Talk:Soka Gakkai

Change to Proselytizing sub section

Catflap08: in a day or two I'll have a B&P re-write in the Sandbox for one and all to work on together.

Meanwhile, Shi: I intend to change the wording of the Proselytizing sun section. I want to include whaqt the reference to Montgomery actually says, to wit: "shakubuku" is not "forced conversion", and the past aggressive SG behavior was controversial, but common to new religions in Japan, and not much different than methods used by some religions in the West. The other footnote in that section is to "The OC Register" - no specific issue, article or page mentioned - and says merely that the SG still uses the word "shakubuku", which doesn't strike me as particularly edifying information anyway. So I want to remove that sentence.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we should use the literal translation of "shakubuku" as opposed to the many metaphorical translations that have come into being. Shii (tock) 20:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Daveler16 (talk · contribs) There is no need for a B&P rewrite, but of course you are free to sandbox all you like. That doesn't mean anyone is going to join you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does need a re-write, as most editors here have said at one time or another. There will be one available for perusal in a day or two. Maybe three.--68.4.250.188 (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That was me, last comment - evidently had been signed out. Ubikwit, why don't you wait and see? You might like tyhe changes, or at least might not find mind them. It would be nice if you could help work on improving something rather than reverting those who are trying.

Shii (misspelled your name last time): ran "shakubuku" through 3 dictionaries. Jisho.org defines it a "preaching down; religious conversion through prayer. Tangorin,com is similar: "preaching down; religious conversion of somebody through prayer" . Went through Lexilogos to find csse.monash.edu.au, which is closest to what I have always thought: "preaching down; breaking down somebody's false beliefs through confrontation (in order to convert them to the right faith)". None of the dictionaries I found mention "forced conversion" or "break and destroy". I wonder if they are accurate - seems odd to me that both SG and NS would use translations that sound aggressive when there are more benign translatins available. What do we think?--Daveler16 (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Uhhhh. All three of those dictionaries are just different revisions of EDICT, which is a user-generated source and therefore not RS. Shii (tock) 21:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the "preaching down" definition is close to what you see in most Japanese dictionaries. The term comes from one of Nichiren's favorite sutra passages. He was involved in many debates with representatives of other sects. The idea is to defeat your opponent in a debate and thereby convert them to the true faith. So it's important that both sides are Buddhists with true or false ideas, and the outcome is that the true side wins. It's a battle of ideas. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I am seeing something like that in the dictionaries I checked. If this is defined in McLaughlin 2012 or Kisala 2004, let's use their definition. More recent RS with a neutral stance. Shii (tock) 00:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

McLaughlin 2012: "shakubuku might be translated as 'to break and subdue (attachments to inferior teachings)'." That's on p.2 of the pdf version. Kisala says "break and subdue, and it involves the use of a rather fierce polemic in order to get the subject to reject his or her previous beliefs." So I guess "break and subdue" for sure - with the qualifiers that that refers to beliefs?--Daveler16 (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Shii (tock) 12:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Made the changes: The previous sub section Was quite short. Added the definition of "shakubuku" from McLaughlin. The Montgomery source cited ("p. 185-186") included two complex sentences, but only half of each sentence was used. I've included the information in the other half of those sentences - didn't even have to amend the existing footnote. Since the "Orange County Register" reference was useless, I found another source for saying that the word "shukubuku" is still used. Finally, I updated the state of SG proselytizing, so that there is more information than mere mention that some people once found it abrasive.--Daveler16 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Included full quote. --Catflap08 (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. I re-added the part that got deleted. --Daveler16 (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the consensus was here (considering "forced conversion" is currently included in the article) but if you were discussing removing "forced conversion", I'd just like to add I think it should definitely stay. What English-Japanese dictionaries define "shakubuku" as isn't necessarily relevant here - what's of more interest is how religious/Japanology scholars has described/translated it in English language.

