

Disputed section Reception deleted and subsituted by Perception & Criticism

The section titled Reception was hanging in the article for few months being under dispute and without any resolution: I have requested interested editors to have a review of that section (which was written as a POV) - but no answer was given. Then I took the same contents of that disputed section and expanded on them in the current section "Perception and Criticism", adding the word "Criticism" of the SG to ensure balanced views and provide appropriate references. The disputed section Reception which I deleted, was biased, lacked support and was a description from a point of view. However, the same points of the deleted Reception - are now found as part of the Perception and Criticism - supported by references.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Claiming ignorance

Catflap, if you want to put a certain statement on Wikipedia you have to support it by a reference or citation. What you did was extraordinary: you put your statement and added that CITATION NEEDED for your own statement. I will be in contact with permanent Wikipedia editors on whether this self-defeating editing is allowed and whether it is not a "clever" trial to show that a statement on one side of criticism - is lacking credibility and that no citation was included to support it: "However official materials[74] state all other religions, including other Buddhist denominations, should be viewed as valuable inasmuch as they are able to support the happiness, empowerment, and development of all people[citation needed]" - This is a perhaps new attitude in Wikipedia: Claiming Ignorance: when someone brings a statment but adds a self-confession that no knowledge about the truth of the statement is known to him/her and wants others to bring a citation on what he/she had put on Wikipedaia article. I think this amounts to misusing Wikipedia. Second point here: is that this article is about the Soka Gakkai, it is not about Nichiren's writings : "Many of Nichiren's writings, however, are about how other forms of Buddhism are incorrect", and if you wish to question Nichiren's writing or attitude you better do that on Nichiren Buddhism page. This article is not about criticising Nichiren Buddhism and your entry here is trying to incite hatred towards Nichiren Buddhism: "Apart from the critical views about the SG as an organisation, it is also criticised for its doctrinal teachings based on Nichiren Buddhism, perceived by some observers to be lacking tolerance towards other forms of Buddhism". What is "perceived by some observers" - against Nichiren is perceived by other observers differently. Your attack on Nichiren's beliefs as lacking tolerance is lacking understanding of his writings - and it is stigmatizing over 20 Nichiren groups other than the SG. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What IS extraordinary that xou deleted a whole pragraph ... one dealing with proselytizing. The citation needed tag says nothing elses that a citation is still needed. The issue as a whole is relevant though.--Catflap08 (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• After you had - or maybe another editor? - put the proper citation - I left it as it is. I am still concerned about the implication of attacking Nichiren Buddhism by claiming that it is not tolerant. This is one sided view which can be easily disputed, as those who claim he was not tolerant ignore the historical facts that he was attacked, violently ambushed, injured, sent to exile and survived an attempt to kill him by beheading. Such "tolerant" sects of Buddhism who were behind this aggression expose themselves. But whether someone uses a Wikipedia article on SGI to spread onesided views, defaming Nichiren and incorrectly labelling Nichiren Buddhism - this I think amounts to abusing Wikipedia. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Its not about abuse, its not about your beliefs and its not about what you hold dear about SGI or Nichiren Buddhism and its not defaming anyone. Nichiren Buddhist of nearly all sects have been confronted with the issue of nationalism and one COULD read that into Nichirens works. Nowhere does it say that Nichiren Buddhists ARE Nationalists, but the issue has been raised within and outside of Japan. You bring up an important point – Wikipedia is not about white-washing. Just as any religious group Nichiren-Buddhism and SGI do contain controversial issues – as a member of SGI you might not like that – but nevertheless those issues exist. Having said that I just reinserted what you deleted.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually SafwanZabalawi, I delt with the citation issue. In truth there was already a citation in the sentence which referenced the information, but whoever put the tag ignored this and reinstated the citation. I simply moved the citation to the end of the sentence to replace the tag.

Also, the issue about the criticisms of intolerance are reported and published criticisms that have been made by people to the public, and, whether or not they can be easily refuted/disputed, they need to be mentioned. In this section it is appropriate as a balanced and unbiased article needs to mention all the views to remain NPOV.

Also Catflap08 didn't add this section of text in, but merely replaced it after it was summarily deleted without proper grounds. It was deleted as an entire section when merely one sentence had a tag attached, which had no reason to be there in the first place. The deletion could be looked upon as an attempt to quietly remove some of the criticisms, which were deleted along with it, all of which were indeed cited.

