Jump to content

Talk:Daisaku Ikeda/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Get dates and facts right

SGI adherents as a whole were not expelled until 1997. Ikeda and SGI’s leadership were expelled prior to that in 1991/92. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Source? And you're apparently conflating Soka Gakkai with SGI. AbuRuud (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Adherents of SG/SGI were expelled in 1997, its leadership in 1991/92.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
From Métraux, Daniel A., "The Dispute Between the Soka Gakkai and the Nichiren Shoshu Priesthood: A Lay Revolution Against a Conservative Clergy", Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 1992, 19/4.

The crisis continued to escalate until 8 November 1991, when Soka Gakkai received a letter from Taiseki-ji ordering the dissolution of Soka Gakkai. The Gakkai rejected the request and attacked the priesthood, denouncing its "appalling lack of respect for the faithful"... At the end of November 1991, Taiseki-ji formally excommunicated the Soka Gakkai and its affiliated international chapters.

Don't delete sourced material.AbuRuud (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The guys should know when they expelled who [[1]]--Catflap08 (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Even if a biased, primary source could refute an article from a peer-reviewed journal (PRO TIP:It can't), did you even bother to read your own source?

After excommunicating the Soka Gakkai organization, Nichiren Shoshu made continuous efforts to guide compassionately the Gakkai members back to the correct path of faith and practice. For a period of six years after the excommunication, individual Gakkai members who had received Gojukai from Nichiren Shoshu in the past were still recognized as Nichiren Shoshu lay believers. Nichiren Shoshu, however, could not continue with this situation, where a Gakkai member who follows Daisaku Ikeda qualifies as a Nichiren Shoshu lay believer. Nichiren Shoshu doctrine strictly prohibits its laity to hold membership in other religious organizations. On September 30, 1997, Nichiren Shoshu officially decided to terminate the membership of the Gakkai followers. After Nichiren Shoshu extensively notified the Gakkai members of this decision through its in-house publication and other means, the provision that all Gakkai members would lose their standing as Nichiren Shoshu lay believers went into effect on December 1, 1997. Emphasis added.

Count back six years from 1997. What do you get...? Soka Gakkai was excommunited in 1991, but individual members were still recognized as lay believers. Six years later, in 1997, the recognition was revoked.AbuRuud (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The LEADERSHIP of SGI/SG was expelled in 1991 … the adherents of SG/SGI in 1997. Good grief I was there at the time !!! --Catflap08 (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Don’t you dare deleting references btw. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Cool story about the excommunication. Sounds like a nice wp:COI. But I've gone ahead and put this on wp:BLPN rather than edit war. For the last time, your source doesn't say what you think it says.AbuRuud (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Do as you wish but facts are as they are. Ikeda & Co were kicked out first in 1991. The rest were expelled in 1997 – sorry I was there in the then faithful flock. It beats me on why one would disptute that. NST should know when they expelled who. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@AbuRuud I am no adherent of SG/SGI nor NST any more, but this is truly ridiculous. SG/SGI was NOT expelled along with Daisaku.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
You're talking about expelled on the talk page but deleting sourced information about excommunication on the article. They are two different things which you're conflating to POV push. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbuRuud (talk • contribs) 20:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Catflap08 apparently has a history of writing what he wants on Wikipedia and pretending to cite sources, even when the sources don't actually say what he claims them to. All material added by Catflap08, even if it appears to be sourced, should therefore be taken as suspect, and unless material has actually been verified by independent users checking the sources it should not be included in the article. I'm saying this having interacted with his POV-pushing on a bio of a poet who's been dead for over eighty years -- it only applies about 8,000,000 times more for this article.

(And yes, I did "follow" him here, but only after he and his friend effectively forced me to. I was not involved until Catflap08 and company wrongly equated this article with the Miyazawa Kenji article. (Catflap08 didn't directly support the linkage but he deliberately avoided correcting his friend when the link was made.) Since Catflap08 appears to be showing the same disruptive pattern here as he has on those other articles, and I've already admitted to believing that this is a recurrent CIR issue with Catflap08, my coming here is also policy-based.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@AbuRuud Excommunication can strictly spoken only take place when a communion was received … a communion in Buddhism is entirely unheard of. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sweet Jesus, this is getting painful. Multiple reliable sources and the source you yourself cited yesterday speak of Soka Gakkai's excommunication. What are you trying to prove here? Better yet, where are the sources that prove whatever you're trying to prove? It's hard to keep up, since you keep deflecting and conflating things.AbuRuud (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
No need to call Jesus. I personally refer to being expelled. Expelled means to get lost, go elsewhere or as in this case not being allowed to enter temple grounds. If other sources use the term “excommunication” it is not my job to correct them but on the other hand a mistake copied often enough does not make it right – hence me not using the term. Secondly and most important in the year 1991/92 the Gakkai leadership was expelled it was not until 1997 that the Gakkai membership as a whole was expelled. This should come as no surprise as most of them held NST Gohonzons. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't calling Jesus. I was using a cliched phrase to express exasperation. But no matter. The issue here is that multiple sources, including the NST, talk of the excommunication of Soka Gakkai. Your semantic arguments hold no weight. Daisaku Ikeda and Soka Gakkai were excommunicated in 91/92. The Soka Gakkai members were expelled (which, again, is something different) in 1997.AbuRuud (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Well to make it blunt --- Ikeda and Co were kicked out in 1991/92 --- Gakkai folks in 1997. None of the two were kicked out along with the other --- not excommunicated nor expelled along with each other. Sensei was asked to leave. Get the difference?--Catflap08 (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you get wp:verify, wp:rs, and wp:or?AbuRuud (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I give up …. Must say though that I do start to give credit to those who frown when mentioning Wikipedia … these days I am starting to get an idea why. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Other users tell you you're not allowed engage in OR, so you "give up" and take the dispute to ANI? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@ 聖 Seek a professional. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference Checking