Joseph Kitagawa: "He instilled a militant spirit into the organization by inaugurating an unscrupulous and aggressive method of forced conversion (shaku-buku). To effect conversion", John Weldon: "Shakubuku is the forceful method of conversion, whereas “shoju” is themore moderate approach.", Achilles Gacis: "The way that Nichiren propagated his teachings was through shakubuku, "forced conversion or a way of aggressively conquering evil", Asian Survey (1967) "Shaku- buku is an expression of religious conviction, as well ... In practice, it represents an externally forced conversion upon non-members". (all available on google books, and this is just a handful of the works that use this translation). 126.59.94.184 (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing Conversation

I had asked Shii to taker a gander at my Sandbox, and now I'm inviting everyone to do so Here: [[1]] Shii said it looked okay, but txhen Ubikwit came into the conversation and said: "Shii may approve, but I don't, and I don't consider the decontextualization to be policy compliant, because SG is a Nichiren-derivative movement. I will consider it disruptive if you post that, and ArbCom is on the horizon if I have to deal with your advocacy again." To which Shii replied: "Once again there is a strong historicism going on here. We already have a History section in the article that makes SG's origins cl ear." Now you're up to date. I would here mention the dangers of negative advocacy, as of well as that of original research that ignores not only where the sources lead but also the opinions of other editors, both being impediments to a well written, balanced and accurate article. I have retained the historical context - just did not make it the central point of what the Soka Gakkai believes and practices, choosing instead to make what the Soka Gakkai believes and practices to be the central point of the Beliefs and Practices section. BTW, this one is shorter than the current B&P section, and includes the 5 Points a couple of editors have been asking for.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Daveler16: I appreciate that you are trying to improve the article, and I see some improvement but the text, especially the opening, is not encyclopedic, in my opinion. It is far to verbose, for one, and makes statements like "it's three founding presidents", which is not only a contradiction in terms, it is not the way the cited source describes them. Toda is described as Makiguchi's "disciple", Makiguchi his "master", with Toda described as "succeeding his master as president". Ikeda suceeded Toda, but Ikeda did not found SG, either. He founded SGI.

I do not want to have to go through this type of exercise again, because it is a replay. I suggest that you simply try to expand the current section by adding well-sourced text that does not sound promotional.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Your point about "the 3 founding presidents" is well taken - that's an SG phrase and not found in independent sources (unless they're quoting SG material). Thanks.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Put in the "5 guidelines" because a couple of people had asked they be included.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That's good content to add.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Made the def. of "shakubuku" in the sub section "The Great Shakubuku March" consistent with what was agreed on earlier and is used in the Proselytizing sub section.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Added a couple of sentences on discussion meetings, as they seem a key element of SG practice. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Daveler16I do believe that your edits all were done in good faith but must say that some sections do now rather read as if they were a SGI brochure. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08: The thing is, whether you prefer to call the SG and organization or a religio0n, either implies some social activity. The entry had nothing about the SG's social gatherings for its members. We know they propagated, are no longer allowed at the temple, support Komeito, and evidently dance sometimes - but that's about it. Don't you think a few sentences about its primary group religious activity has a place? --Daveler16 (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Might be of interest

Subtracting picture captions, graphs, TOC and references - just focusing on the actual writing, here are some word counts of Wikipedia articles:

• Dali Lama 3,281
• Catholicism 5,471
• Soka Gakkai 10,424
• Buddhism 15,107

• * The Buddhism article has 64 words on the Soka Gakkai. I think maybe the SG article is way too long. Thoughts? --Daveler16 (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Please note that articles dealing with Catholics, Catholicism and Criticism of the Catholic Church are quite numerous. Articles dealing with Criticism of Soka Gakkai for instanced were merged into this one – of which hardly any traces can be found. This is the only article on SG/SGI. When it comes to comparisons I would not compare an article about this group, what some might a call a cultish group or new religion, with a world religion.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It very much might help to create spinout articles on this topic, agreed. In general, for religions and religious movements, the first two are often a "History of" article and a "Beliefs of" article, under some name of those sorts. In some cases, where a group has particular history in a particular country, "[name] in [country]" articles are also useful. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how many scholars in the llast, say, 40 years or so, have found it a "cultish group", compared to those who find it legitimate? That's kind of my point in bringing this up: the entry is cluttered with anecdotes, mostly from the 5os and 60s, that are just that - anecdotes that have nothing to do with SG teachings or influence, but are presented as if they define the organization as much as say, the Min-on. Excuse another analogy, please, but it's akin to "The 2nd Century Christian teacher Origen castrated himself, giving Christianity a reputation as violently prudish", and devoting a whole sun-section to it. I'm not saying whitewash that there was criticism, but the sections on Toda (especially) and Makiguchi was just hard to read - not because they're critical but because there's a lot of unnecessary junk, and they are poorly written. Not to mention the scads of sub sections tacked on at the end that don't strike me as really necessary. And of course there is waaaay too much on Nichiren Shoshu. Shii - didn't you start to winnow some of this stuff out some time ago? --Daveler16 (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Cultish is to my understanding at most parts a very subjective issue the observation by McLaughlin who once said that SGI turned from an organisation lead by Ikeda to one devoted to Ikeda sums it up quite nicely – this comment too seems to have left the article. Cetainly ther are numerous blogs on the issue which do not count as a RS. Here we come to the issue of a leader cult. The difference is that even though SGI seeks media attention not much attention is paid to SGI/SG outside of Japan. I have this article on my watch list and will from time to time contribute on its talk page but quite frankly cannot be bothered to contribute to the article itself which seemingly turns more and more into an advert. I keep my distance to the article as I am an ex-adherent and I wished active adherents would do the same. My understanding and knowledge on issues concerning Nichiren Buddhism has grown considerably since I left SG/SGI and even though still not affiliated with any group I have utmost respect for Nichirens teachings. In days to come the term “Ikedaism” will find its way to Wikipedia I guess. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

In general, as I have kind of been repeating myself saying a little lately, I tend to think our best indicator of the ultimate length of any article is the length of the longest similar article or piece which can be found in any of the professional encycloepdias or similar works. And that, basically, with rare exceptions where those works are either clearly biased and/or remarkably outdated, that our content should pretty much reflect the content of the available reference work, with us trying to "average out" the discrepancies in terms of WEIGHT and in some cases outdated information. That being the case, I would love to see any indicators here what "articles" or short sections in other reference works are known of, and, where possible, links to online versions or some indicator of what they say in them. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, Catflap08, there is certainly no evidence that you are advocating, or advertising for an anti-Gakkai sentiment. --Daveler16 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Gosh or whatever. Ex-adherents and active adherents should under normal circumstances stay out of the article as much as possible full stop. Otherwise no neutrality is given. Please considerate WP:NOTADVERTISING --Catflap08 (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think there is a difference between an adherent (like me for instance) who is willing to acknowledge, allow and even refer to, criticism; and an ex-adherent who regards anything not negative as "an advert". Again: not trying to eliminate the criticism in the History sedction; I just think it can be summarized and shortened, rather than being crammed with anecdotes. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to say that if you are an adherent who is willing to acknowledge, allow, and even refer to criticism of SG, you are a rather unique individual in the history of the discussions here. Like with most people who join a religious type group on their own, or who are adherents of groups which might reasonably called "embattled," at least so far as I can remember in the recent history of this page, most of the SG adherents here have well, had promotional tendencies, shall we say. And I'm not sure that Catflap necessarily said anything non-negative was an "advert," although he might clearly have said some particular non-negative things were. One of the things which might qualify is the SG peace activity, and some of the content relative to it, might be seen as promotional, I suppose, and I really could see that some of that longish section might have real UNDUE concerns. John Carter (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think peace activities are an integral part of the SG's raison d'etre, but the sub section is indeed much too long. A lot of the other stuff at the end seems tacked on for the purposes of criticizing (the entirety of the "overseas perception" of the SG is a 1990's German parliamentary report?)(If this is about the Japanese organization, why Soka U. of America?) My main concern, though, is the history and priesthood sections, which are much too long and difficult to read. And a conscientious reader has to wade through those interminable sections before getting to "what does the SG believe and teach" - which is what I am guessing most searchers want to know. And, John Carter, you are right - Catflap has not singled out a specific item, but if you go back through the Talk Page, whenever an addition is made that is not critical but informative, or a bad reference is removed, or something added to mitigate some negative statements,there follows a comment from Catflap about "advocacy" or "advertising". I maintain (and so does Wikipedia) that there is such a thing as Negative Advocacy; and I (with no special powers of perception) perceive it here.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It might be a bit better indicator of how peace activities were important to SG if we had more real evidence of it in the article. The article seems to indicate that they favor "small group" activities, which is I suppose possibly more effective than some major NGOs, but it is also, at least to my eyes, possible that there isn't much that can be said in an encyclopedic source about such small group activities. I regret to say that the content of the section about the peace activities doesn't really show a lot of what would be called major activities of the kind that generally gets referenced in encyclopedic articles. I'm not sure if you've reviewed the archives of this page, but if you have you will see that there has been some rather obvious cause for advocacy concerns before. There are at least a few reference sources of a broadly encyclopedic type available in some form at Google books. Even the ones that are rather short by our standards might still be useful in getting together some basis for discussion of what should be included in our article. So, for instance, if an article there has only four real paragraphs one of which deals with a specific subtopic as we have them here, that is maybe a good indication that the subtopic in question is significant. We also, unfortunately, tend to be based on independent sources. I've seen a lot of discussion in the past here about certain works of a basically self-published nature here, which would include speeches and that sort of thing. Those tend to really not be the ideal sources for any group, including the Catholic Church, to which I belong, except for formal organizational positions and that sort of thing.