Just as a side note I am an SGI member, and although I would personally prefer that there weren't any criticisms, I'd rather this was an unbiased article and that critics were proved wrong in their criticisms than ignore or even hide their criticisms from people. The latter just reinforces their view of SGI and gives it undue credence. Mollari08 (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your explanation. I deleted what was irrelevant and what was a POV, a story telling, but never mind now, things somehow have settled down except one point about criticism:

I welcome criticism and and benefit from it (either by making corrections or responding with more reseach made). The word Criticism of SG was brought by me in the first place, and I have a different opinion from yours that ..." ...prefer that there weren't any criticisms" - I believe those who oppose SGI are a proof of SGI's reality. The whole point I was trying to make is that criticism is a form of Freedom of Expression - but which requires BOTH sides of the views to be present. BOTH sides, and this was not practiced in the past. This applies also to criticising Nichiren's teachings (as lacking tolerance) as a way to criticise the SG teachings. To portray SGI as lacking tolerance is a POV because in reality SGI is making huge efforts all over the world for Interfaith Dailogues and is recognised by hundreds of scholars from hundreds of universities as an openminded Buddhist organisation of peace. Whoever criticised Nichiren here (as lacking tolerance) is in fact criticising the Right to Expression, by which Nichiren explained the reasons for social disasters of his society. Freedom of Speech was never a tradition in the mind of authorities and their religious supporters, and who can possibly deny this? Those who criticise Nichiren's freedom of speech - should also admit that the response to his brave attitude was beating him, setting his hut on fire, trying to kill him several times, he bled in the forehead from a sword attack, his arm was broken, set to exile twice, and escaped beheading. Lacking Tolerance? Who is lacking tolerance? That's why I mentioned that to bring to the articel some personal views of a scholar (who viewed Nichiren as lacking tolerance, and hence, how bad is SGI) - this is not true criticism, it is a hidden implication to affect the reader's perception, and a response to this was inevitable.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry again this is incorrect. Wikipedia is not a debate where one has to bring in the pros and cons on an issue. If a point is raised and referenced, especially when controversial, that is enough. Any other editor can come along though and bring up an opposing argument. I would however not beat the drum too loud on the freedom of speech issue. Almost any religious groups do know limits to freedom of speech especially about internal affairs … one can certainly voice those issues but then it can happen that you are not part of the group any more. SGI is no exception in that … especially when one works for them.--Catflap08 (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• One has to distinguish between the 2 functions of Article and Talk in Wikipedia. In the Article, points are raised with citations and references. Talk page, on the other hand, is a communication forum between editors to improve the Article, to explain their crucial editing, deletion or changes etc... And it can point out for an editor who mistakenly assumed a certain view - clear arguments and backgrounds, so that the quality of editing will get improved. I'll give you this example of someone stating that SGI follows Nichiren Buddhism and that Nichiren Buddhism is nationalistic or can be perceived as nationalistic. When this view is put under light of reality (not personal perception) then it is not a pro and con debate (that you may think should not be on Talk). Because it was brought up then it has to be corrected: SGI propagates the concept of World Citizenship and its literature defines "Nationalism is Evil" - that should be defeated. Some editors are so consumed by rumours and mistaken views that such a clarification about their attitude is beneficial for all. As for the Freedom of Expression - aren't you enjoying it? I see no problem in accenting this vital human right and explaining how Nichiren's freedom of expression was treated in the most violent and aggressive way by those who claim that his Buddhism lacks "tolerance". I want to thank you for this exchange because it opens a possibility to clarify on Wikipedia page of Nichiren Buddhism his opponents argument about "tolerance".SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well just as a side note it is quite remarkable, not just here, but almost anywhere where SGI is discussed its members will quite happily brand negative reports as rumours or originating from tabloids. 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 --- the issues raised by such a person are not talked about much. So much to free speech ... In my books its not the absence of critical views that impress me about an organisation of any sort, but the way its dealt with.--Catflap08 (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• A broadminded person would agree that in any organisation (sport, political, religious or even at one's work place) you may find individuals who develop personal and selfish aims and try to use the organisation for their personal benefit. No one can deny that this has happened in all sorts of societies. Some - out of psychiological need - develop a need to dominate and dictate others the "correct" way - and "what 'should' be done". I know of such. Don't ignore the fact that an organiation of more than 10 or 12 million is bound to include all sorts of people, in fact some small countries - like Hungary for example - are about the same size as the SGi, and in any country you'll find the whole spectrum of individuals' attitudes. The valid Q is : If you do not like it, why are you in it? Toda said that those who have negative/selfish aims and voice constant dislike of others are immature and better "leave us". Spiritual organisations are plenty and a dignified person who disagrees with one (he/she belongs to) should behave with decency and leave. But to just chatter and complain - this is a sign of weakness. The Human Revolution requires that one faces own weaknesses, but some find it easier to blame, complain, and disrupt harmony, a reflection of lack of their own inner harmony. Your books should also include such facts of life. If some one is decided to develop oneself and attain inner harmony, no one in the world - no organisation or wahtever - would be an obstacle, but some still cannot see this reality.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Before we enter into a chat mode again I must say I find it interesting that you should have picked Hungary as an example. Hungary may be a member of the European Union but at the moment its on the Unions fringe. Why? It currently has a nationalistic extremely right wing government, the country suffers form a catastrophic economical situation and to make things worse there were efforts to limit the freedom of speech/press and even gay rights in Hungary. If I follow your logic now anyone in Hungary who disagrees with the condition should leave?? Without knowing it you have described a core problem of SGI though. Internal conflicts are silenced, views that issues can or may be discussed are suppressed and those who voice them are described as weak and unfit for the so called human revolution – again defamation of critics rather then discussing those issues. This however is not a sign for a pluralistic and open mined organisation as the harmony lid is put on. What you describe even indicates a certain impeccability of SGI, if not who is allowed in SGI to correct mistakes and aberrations (that any organisation is bound to make at some point)?? Any church congregation has by the means of a consistory more voice on internal affairs than members in SGI. You are right though … since this is the way SGI deals with criticism some people either retreat or leave and not all of those have lost their belief for the teachings of Nichiren. In the past decade SGI has manoeuvred itself into a catch 22 situation. --Catflap08 (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• :: Sorry, I did not explain to you that I mentioned a country of 12 million just as an example. I read few sentences of your answer in which you stuffed the Europena Union, Hungary, catastrophies etc,.. and that's it, I could not read more. Congrats and no more explanations.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Questionable Photo