For the past several weeks I've been checking the references given for various content, including the "cult of personality" language in the Criticism section. First, apparently that criticism is of the Soka Gakkai, not Ikeda, so I suggest it be deleted from this article as it violates BLP standards. Particularly since it is without any accurate or reliable references from neutral POV sources and is libelous. I bought all the books that are referenced for this criticism, and here's what I found:

In "British Buddhism Teachings, Practice and Development," the author refers to the criticism of Soka Gakkai as being "often without supporting evidence." The one and only reference to a cult of personality is on page 98 (which also states it did not come from the author's own research but from a third party, without any explanation): "Critics may see the publicity surrounding Ikeda as a personality cult, and British members may be reluctant to accept him as a living master on par with Nichiren or the Buddha, but his role as spiritual leader in both SGI and SGI-UK remains a central and highly influential one." There is no neutral POV or reliable source given in reference to whose opinion it is that "critics may see the publicity surrounding Ikeda as a personality cult." It is also focused only on a critical POV. This reference is therefore a violation of the BLP standards and I suggest it be deleted.

In "Globalizing Japan," the only reference to cult of personality states that SGI members in Germany actively avoid such impressions. On page 100: "The German members are concerned with maintaining their national and personal identity, avoiding a personality cult around the figure of the president, Daisaku Ikeda, and gaining access to the higher levels of leadership, while maintaining an effective grassroots approach." This reference doesn't support the criticism, and I suggest it therefore be deleted.

In "Wild Geese," the only mention of this criticism has no source or supporting evidence, stating on page 93: "In 1991, after a long period of conflict, the Nichiren Shoshu officially excommunicated Soka Gakkai. As an independent organization, the SGI continues to grow, although its present leader, Daisaku Ikeda, and his organization have been criticized as a personality cult." Without a neutral POV and a reliable source, with no mention of any source for such criticism, this reference is a violation of BLP standards and I suggest it be deleted.

In "The Soka Gakkai Revolution," the author actually argues against this criticism, stating on page 151: "It is not empirically obvious that Ikeda exerts cult-like authority over followers. Rather, it appears that many individual members respond to him with the kind of devotion a student might evince for a revered teacher or mentor who has unselfishly worked to improve or change the student's life." Since this reference refutes the criticism, it should be deleted.

In "The New Social Face of Buddhism," the author only refers to objections that a different editor of a different book received from unnamed sources, and neither of the editors/authors offer any criticism of Ikeda themselves. The only reference in this book to criticism is on page 125: "Editor Christopher Queen noted that the inclusion of a chapter on the Nichiren offshoot Soka Gakkai in his book 'Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia' had raised objections. These included 'its intolerance of other Buddhist sects, its personality cult of its leader Daisaku Ikeda, and its grandiose, publicity-grabbing projects.'" Without a neutral POV or any reliable source offered for this criticism, such second-hand and third-hand unfounded references to libelous characterizations is a violation of BLP standards and I suggest it therefore should be deleted. CalIsraeli (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes indeed all citations/references/sources that are found to be false or inaccurately listed should be removed. TokyoSunrise (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Totally agree -- should be removed. Also, I have searched everywhere for the publication cited as the source of the following sentence under the Accomplishments section: "Ikeda has guided Soka Gakkai's support of, and involvement in, the Komeito,[2] a Japanese political party ..." First of all, this is an opinion not a fact, and an opinion that has been refuted. The cited source "Dayle Bethel 'The Political Ideology of Ikeda Daisaku, President of Soka Gakkai' (1974) International Education 3 (2)" is apparently not a real publication. I searched all Dayle Bethel books and published works and no such work exists. Dayle Bethel writes about Soka Education, not Komeito. So that sentence either must be edited to state a fact rather than opinion, and must have a reliable/real source, or this sentence should also be deleted. Koralimi (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There seem to be a number of false/inaccurate citations in this article. I have been doing some research on the above-mentioned and agree they should be removed for the same reasons noted. I've also got a few others I'm researching now and will post my findings soon.Elemential1 (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I have added to the early years of Ikeda as best I can find from reliable sources, and have edited the sections as agreed based on prior Talk page consensus. When I have time I'll continue researching the citations in question above. It's taking longer than I expected. Elemential1 (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Great research CalIsraeli, thank you for so much effort. I agree the 'cult' criticism is libelous and for that reason alone should be removed from a BLP. Even if the nature of the claim wasn't libelous, it is a criticism of SG and not directly a criticism of Ikeda (as some of the sources directly refute it, and state Ikeda and SG orgs have gone out of their way to avoid such characterizations). So for that reason too it has no place here. And regarding the issue that Koralimi brings up, I agree any such material especially without neutral/reliable sources should also be deleted. Basicallyyes (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed wholeheartedly.Zimdolf (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I've completed these edits today.Koralimi (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Koralimi, looks good. CalIsraeli (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Foreign-language sources

In addition to the above-mentioned reference checking, I've begun checking the Japanese-language sources. As someone who lived in Japan for a significant part of my youth and went to school at Japanese academies, I am fluent in Japanese. Therefore, the inclusion of Japanese-language sources doesn't bother me. However, Wikipedia's verfiability guidelines state that "anyone using the encyclopedia should be able to check that the information comes from a reliable source." It further states that since this is English Wikipedia the sources cited should be in English or have reliable third-party translations available. So far the Japanese sources I've reviewed are either irrelevant (don't mention the subject matter) or state facts different than the article material, or the source is overtly biased/unreliable. I will attempt to find reliable sources for the material that is currently attached to Japanese-language sources, and if none exist then I propose the irrelevant and/or mistaken sources be deleted. I'll post those here as I continue this research. CalIsraeli (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