One thing that has been done for some topics in the past is to get together a subpage on the article talk page indicating sources. Maybe we could do something of the same sort here. JSTOR has a large number of articles that at least mention Soka Gakkai, and between it and ProQuest, and any reference sources we can come up with, they might be the best indicators of what to include here and in any potential spinout articles. John Carter (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

John Carter: I think original SG sources are being limited ot the "Beliefs and Practices" section - "formal organizational positions", as you call them. I may be wrong, but I think they've been eliminated from the History and other sections (if they were ever there in the first place). Also: by your last suggestion, do you mean compile a list of possible sources we can use, and have it as an ongoing section of this Talk Page? That seems like a good idea to me. That way, maybe, sources could be vetted before they become enshrined on the live page, huh? Finally, not sure I understand this part: "So, for instance, if an article there has only four real paragraphs one of which deals with a specific subtopic as we have them here, that is maybe a good indication that the subtopic in question is significant." You mean if a topic keeps coming up it should have its own sub-section? One problem now, as I see it, is that topics that do have their own sections are still peppered all over other sections too. Winnowing those redundancies out is a worthy goal, I think. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Tanuki Incident

"One controversial event that occurred was what went down in the Gakkai annals as the "raccoon dog festival incident" which took..."

I think this requires better language. What is meant by "went down in the Gakkai annals"? Whose annals are we talking about? SG's literature about itself? Historical accounts of the SG by scholars? What, after all, are annals? Very imprecise and sloppy language here. BrandenburgG (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

What is sloppy about such a wording? One editor might have used it to describe the events. Finding sources on SG’s past is a tedious task in any language except Japanese, as it is a subject nobody really cares about. The most non-partisan description of SG’s history is the one described by Montgomery. As soon as so called “studies” are supported by SG (i.e. Sold in its bookstores) out goes the neutrality. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

In fact, the section consists of 8 lines of writing, and there is no footnote until the end of the 4th line - half way through it. And this reference is to Montgomery, who does not ever call it "Raccoon Dog Festival", not make any reference to "Gakkai annals". I have run across no scholarship that talks of this incident being preserved in "Gakkai annals", and in fact the only reference to it in any Gakkai publication I've run across is a description of the event in Human Revolution - which does NOT refer to it as "Raccoon Dog Festival". The first part of this section reads like somebody's essay, and appears largely to be made up by the editor.--Daveler16 (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I found the source. It is in Brannen (1968). "This incident, which later became known as the Badger (tanuki) Incident in the annals of Soka Gakkai, gave the organization such a reputation for violence that a religious council of the Nichiren Sho Denomination was called." (p. 92).

It might have been the talk of the town ("in the annals of Soka Gakkai") at that time but in 1968 the Nixon-Humphrey race was the talk of the town here. Neither is the talk of the town these days.

BrandenburgG (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

At any rate it's not referenced on the page. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless someone raises an objection and can find a source beyond 1968 I would like to remove the phrase "in the annals of the Soka Gakkai" for the reasons cited above.