In the Article, a 50 years old photo of Daisaku Ikeda appears in black and white. I could not trace up the editor who put that photo as I find it irrelevant to the Article's title: Soka Gakkai. Ikeda did not originate the Soka Gakkai, neither he is now a president. A proper relevance would be Josei Toda's photo. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't just about Sōka Gakkai but also the SGI as well, so it is completely relevant. The photo is in the section which details information specifically relating to the SGI, the International organisation to which he is the founding and current President. Though if you or anyone else can find a more recent photo of him that would be better. I've tried looking online but I can't find anything which conforms to the guidelines about copyright and uploading photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollari08 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Correcting judgemental statements about Nichiren Buddhism

Although this article is about the SGI, someone has turn it into attack on Nichiren Buddhism claiming false accusations of intolerance. I have depended on Rev. Tarabini (of Nichiren Shu) article explaining historical facts about mass killing and attack on Nichiren Buddhism schools, by the same groups who accuse Nichiren Buddhism of "lack of tolerance". Nichiren expressed his views and teachings about how his Buddhism differs from other schools in the most peaceful manner of speech, and ordered his disciples never to be engaged with violence. These facts must be included here and in the article as the insertion of that part of criticism was misleading to Wikipedia readers, and based on false arguments.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have depended on Rev. Tarabini (of Nichiren Shu) article explaining historical facts about mass killing and attack on Nichiren Buddhism schools, by the same groups who accuse Nichiren Buddhism of "lack of tolerance". where does that come from ???? Where does Nichiren Shu state that?? As I said I am not a member of any Nichiren-Group anymore. Or is Kisala a member of Nichiren Shu now??? That would be new. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please follow the mentioned refrence in the article and read Rev. Trabini's explanation:

Nichiren Buddhism came under attack by outlying temples from other schools due to their zealousness and success in propagation. These other temples declared war on Nichiren Buddhism and wished to eliminate it from Kyoto. In fact, at the time,propagation of Nichiren Buddhism had reached a great height.Almost the entire city had converted to Nichiren Buddhism, was reciting the Lotus Sutra and chanting the Odaimoku of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo. When the armed warrior priests(from Mt. Hiei and other schools)entered Kyoto, they burned down many temples and killed thousands upon thousands of Nichiren clergy and believers. Consequently, all the Nichiren schools (including what constitutes today's Nichiren Shu, Honmon Shu, Nichiren Shoshu, Kempon Hokke Shu, etc..) banded together to protect and support each other.