As a native Japanese speaker I can help with this- and I agree foreign references should be reviewed and verified.TokyoSunrise (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Two of the Japanese-language references that I have researched from this article were apparently added by mistake or were vandalism. One of the Japanese books referenced in this article is: Tsurumi, Yoshihiro (1994). Amerikagoroshi no chōhassō: "dorei" Nihon yo, me o samase! seido hirō o sugu tadase!. Tokyo: Tokuma Shoten. ISBN 4198501653. I bought this book, and it is an economics book about how "enslaved" by the US economy the Japanese economy is. This book doesn't mention Ikeda even once. I will delete this irrelevant citation from the article.
The second one, which is in regard to the topic of edits having been made to The Human Revolution book, is this one: Wajō, Shichiri (1994). Ikeda Daisaku gensō no yabō: shōsetsu "Ningen kakumei" hihan (Shohan. ed.). Tokyo: Shin Nihon Shuppansha. pp. 212–3. ISBN 4406022309. 第四十七刷で四十余箇所にわたる改訂を行ってる。しかし奇異なことに、これだけの改訂を行いながら、第四十七刷は改訂版とされていない。・・・受付嬢は、こう断言した。「小説『人間革命』には改訂版はありません。定価が変わっているだけです。」 First, this book's title in Japanese is "Fantasy ambitions of Daisaku Ikeda: Criticism of The Human Revolution" and is written by someone who is known as an antagonistic, biased, anti-Buddhist writer. It is not a neutral POV, and not a reliable source. Furthermore, the quote used from that book in this article says the source of the information in the text was an anonymous "reception desk lady at the publisher." Obviously, an antagonist's purported conversation with an anonymous "reception desk lady" is not a reliable source, so I'll delete this from the article. I'm continuing to check the other sources noted above.CalIsraeli (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I have also found that the source for the Panama-related info is extremely negatively biased and filled with outrageous comparisons to Nazi Germany and other blatantly biased content, including all kinds of unfounded rumors about many public figures in the 1980s. The source is: Kempe, Frederick (1990). Divorcing the dictator: America's bungled affair with Noriega.ISBN 1-85043-259-7. Whoever added this source to the article also falsely listed it as published by IB Tauris, a reputably scholarly publisher, when in fact it was published in 1990 by Putnam Adult paperbacks, which at that time was a fiction and scandal publisher mostly sold in US supermarkets. The book makes outlandish claims about the Bush family and other American politicians and foreign leaders including Ikeda, but gives no sources for the information other. It is worth noting that someone also pasted a Metraux reference in the middle of that material, but in fact Metraux simply referred to the Kempe material in one of his books. I will delete this biased, unreliable, and libelous material. CalIsraeli (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I concur with all of the edits CalIsraeli has proposed, and thank you CalIsraeli for the extensive research and clarifications.Koralimi (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Koralimi. I'm almost done with my review and will do the edits on the Japanese-language references soon.CalIsraeli (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm done with the review and the remaining one to be removed is the Shin Nihon Shuppansha material noted above.CalIsraeli (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Reception

I suggest creating a "Reception" section to consolidate the various adjective-filled commentary about Ikeda. A reading of the LA Times Watanabe piece, for example, shows that the wide range of colorful labels she noted are not her own descriptions but the labels others use for Ikeda, all personal opinion, some from supporters and some from detractors, but virtually all from admittedly non-neutral observers. Those kinds of opinions don't belong in a BLP lead paragraph. Whether negative or positive, personal views are better suited in a "Reception" section, which is more along the lines of MOS for a BLP article. Looking around I find most other Wikipedia articles on religious leaders have a "Reception" section for that purpose. Thoughts? Zimdolf (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree a Reception section would be an improvement. Having reviewed Watanabe's article, the opinions quoted from it in the Ikeda lead text are misleading, as most weren't Watanabe's words but the views of others. The text currently reads "Watanabe described Ikeda as..." but then lists views that are not her own. Watanabe characterized many of those views as biased, and biased views aren't reliable material. Interesting to note that after she interviewed Ikeda in person, Watanabe concluded that despite the varying opinions about him, "there is no question that Ikeda spreads goodwill, and transforms stereotypes." Basicallyyes (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, creating a reception section for material like Watanabe is a good idea. LovLove (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I also think this would be a good idea. Bubuwon (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree -- who wants to create that and edit/compile the appropriate material into the new section?Elemential1 (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that a Reception section would be better for that type of commentary as long as it has accurate and proper references to support (see my findings below regarding Reference Checking). CalIsraeli (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that a "Reception" section is probably a good step to improve this article. TokyoSunrise (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps "Public Image" is a more appropriate title for that section than Reception. Looking at the articles on other religious leaders, the term most often used on Wikipedia is "Public Image." Thoughts?Elemential1 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Either term seems fine to me. Loking at other articles it seems "Public image" is commonly used, often with subsections like "International reception" "In popular culture" and so on. Bubuwon (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I've gone a few months without commenting-- had some family emergencies to handle and all sorted out now. I'd agree the current section is better, and probably would be more accurate to rename it as 'public image' as I'm not sure 'reception' is a commonly-used term these days. Zimdolf (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the Reception section looks better than in October when this topic first came up, but maybe needs some rearranging for flow/chronology is in order. I'll take a swing at some light copyedits in that regard. I don't really have a strong opinion one war or the other regarding Elemential1's suggestion about renaming it Public Image.Basicallyyes (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the Watanabe article should be singled our for the lead. Why that one and not another? It would be more appropriate in a Perception or Reception section. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes the Watanabe material is opinions/perceptions, so I vote that it move to the Public Image section. Looking at other BLP articles about religious leaders, the first paragraph of the lead section is a basic rundown (like the first paragraph lead of Ikeda is now) and then there are typically two or three other brief paragraphs in the lead section that summarize the rest of the person's life. So a standard BLP lead section serves as a summary of facts presented in the entire BLP article. Seeing as CalIsraeli proposed to do the various edits below, I vote we put together a new BLP lead section that follows the MOS/BLP standards in line with other BLP of religious leaders. I can take a crack at first draft and will post here on the Talk page as a new topic. Koralimi (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Daveler16 and Koralimi. Thanks for offering to draft the changes Koralimi. I also think it would be best, in an effort to avoid confusion and criss-crossed edits, if CalIsraeli implements the edits being discussed below before the lead changes are made.Zimdolf (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Made these changes and later today will have a draft of the additions to lead as discussed.Koralimi (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it looks excellent and well-balanced, I'm just going to make a few copyedits for clarity.LovLove (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead

As noted in the discussion above, here is my draft of the lead material to be added after the current lead paragraph. I used the BLP articles of the president of the Mormon church, the Dalai Lama, and the Pope as a guide for the style, although this draft is considerably shorter than those. I also read editor comments for many BLPs of religious leaders. The consensus is that lead paragraphs for BLP of religious leaders should contain a brief summary of the individual's entire life, so that readers who only want to get a quick overview of the subject's life don't have to read the entire article to get a feel for it, etc. Here's my suggested draft to add onto the one paragraph already in the lead, and I will add all necessary references later, which are the same as in the body of the article from which this summary text was created:

  • Ikeda was born in Tokyo, Japan, in 1928, to a family of seaweed farmers. He survived the devastation of World War II as a teenager, which he said left an indelible mark on his life and fueled his quest to solve the fundamental causes of human conflict. At age 19, Ikeda began practicing Nichiren Buddhism and joined a youth group of the Soka Gakkai Buddhist association, which led to his lifelong work developing the global peace movement of SGI and founding numerous institutions dedicated to fostering peace, culture and education.
  • The core elements of Ikeda’s philosophy—inner transformation, dialogue and global citizenship—have consistently informed his activities and accomplishments. His vision for the SGI’s growth has been described by academic observers as “a borderless Buddhist humanism that emphasizes free thinking and personal development on the basis of respect for life.” As Soka Gakkai president in the 1960s, Ikeda worked to reopen Japan’s relationship with China. He also established the first campuses of the Soka school system, a secular network of schools ranging today from kindergartens through universities in several countries, and began writing The Human Revolution, the 12-volume novelized history of the Soka Gakkai. In the 1970s, he established the Soka Gakkai International and initiated dialogues with prominent figures such as historian Arnold J. Toynbee, Linus Pauling and Henry Kissinger. Ikeda also began contributing to educational and academic exchanges, lecturing at the UCLA in 1974 and Moscow State University in 1975. From the 1980s onward he has continually increased his anti-nuclear activism and citizen diplomacy.
Looks excellent to me. Hard to summarize 80+ years in a few paragraphs so good on ya for the effort Koralimi. Bubuwon (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Works for me, too. Thank you for your thorough effort. Findemnow (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
This would be a big improvement and help this article get much more in line with other BLP articles.Basicallyyes (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree it's very well done. Gratitude to Koralimi for drafting this. I have no changes to suggest.CalIsraeli (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I also think this is quite good. Elemential1 (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. At first glance I thought it was long but after reading lead sections of other leaders of organized religions this is shorter than most. So I think it's fine.Goliacix432 (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I made the edits as agreed although I trimmed them down a bit more to try to make the summaries in the lead as brief as possible. Thank you everyone for your comments and research.Koralimi (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks good Koralimi, thanks.Basicallyyes (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Great work, thank you Koralimi. Goliacix432 (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Well done -- looking much more in line with the standards of similar BLP articles now. LovLove (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I also like the proposed lead edits. The only thing I would consider is to add that when he joined at age 19 he met his lifelong mentor Josei Toda.Ltdan43 (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like to explain a little bit about what the institutions that he founded accomplished not just the names or titles of the institutions.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltdan43 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Ltdan43, thank you, if you look under "Early Life and Background" it states that Ikeda met Josei Toda at age 19 and the relevant circumstances. I've also been working on creating a section that goes into more details about the various institutions founded and hope to make suggestions for that in the near future. Koralimi (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daisaku Ikeda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Koralimi (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Archived topics

In the Archived Topics on this Talk Page, please note that the no sources may be used in a BLP article that are libelous in nature. The material I just removed was also previously removed per Talk Page consensus for this reason. Bingolodo (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Daisaku Ikeda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Relationship with Noriega

I noticed that edits regarding Ikeda's relationship with Manuel Noriega were deleted by user @Tacktician:, citing "deleted poorly and unreliably sourced claim, per WP:BLP, WP:NRMMOS esp Blp section, WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION." However, the sources were published academic works and Soka Gakkai newsletters. A quick Google search details the relationship even further. If anybody has further insights, I'd appreciate them. Otherwise, I think the sources are more than appropriate. Mvblair (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Mvblair Oh, no worries articles related to SGI seem to have been taken over by the SGI faithful … Wikipedia does not seem to mind or unable to mind. So why bother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.131 (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The reliability of these and previously cited sources was discussed several times in past years, for which reason this topic was deleted and the currently restored paragraph should again be deleted.
The Métraux work, on which the entire paragraph relies, attributes the claims directly to the Kempe work, which was discredited on fact-checking. In Talk:Daisaku Ikeda/Archive 4, @CalIsraeli: wrote: "I have also found that the source for the Panama- related info is extremely negatively biased and filled with outrageouscomparisons to Nazi Germany and other blatantly biased content, including all kinds of unfounded rumors about many public figures in the 1980s. The source is: Kempe, Frederick (1990). Divorcing the dictator: America's bungled affair with Noriega. ISBN 1-85043-259-7. Whoever added this source to the article also falsely listed it as published by IB Tauris, a reputably scholarly publisher, when in fact it was published in 1990 by Putnam Adult paperbacks, which at that time was a fiction and scandal publisher mostly sold in US supermarkets. The book makes outlandish claims about the Bush family and other American politicians and foreign leaders including Ikeda, but gives no sources for the information other. It is worth noting that someone also pasted a Metraux reference in the middle of that material, but in fact Metraux simply referred to the Kempe material in one of his books. I will delete this biased, unreliable, and libelous material." @Koralimi: concurred.
In Archive 1, a Japanese-language source was discussed and @Garion96: wrote: "Regarding the Noriega link. Is there any collaborating source besides that one book? Otherwise it does look like your standard conspiracy theory. ps: feel free to remove any unsourced info from this article, whether it is negative or positive." And the veracity of the gardens claim was disputed in Archive topic between @TokyoSunrise: and an anonymous editor.
Veracity notwithstanding, this topic is a disproportionate—neither prevalent nor prominent, nor current—view of the subject of the article and does nothing to improve the content of the article. Tacktician (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
With regard to the Japanese language source by Furukawa, to expand on assertions of NPOV violations, etc. in the archived talk post: "The absence of reliable, English-language sources for such contentious material is also a violation of WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY" by TokyoSunrise (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC), the Japanese Wikipedia article on the former newspaper reporter, Toshiaki Furukawa 古川利明 notes he has been a free-lance writer since 1997; his first job upon college graduation in 1988 was with Mainichi Newspaper from 1988–1994 and then was employed by Tokyo Newspaper in January 1996 and left it and the industry altogether in July 1997. Among the bibliography of Furukawa's published works on his Japanese Wikipedia page is the book with the title: 「新聞記者」卒業 -オレがブンヤを二 度辞めたワケ (romanization: "Shimbun kisha" sotsugyou - Ore ga bunya wo nido yameta wake) [working translation: "Graduation from being a 'newspaper reporter' - the reason why I quit this field twice."] His books are published by Dai-san Shokan, a small Japanese publishing company, which in the last decade gained notoriety by publishing a highly controversial unauthorized biography of Crown Princess Masako of Japan in 2007 (see: Princess Masako: Prisoner of the Chrysanthemum Throne) and the list of Dai-san Shokan's books on its Japanese wikipedia page (第三書館) are of an overtly anti-establishment bent and violate WP:BLP in addition to NPOV and WP:Verify. In conclusion, I agree with the previous poster, @Tacktician's assessment and recommended action that the entire paragraph be taken out. Camellia wagashi (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I've deleted the restored paragraph, per WP:ONUS.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Daisaku Ikeda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Should not be hagiography