BrandenburgG (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the "annals" simply refers to the "history", as per this definition, of the Soka Gakkai.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit: But isn't using it the way you suggest Original Research? The entry states "One controversial event that occurred was what went down in the Gakkai annals as the "raccoon dog festival incident"..." and there is no evidence that any SG history or publication refers to such a thing - and the phrase implies that it's the SG that calls it "the raccoon dog festival incident", when it quite obviously does not. (This is probably he end of my comments on this particyular topic for now - other fish to fry :-) --Daveler16 (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You could state, "One controversial event that occurred is known as the "raccoon dog festival incident", or something to that effect, if the phrase bothers you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

thank you, will do.

BrandenburgG (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Photo of the Gohonzon

     I was looking through the Soka Gakkai wikipedia page and noticed that there is a photo of the gohonzon. Would it be possible to remove this photo as there aren't supposed to be photos of it? Morella.almann (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This comes up a lot. There is a picture of a Gohonzon on the Wikipedia entry of every Nichiren sect I've see, Wikipedia is not bound by its subjects' sensitivities, and if the picture is removed it will be restored almost immediately.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It is because of WP:CENSOR, not about anyone’s sensitives. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Quote: "Wikipedia will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations."--Catflap08 (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Josei Toda Subsection

I want to raise some concerns about a prior editor's work in 1.2.1 (History.Toda.Reconstruction). This editor seriously bastardized the Brannen source and should be called on his/her work.

The editor in citation #35 cites Brannen (Brannen, Noah, September 1962, "The Teachings of Sōka Gakkai", Contemporary Religions in Japan 3: 248–249. Retrieved 10 December 2013). In fact there is nothing at all pertinent on page 248. So the first action I will take will be to cite only page 249, removing the reference to 248. Citing more pages does not mean there is more substance.

I am assuming the editor is referring on page 249 to Brannen's statement: "The average follower is not expected to go too deeply into a study of doctrine." Brannen then refers to the comment of ONE (emphasis on ONE) SG member who, upon seeing some of the books on Brannen's bookshelf exclaims, “How were you able to get hold of these books? I have already reached the second stage in my preparation to be a lecturer and still haven’t been given some of them.” Brannen then describes a Q&A session Josei Toda had at a meeting where he (in my interpretation here) emphasized the importance of understanding the teachings of Buddhism through practical experiences rather than intellectual understanding of concepts. OK, I feel there are some issues here with Brannen (for example, this one member's over-entitled expectation that books should have been given him/her and the scholar's over-application of the specific to the general) but that is not my concern right now.

My concern is with the prior editor's reduction of the above to: "The Gakkai's teachings at this point became more restrictive, and lower-ranking members were no longer allowed access to more difficult books.[35]" There is a major difference between "lower-ranking members were no longer allowed access to more difficult books" and "the average follower is not expected to go too deeply into a study of doctrine". Excuse me, but I am really irate about this! "More restrictive"? "No longer allowed"?

Let me add a note about sloppy language. Did the editor mean, as stated, "The Gakkai's teachings" become more restrictive or access to the Gakkai's teachings become more restrictive? What is meant by "at this point"--what year? what stage in the Gakkai's development? What is meant by "restrictive"?

To add to this is Brannen's own contention (1968): "Soka Gakkai is conducting the most amazing program of indoctrination that Japan has ever seen...." (p. 143). So we also have a serious case of misusing a scholar's larger point of view.

So I want to make edits to these couple of sentences in the article but I will wait to give other folk a moment to share their thoughts. BrandenburgG (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I actually edited that part out some time ago, and am surprised it was reverted. My argument then was that there is a gulf of immense size between "I haven’t been given some of them" and "members were no longer allowed access"; and that changing "I haven’t been given some of them" to ""members were no longer allowed access" is so clearly and obviously original research - to say nothing of blatant bias - that there reallyisn't a lot of room for argument about it. So yes - make the change. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That's disgraceful that someone 1) lied about the content of these sources 2) reverted the edits correcting this error. Lionpride82 (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality?

I do abstain from editing the article myself in any major way, but I do fear that it is losing track in terms of WP:NPOV,WP:OR and WP:SOAP.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Catflap, please give specifics. Shii (tock) 23:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)