BTW, the article and talk is not about your personal affiliation, catflap. Your statement: As I said I am not a member of any Nichiren-Group anymore is irrelevant to Wikipedia editing.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh okay now I get it … occurrences 700 years ago are a sign of intolerance of today's schools and what happens today is the result of tabloid rumours... okay.--Catflap08 (talk) 05:33, 30 May 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)

Simplyfying the introdutory definition

This Article is about the Soka Gakkai / SGI. The focus is about the SG. The intorduction started with explaining who was Nichiren in 13 c Japan, referring to him as a monk and then asking for citation on whether he was a monk, etc... This is very messy and lacking scholastic approach. The first sentence refers to the SG as within Nichiren Buddhism, and that's it. This article is not on Nichiren Buddhism and who was Nichiren etc... Those interested in who was Nichiren - or seek info about Nichiren Buddhism - can do that easily. Clogging the introduction is a way of disorientation of what the focus is.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

SGI Official Status around the World

I have added to the section Perception and Criticism - facts related to official recognition of SGI in various countries and also within the United Nations. There was a valid suggestion to include information about SGI recognised as a cult in France and Belgium (although fully allowed to practice and have activities). The question is also raised in this answer: http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Is_SGI_a_Cult.html - based on scholastic definition of cults.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

To QuietUnusual & NaveenReddy

I noticed on my WatchList your comments about Criticism, bias, reliable/unreliable references...etc. Why don't we have a dialogue here rather than make judgemental statements somewhere esle about who and what. I think we can arrive to a reasonable editing which offers BOTH sides of criticism the right for expression. Just to delete and reinstate and then delete and then alter and reinstate and then.... this is meaningless. The section is stuffed with many allegations, whether correct or not, BOTH sides have the right to respond and refer to their sources of information.

There is a part in the text which criticises SGI because it follows Nichiren Buddhism.The Writer of this "criticism" accused Nichiren of lack of tolerance. This has shifted the subject from SGI to Nichiren Buddhism. The writer's aim was to insert an implication: that Nichiren Buddhism is bad, very bad with tolerance, and becuase SGI follows Nichiren Buddhism which is bad then it must be bad! This sort of "clever" arguments of "criticism" is stuffed here not against SGI but against Nichiren Buddhism, which is followed by more than 10 sects OTHER THAN SGI. So, as you see, the motivation to just "find something wrong" led to a messy and lengthy text which is all irrelevant to the article itself. Now: when you are accused of lack of tolerance, you have the right to provide counter facts - that you were actually unjustly attacked - and you have the right for expression and this will also take the subject far and clog the text. So, I suggest here to delete the part accusing Nichiren Buddhism of lack of tolerance BECUASE it belongs to Wikipedia page on Nichiren Buddhism - and it can be raise up THERE.

One thing is evident: the side which criticises SGI because it follows Nichiren is declaring its lack of reasons and goes to search for religious fanatics opinions who themselves lacked tolerance and were violent - just to criticise SGI - this is an attitude of Zero logic. Isn't it time to employ wisdom and acknowledge reality, offer facts rather & reasonable views rather than judegement and futile going in circles.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing unverifiable source

English Wikipedia is obviously for English readers. To put a statement in English-written article supported by an alleged reference in Chinese, Arabic or German makes the statement unverifiable. The statement- which I removed- is also doubtful as it says that "The German federal diet's committee of enquiry on so called cults described SGI in its final report as latently problematic". This statement contradicts the reality of SGI Germany as an officially registered religious organisation legally allowed to have activities which are open to all. Cults have closed organisations and other features - and none of these apply to SGI open to all and working for humanity and world peace. SGI is also acknowledged as an NGO at the United Nations. Catflap, please read Wikipedia guidelines.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