This page continues to present Ikeda in glowing terms, probably because cult members revert any criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.133.175.27 (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You created a new account a week ago to edit Wikipedia anonymously and edited this article using the term "cult members" as your basis. Your own actions are evidence of negative bias and lack NPOV. Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions, it is a place for well-cited facts. If you have properly-cited NPOV facts to share, that is fine, but otherwise please keep your biased attacks on other editors, such as calling them "cult members", off of Wikipedia. Thank you. Momiyori (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Section needed for Nobel nominations?

The Nobel nominations section was reinstated on January 6. While the facts of the nominations are not disputed, their substance or weight doesn't warrant an entire section when compared to the rest of the subsections, under Accolades, of awards and honors actually received. And of the two publishers cited for the nominations, the CNN piece merely refers back to PRIO. I propose that the nominations text be moved to the end of the International awards section and the Nobel nominations section be deleted. See WP:VNOTSUFF, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:LENGTH. Sandalwood33 (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

After comparing the text with the PRIO sources cited, I've corrected the text, leaving it in place for now but deleting the section head. For example, the PRIO pages cited include these statements: "...we cannot guarantee that the [Norwegian Nobel] committee indeed has received a specific nomination, nor, in some cases, whether the nominator is eligible" (2015),"The present list is not quality assured in terms of whether the nominator is eligible, nor as to whether the [Norwegian Nobel] committee indeed has received a nomination letter." (2016), and "... we cannot guarantee that the [Norwegian Nobel] committee indeed has received a specific nomination, nor, in some cases, whether the nominator is eligible" (2017). Sandalwood33 (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Just get rid of it entirely. It's like his annual peace proposals, just attention-gaining uncontroversial platitudes. Can anyone cite any concrete actual thing this guy has done to merit interest, let alone a Nobel. Chances are he's dead already anyway. 78.120.221.9 (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I've removed it. The speculation seems inappropriate especially since he hasn't actually been awarded the prize. In any case it doesn't belong at the beginning of the section with no subheading, this is normally where a section intro would go. –dlthewave ☎ 15:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Discrepancy in number of children

The 'Personal details' section lists just two children, but the text in Section 5 lists three. One or the other needs correcting, but which? Danemaslen (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure, as this touches more broadly on the policy section WP:BLPNAME which advises to "[c]onsider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value" and, further, that "names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." No neutral, secondary sources such as scholarly works were used to identify the three sons in the article's Personal life section, and no sources were used for their names in the infobox. Sandalwood33 (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
To follow up, I located a reliable, secondary source that confirms the second son's death and inserted it in the Personal life section where the second son's name is mentioned. No change, I believe, is necessary in the infobox. Sandalwood33 (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Second follow-up: Finally I was able to do what I described above. Sandalwood33 (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Meeting with Polly Toynbee

Polly Toynbee wrote an interesting account of her meeting with Ikeda. Earlier versions of this article briefly described this. It was fiddled with and moved around; but (as far as I can see) was finally removed in this edit of 22 January 2016. The edit summary for the deletion is incoherent. I propose to readd what was deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Readded. -- Hoary (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The best I could glean from the edit summary is that the paragraph was deleted because the sources cited are not reliable. From the discussions about this topic in Archive 3 here and here too, Archive 2 and Archive 1, I noted concerns over copyright, an assertion that the Popham work might be a reliable source, confirmed misattribution to The Manchester Guardian, mention of a rebuttal piece to Ms. Toynbee's claims in the Daily Yomiuri, and a caveat about WP:DUE. The Bibliography in the Popham work identifies Ms. Toynbee's Daily Yomiuri piece as the source quoted in Chapter 3 ("The Righteous and the Damned"), which is at least seemingly at odds with the attribution "[Toynbee wrote later in the Guardian]" that appears in Chapter 3, page 63. Anjuarorasach (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