False, SGI is in Germany no registerd religion but simply goes as a club that pays no taxes. Just because you cannot read the paper makes the infomation invalid though. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well @Catflap is this a debate forum to evaluate each and everyone's views and authenticity ??. Certainly not !. I completely agree with @ Safwan !. Wikipedia is here to give a brief intro about things. Not for debating and evaluation of credibility and worth of anything ! OK ! 04:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveen Reddy (talk • contribs)

well well I simply disagree since he is deleting anything that puts SGI in a, to what he believes negative light. He can carry on what he does as by doing so he is exactly doing what SGI is being christised for :-)--Catflap08 (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Catflap, Before using Wikipedia you have to agree on the guidelines and rules set by Wikipedia. Your editing and your usage of Talk page here - show disregard to Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, simply, and no jumping the rules. When you say : "...what SGI is being christised for" you are violating Wikipedia rules again, as this is not the place to "characterize" or "stigmatize" - your emotional dislike to SGI can find some blogs on the net, but to say this openly here may disqualify you from editing. Additionally, you are bringing false information about Nichiren Buddhism on SGI page, but Nichiren Buddhism is practiced by many other schools, and the place for clarifying the nature of Nichiren Buddhism is on Nichiren Buddhism's page. Please put Nichiren Buddhism on your watchlist, and be patient for a new section there.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

no worries I just sit back and relax and see what you are doing to the article ... can not be bothered ... --Catflap08 (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I would point out that, in fact, several articles do contain references to sources written in some language other than English. This is very much permitted, and even encouraged, when a subject has received the bulk of its attention in sources other than English. And I would urge all editors to review WP:TPG. Article talk pages are specifically intended for the subject of improving the article. They are not for posting comments about other editors. The implicit threat in one of the comments above is particularly worrisome. I very much hope all editors involved read the relevant conduct guidelines before engaging in similar commentary in the future. John Carter (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input John … I know the guidelines allow foreign sources – as one is allowed in most other Wikipedia-languages. At this point however the editing policy speaks volumes of the individuals and organisation behind. Any one more interested will use the history tool. This article as it stands speaks for itself and the somewhat irrational 'attack' on Nichiren-Buddhism claims speak for themselves too. I actually find that saying so is attacking me in person but will leave it there. I fear worse to come for the articles on Nichiren and Nichiren Buddhism, but when confronted with such an emotional baggage its hard to argue in an unbiased manner – shame for the articles in question.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Correcting misleading information