Please change: In 1984, British journalist and political commentator [[Polly Toynbee]] visited Ikeda at the invitation of the SGI. According to Peter Popham, writing about Tokyo architecture and culture, Ikeda "was hoping to tighten the public connection between himself and Polly Toynbee's famous grandfather, Arnold Toynbee, the prophet of the rise of the East."<ref>Peter Popham, ''Tokyo: The City at the End of the World'' (Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1985; {{ISBN|4-7700-1226-8}}), p. 64.</ref> Polly Toynbeee wrote that she had never met "anyone who exudes such an aura of absolute power as Mr. Ikeda" and others she had talked to “felt they had been drawn into endorsing [Ikeda]."<ref>Toynbee, "Soka Gakkai and the Toynbee 'Endorsement'"; quoted in Popham, ''Tokyo'', p.65.</ref><ref name="grandfather">{{cite news |title=The Value of a Grandfather Figure |work=The Guardian |author=Polly Toynbee |date=19 May 1984}}</ref> In ''The Guardian'' in May 1984, she wrote that she wished that her grandfather had not endorsed ''Choose Life: A Dialogue'', his dialogue with Ikeda.<ref name="grandfather"/>

To: In 1984, British journalist and political commentator [[Polly Toynbee]] visited Ikeda in Japan at his invitation conveyed by Dick Causton, SGI leader of the UK. According to Peter Popham, writing about Tokyo architecture and culture, Polly Toynbee once wrote that she had never met "anyone who exudes such an aura of absolute power as Mr. Ikeda" to describe an unsettling opulence with which she was received by him.<ref>{{cite book |last=Popham |first=Peter |date=1985 |title=Tokyo: The City at the End of the World |location=Tokyo |publisher=Kodansha International |page=65 |isbn=4-7700-1226-8}}</ref> In ''The Guardian'' in May 1984, she wrote that others she had talked to about Ikeda "felt they had been drawn into endorsing him" and that she wished her grandfather had not similarly endorsed ''Choose Life: A Dialogue'', his dialogue with Ikeda.<ref>{{cite news |title=The value of a grandfather figure |work=The Guardian |author=Polly Toynbee |date=19 May 1984}}</ref> In his response letter to ''The Guardian'', Dick Causton described her reflections as honest and understandable, given the "culture shock" of being hosted as a distinguished guest by Ikeda in a Japanese cultural setting and the "religious shock" of encountering Buddhists as ordinary people, all during a hectic 10-day schedule of interviews with prominent figures arranged by Soka Gakkai at her request.<ref>{{cite news| title=The double shock of Japanese culture |author=Dick Causton |work=The Guardian |date=28 May 1984}}</ref>

Summary of the changes: added or corrected citation templates, amended or added text based on cited sources and talk page discussion, did minor fixes (see also the talk page) Tacktician (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. DBigXrayᗙ 18:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
DBigXrayᗙ The only way I was able to get the edit done was by changing "Dick Causton" to "Richard Causton". Hence the protection level might still be intact on the page. Tacktician (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Tacktician, Now  Done --DBigXrayᗙ 18:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

B-class review

I believe this passes as a B-class article. --Nannochloropsis (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nannochloropsis: I don't think so, at least, not yet. To make the article more neutral, the section Daisaku Ikeda#Academic honors must be trimmed of everything not sourced, and the section Daisaku Ikeda#Public image must go.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@Farang Rak Tham: Okay thanks for letting me know of this. I will reassess this as C-class until the issues are fixed. --Nannochloropsis (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, @Nannochloropsis: and @Farang Rak Tham:, for the article review and two suggestions for improvement. Regarding deletion of the section Daisaku Ikeda#Public image, would invoking WP:NPOV and WP:BLPSTYLE combined with WP:ASSERT in the edit summary sufficiently override or overrule a reinstatement argument that assertions in the section appear to be reliably sourced? Sandalwood33 (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
It may be reliable sourced, but I am unfamiliar with such a section in biographies. I see that it is not only praise, but still, it is unclear to me in what context these responses were given. Some editors, including myself, think that criticism and praise should not be separated as a section, but rather integrated in the article and explained in context. This becomes clearer when we think of someone like Aung San Suu Kyi, who received much praise whilst in prison, but receives much criticism now. The actions and character of a person may change over time.
The article may also contain some less than neutral wording, reeking with PEACOCK, e.g. "The Human Revolution has been translated into English, Chinese, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Korean and Dutch and has sold over seven millions copies worldwide" sounds like a sales pitch. Just mentioning the number of languages may suffice. Though B-level is certainly attainable for this article, writing style may have to be reviewed first.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
As follow-up to your suggestions, I've deleted the Public image section and example of peacock phrasing specifically mentioned here. Plus I've added the word "Selected" to the table title under the section Daisaku Ikeda#Academic honors, to anticipate deleting unsourced table entries. Sandalwood33 (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to the formatting fix by @Niharika: The title of the table listing honorary doctorates is one line instead of two. Before diving into the task of confirming and deleting unsourced entries, as recommended in the assessments above, I'm wondering if there's a better or more visually appealing way of organizing the table. Sandalwood33 (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sandalwood33: I think we can make the table always visible once it's been trimmed to only show sourced entries as it will be short enough then. I will make an attempt to source some of these entries in the next couple weeks. Thanks. -- Niharika (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletions and revisions