It is within Wikipedia guidelines to openly write here on the Talk page the reason for editing articles. To silently delete and change text in a controversial way without cooperation with other editors is a destructive and uncooperative move. The editor who wants to use SGI page to attack Nichiren Buddhism is not following Wikipedia rules, as this page is not about Nichiren Buddhism. I removed the statement that Nichiren Buddhism is criticised as having no tolerance twords other schools of Buddhism, because this is misleading : it is the other forms of Buddhism who are lacking tolerance against Nichiren Buddhists, including acting with violence. I will initiate a special section about this false accusation attacking Nichiren Buddhism on Nichiren Buddhism page, as this concerns not only SGI but other schools of Nichiren Buddhism.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Then please produce a reliable source which says as much. Unless such sources are produced, it will seem to all that an editor is acting in violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in making comments such as those above, and should that continue, others may be forced to seek some sort of sanctions. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The subject of lack of tolerance and Nichiren Buddhism is an important subject in the field of Nichiren Buddhism, practiced by various schools. For this reason I have added 3 new sections on Nichiren Buddhism page regarding this matter. While Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia, which in my understanding would include only reliable information about presented subjects, it is important to include the facts of religious intolerance reaching the level of extreme violence towards Nichiren Buddhism. For this reason I sincerely believe that clarifying this subject is consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines of impartiality. However, I do acknowledge that I am in a learning stage about editing, and need to read more of Wikipedia rules and guidlines, and I give my sincere apologies in case I overlooked or contradicted any of the editing rules, as this would have been definitely unintentional.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Well if you had so little knowledge of Wikipedia’s guidelines you were quite happy to base you argument on them ... and quite bold if still in a learning stage. You also seem to make one grave mistake – neutrality; impartiality does not mean to actively withhold information that may not fit your personal belief system. Presenting facts such as proselytising, legal status in other countries, claims of being a cult does not mean that Wikipedia sides with such issues – they are simply out there and facts, those are issues this organisation faces – no claim whether or not they are right or not are being made. Facts that may some not like, facts that may be in the process of being corrected, but nevertheless facts. Same goes to how SGI is officially being regarded in France and Germany. It does not mean that SGI is being persecuted in those countries but that there exist strong reservations on the level of the respective governments. Since English is a lingua franca the sources can be in French, German, Japanese or Swahili. And before you beat the drum that Nichiren Biddhism is attacked, this is utter nonsense … and I never said that either. What was said, referenced by the author (who ever this was), is that some Nichiren Buddhists were involved in Nationalist movements and based those actions on Nichirens teachings and maybe still. This however is not a new issue and most Nichiren Buddhists are familiar with that fact, in reverse that does not make Nichiren Buddhists automatically Nationalists. Same goes for tolerance towards other Buddhist traditions – it should not be- and really isn’t a secret that some Nichiren Buddhist defame adherents of other Buddhist Faiths, sometimes this is done behind closed doors sometimes quite openly… and I am talking of the 20th and 21st century. Yet again this does not make an individual intolerant towards other Buddhists. You simply deleted what did not fit your views.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. If Nichiren has a dubious legal status in any country, that is certainly relevant to the subject. But saying that does not mean we are "attacking" it, just presenting factual information. There is a long entry in the Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones on "Nichirenshu", which I have in front of me. That source is counted among the best reference sources on religion out there, with of course reservations about some specific articles, as would be expected. It says on page 6608 that two Japanese Nichiren leaders, Tanaka Chigaku and Honda Nissho, "were especially influential in promulgating nationalistic Nichirenist ideology and won support from military officers, government officials, and intellectuals." Like I said, some of the articles in that book have been criticized, and I'd have to check if this was one of them, but the article from 6606-6609 in that book is probably among the better basic sources for material about the subject. The article on Soka Gakkai there probably is on that subject too, subject to the same possible reservations. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I will reinsert the issues critical of SGI anyway ... even if an edit-war breaks out, as what has been done to the article lately is surley not what Wikipedia is about.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the info about Encyclopedia of Religion" , I will find a way to obtain it and use it as a reference. As for the subject of nationalism and Nichiren Buddhism, I think this is a good topic to add to the page Nichiren Buddhism. But this page is about the Soka Gakkai (and SGI). SGI stand on nationalism is that it is a form of evil, and it advocates the concept of World Citizen. It is utterly illogical to put on an informative presentation any correlation or association between nationalists and internationalists who reject nationalists views. Why would this subject now be discussed here on SG page? The mentioned Tanaka lived and died at a period of time the SG was not in existence! In fact this was my concern about redundant stuffing of SG page with irrelevant to SG issues. As some of Wiki editors correctly mentioned: sometimes editors downgrade an article not by deleting but by adding. I'm not sure whether "having reservations" is a strong enough argument in scholastic sense, as it reveals lack of factual evidence and lack of citation proven source about the matter at hand.

In my view: to add issues unrelated to SG on SG page then consume the Talk page on its merit or lack of merits - this can be correctly avoided. Now on the other topic of Frensh and German view of SGI as a cult, I welcome this as a fact and I also preserve my right to add that SGI is a legal organisation in these countries, this is also a fact. The United Nations acknowledges SGI as a an NGO, and thus is also a fact. Finally as to non-English reference, well for probably 99% of page-readers such a source can be described as "unreadable". However, if Wikipedia rules allow for this then I may also benefit from it in the future.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Expanding on Section “Perception & Criticism”

To allow for clarity in some sentences of the section I had to expand on missing references and provide citations. (I’ll leave the part relating to “proselytizing” as it is a separate case containing questions about Wikipedia’s guidelines, and this will be presented in a separate post below). First, the reference to Nichiren’s views about other faiths lacked his views about the necessity for interfaith dialogue. Second, SGI status at the UN required a clarification, which I provided. Third: there was ambiguity in wording a sentence about Komeito SGI and Article 20 of the Japanese Constitution and this ambiguity (unnecessary word Dispite...) was clarified by providing a reference to the sentence which was speaking about Article 20. Forth: the mentor -disciple part focused on what Traditional Buddhism views Master Disciple without specific citation to how SGI defines the principle at hand, and this ambiguity was clarified by citations and references. While these steps were necessary to improve the text, there is a part which needs Wikipedia editors to evaluate, and this is explained separtely in the following post.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

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. --JN466 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)

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)

Thanks! - Unfortunately the license there is © All Rights Reserved. But at least I know what I am looking for now! Mcewan (talk) 06:56, 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)

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)