Overall the topic of Ikeda's activities relating to the Japanese political party Komeito may be noteworthy (see WP:NOTEWORTHY), and it's worthwhile pursuing a neutral (see WP:WEIGHT) and balanced (see WP:GEVAL) accounting of Ikeda's actions and outcomes. Characterizations of Komeito itself belong not here but vetted in the relevant article and article talk page about the party; likewise is the case of the many other institutions Ikeda has founded. It may help to look at other exemplary articles and their treatment of overlapping topics: e.g., the GA-rated 2018 Nobel Peace Prize ties into Denis Mukwege, the Panzi Hospital which he founded, Nadia Murad, and Nadia's Initiative which she founded. Tacktician (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The section title "Political involvement and controversies" was changed to "Political perceptions in Japan", because the content recounts primarily value-laden labels in the form of contentious opinions, accusations and allegations. Tacktician (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Several scholars, including Métraux which is not a critical one, wrote about this significant aspect of life and image of Ikeda, his involvment and controversies about Komeito, and this is not tabloid comments or value-laden labels. Before my intervention in this page, every controversial aspects had been deleted for years, trying to give a kind of flawless image to Ikeda. You have to accept these controversial aspects, and to stop trying to delete scholars sources. Asterix757 (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
What, when and how are the overarching encyclopedic questions to address. The word "controversies" without context is vague: the section's text is rich in accusation but presents only one example of controversy. For this reason I've changed the section's title again to reflect the section's content and also to capture the gist of the previous comment above. In this respect, Métraux presents a good example to examine. First, the citation for his 1999 Japan Studies Review article was incomplete and inaccurate—no author, no article title, and wrong and incomplete publication date. For this reason I corrected it, adding also a second in-citation quote. Second, these two quotes cited to his 1999 JSR article, "The Changing Role of the Komeito in Japanese Politics in the 1990s," appear verbatim in Chapter 3: The Soka Gakkai and Politics of his 1994 book The Soka Gakkai Revolution and also in his Chapter 5: The Changing Role of the Komeito in Japanese Politics in the 1990s of Machacek and Wilson, eds (2000) Global Citizens: The Soka Gakkai Buddhist Movement in the World. In all three works, he presents historical context followed by his assessments: to convey the former and neglect the latter would be cherrypicking. Third, in his 1994 book, after he recounts that "two senior Komeito officials denounced Ikeda's 'dictatorial control' over the party", he also recounts (on the same page) that their credibility was called into question by a Komeito spokesman as well as the Soka Gakkai. This recounting does not appear in either his 1999 JSR article nor his 2000 chapter. For this reason, I've deleted the sourced statement in the text.Fourth, in all three of these works Métraux relates the same contextual analysis and assessment that begins with: "While it is difficult to determine his exact role, an examination of his daily itinerary would reveal that he would have very little time personally for political management and that most of the aging leader's time is devoted to religious affairs, traveling, and writing" (Global Citizens, pp132–133; cf. JSR 1999, p44; cf. Soka Gakkai Revolution, p59). For this reason, I've reflected the full quote in the text.Fifth, in his 1994 book, pp59–60, appears the statement "Whatever the truth may be, the fact that the Komeito, led by the inspirational oratory of Ikeda, can master six or more million votes in an election does make Ikeda an important national figure", but not in his 2000 chapter and not in his 1999 JSR article. For this reason, I decided not to include "important national figure" in the text. Tacktician (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The title "Politial controversies in Japan" is not vague. And the term is the one used by the sources in the section in a clear way. For instance : "Ikeda has been a controversial figure in Japan" (Kisala), "possibly one of the more controversial figures in Japan's modern history" (Métraux). I come back to the previous title. Asterix757 (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing clear about political involvement: As Métraux recounts, Ikeda's "actual role ... has been a matter of some controversy" and that Ikeda "potentially wields considerable influence in the political world" (JSP, p43). Other than that, the section merely contains critical accusations and claims, and one instance of controversy in which Ikeda's action is clear. Overall, these are criticisms. Tacktician (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Please, stop pretending "the section contains merely critical accusations and claims", in order to change the title of the section. I gave you some quotes from scholars that show that Ikeda has been significantly a controversial figure in Japan. You act like you don't care. Now I give you more quotes of the section that prove that controversies is the right term : "Ikeda has been a controversial figure in Japan" (Kisala), "possibly one of the more controversial figures in Japan's modern history" (Métraux), Ikeda and his predecessors "have been deeply political, each in different circumstances and distinct ways, which has no doubt contributed to the many controversies in the Soka Gakkai's history" (Seager), "Ikeda has been so much more a controversial figure in his society than Cho" (Gold), "Controversy is an inevitable partner of greatness. No one who challenges the established order is free of it. Gandhi had his detractors, as did Dr. King. Dr. Ikeda is no exception." (Carter) Asterix757 (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The tabloid-esque quote used in this section from the LA Times opinion piece in the 1990s was removed years ago because the author didn't give any citations for who or under what circumstances those absurd ranges of comparisons were made. These inflammatory comparisons are not even close to encyclopedia quality or NPOV and should be deleted now as they were many years ago. Anyone who refers to Adolph Hitler when describing a Buddhist leader is obviously not credible or NPOV. QueerMichael (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Throwing around unsubstantiated terms like "tabloid-esque", "absurd", "inflammatory", "obviously" are your own views and don't really have much to do with the value of a source in this article. The author of the citation you removed, Teresa Watanabe, was a seasoned journalist at the Los Angeles Times for seven years before she wrote that article. I disagree that it's tabloid journalism. It's just journalism, written to hold the interest of an audience half a world away from the subject. It's a good source and should be included. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
LA Times is obviously not a tabloid. However, I agree that the comparison with Hitler is very strong. So I reinsert the source but with a softer quote. But it's not so difficult to find citation that justifies Teresa Watanabe's use : he was described as a "sutra-chanting Hitler" by Kakuei Tanaka [2] [3]. Asterix757 (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I've added much-needed context for the claims and accusations in this section of the article and, based on that context, changed the section title. Tacktician (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Objectivity

Article reads like a promotional pamphlet. Should be deleted. Tone is not encyclopedic. Biased. 2400:406A:962:AF00:74A5:5C46:25A1:498 (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hagiography ?

I held up several banners relating to neutrality. Many paragraphs, passages or sentences do not respect Wikipedia's standards for neutrality. A lot of sentences or quotes are laudatory statements without proof, demonstration, sometimes even interest.

Among the scholars and specialists quoted, some of them are members of the SG, teachers at Soka University, or have responsibilities in the organization. But it's not specified, and that raises doubts about the neutrality and objectivity of their comments.

Worse : some sentences are copied from Soka Gakkai's websites, which 1/ is illegal, and violate Wikipedia's rules. 2/ shows that the article was not dutifully writen.

Please, let's try to make a new page for D. Ikeda, freed from these defects.

Raoul mishima (talk) 09:31, March 21st 2024 (UTC)

Sandalwood33 : please don't touch the page without talking and giving your arguments here. I'm not sure we need to clutter up the introduction with contentious figures. And the controversies from the 70s onwards are not only linked to Komeito, as you no doubt know. I'd be delighted to continue the discussion with you here.(talk) 20:57, March 21st 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for revisiting the quality of this article.
I participated in the "B-class review" exchanges. Specific recommendations were made, which have since been followed and resolved. One outstanding recommendation remains however from @Farang Rak Tham:: "Though B-level is certainly attainable for this article, writing style may have to be reviewed first."
It would be helpful if you:
* include a meaningful edit summary when you edit the article—a rationale is also helpful, e.g., when you delete sourced material
* refrain from altering sourced text in a way that is inconsistent with the source(s) cited—otherwise, it risks misleading the reader into thinking the insertion is from the source(s) cited when it is not
Sandalwood33 (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for your observations.
As for the number of people involved in Sôka Gakkai and the number of countries where it is implanted, I don't think this should be in the introductory paragraph of the page since it is not of one the most important informations about Daisaku Ikeda.
Would you please add some reliable sources ? In the meantime I think the page needs to warn that "the number is controversial and impossible to verify".
I also questionned his characterizing as an "educator" since I could not find any information for him being employed as a teacher, and though decided to keep it aside waiting for sources.
Raoul mishima (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Sandalwood33 (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, you have been quoting Vinicio Busacchi in a new paragraph, saying he is a "professor of theorical philosophy".
M. Busacchi is above all an official representative for the italien branch of the Soka Gakkai. I have the feeling quoting him raises a source problem, and that we should avoid quoting advocates or partisans, because it carries doubt on the content. Would you please find some more objective sources and Raoul mishima (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
In the absence of any reaction from you, I'll take the liberty of deleting this contentious passage, but suggest that you continue to discuss it here, thank you. Raoul mishima (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Typo

Small edit. "Philosophy and Belief" section said Ikeda said gratitude is crUcual to "violent communication". "NON violent" - right? Daveler16 (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

"Books" sub section

Not sure why someone thought criticism of Arnold Toynbee belongs in this article - perhaps it could be placed in the entry on Toynbee? Daveler16 (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello,
This particular point only concerns the Ikeda/Toynbee book, which means it is relevant on this page. Maybe you could ad it to the Toynbee page if you wish too ? Thanks. Raoul mishima (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
This page has several problems and needs to be improved to better suit Wikipedia's rules. If you're interested, I'd advise you to try and include secondary sources, rather than censoring certain passages.
1) The quote does not say Toynbee was greedy for money, but highlights a criticism that has sometimes been raised concerning D. Ikeda: the use of his influence and money to obtain honors. This is not criminally reprehensible, but even great men have their faults and deserve criticism, don't they?
2/ You're pretending not to see what Toynbee's granddaughter is mainly saying: that D. Ikeda was a man of influence and power. Everyone who met him says so. This testimony therefore belongs on the page dedicated to D. Ikeda, and I'd be grateful if you'd stop trying to censor it.
You could, instead, add new passages, which would be more enriching, don't you think so ?
I would remind you that Wikipedia's rules include objectivity and contradictory discourse. They also require editors to indicate whether they are members of the organizations whose pages they are editing: is this your case ? Raoul mishima (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, let’s discuss. Why do you insist criticism of Arnold Toynbee belongs in a Daisaku Ikeda Books section? The points you are adding are 1.) Toynbee was greedy for money and 2) his granddaughter, years after the fact, considered him to have been senile and decrepit and unable to make decisions for himself. The first might be true – I honestly don’t know but take your word for it – and the 2nd is not a fact but an opinion, and a rather absurd one at that. If you ask me. Neither has any bearing at all on the contents of the book – which is what this sub section is about, is it not? It seems like bringing them here is an attempt to impugn the significance of the book.

Since it's been almost a week since mylast comment, and since it does not appeared you discussed adding the anti-Toynbee comments before adding them, I'm going to delete them again today.

In an effort to be conciliatory, I actually added more of Polly Toynbee's article, including - since her quote about the OUP "firmly rejecting" the book was cut short, that she then said the OUP decided to publish it after all.

But let me reoterate: this stuff doesn't belong here. That Toynbee liked money has no bearing whatsoever on his dialogue and book with Ikeda. Even if he was paid for it - so what? Does the WP article on every author mention that they were paid? And the Polly Toynbee article is more about her dislike for Japanese customs and distaste for Ikeda that about the book. She.by her own admission, hadn't even bothered to read it until she was about to meet Ikeda. She encountered others who weren't impressed by him - what in the world does that add to understanding the book? Nothing that I can see; it's just some arbitrary information to disparage Ikeda, isn't it?

I left in Toynbee's need to be paid, but took out Polly Toynbee's article about her distaste for things Japanese.

Unverified statements

I deleted a number of unverified and un-sourced statements in the Intro. There appear to be a number of wholesale changes made by someone on a soapbox. Daveler16 (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello,
the statements you deleted are perfectly sourcable and are part of D. Ikeda's history and reputation, wether you agree or not. Even the Soka Gakkai's website talks about a "controversial reputation in Japan"... Raoul mishima (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I added some quotes to the end of the 3rd parapgraph so the statemnents match what the cited footnotes say. Daveler16 (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm sorry but this page needs secondary sources and the one you added is problematic : Jason GOULAH (not GOULAN) has undoubtfully responsibilities within one or more of the institutes founded by D. Ikeda. As he is paid by those organizations, and also teaches in an university that receives funds from the Soka Gakkai, we can safely say that his judgment cannot be considered objective, and is in contradiction with Wikipedia's principles and rules. If you wish to improve this page, please suggest relevant and objective secondary sources. Raoul mishima (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
The footnotes were already there as sources for your paragraph, and I quoted them direcctly. And Goulah was not the only one. As I understand the word "controversial", it does not mean merely "bad reputation", but that there are two views. Daveler16 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daisaku_Ikeda/Archive_4&oldid=1248431236"