| Revision as of 19:21, 30 April 2015 editCatflap08 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,144 edits →Tanuki Incident← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:59, 30 April 2015 edit undoDaveler16 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,304 edits →Tanuki IncidentNext edit → | ||
| Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
| ] (]) 14:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC) | ] (]) 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. --] (]) 19:21, 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. --] (]) 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.--] (]) 19:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:59, 30 April 2015
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Soka Gakkai article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 40 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Soka Gakkai article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 40 days |
 Archives |
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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)
- 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)
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)
Ramseyer p. 160
"From the start the Soka Gakkai was more interested in religion providing "personal gain" for adherents." This is in the first paragraph of B&P - in fact, it's about a third of the first paragraph. The reference is "Ramseye, SG Militant Religion on the March, p. 160", with a quote in the footnote.
The sentiment "From the start the Soka Gakkai was more interested in religion providing "personal gain" for adherents" is not nearly what Ramseyer is expressing on p. 160 where his arguments are nuanced, subtle, complicated. Basically he's questioning whether a religion without absolutes is really a religion.
Ramseyer says: 1) the aim of Makiguchi's philosophy is to "bring the things which one desires, specifically the happy life, which is the aim of all human life, is the justification for that religion". 2)"Makiguchi is not so much concerned with outlining in objective fashion the nature of value, as he is concerned with showing man the road to true salvation and happiness." 3) This "is true to his Buddhist heritage". 4)"the salvation of man becomes the most important value in this universe; and this salvation is made the only true aim of religion." 5) then(the quote in the footnote) "for Makiguchi, the object of worship is not the Lord, the Ruler, to whom absolute loyalty is given, but rather a tool to be used for personal gain." But 6)"Personal advantage as defined by Makiguchi, however, is not a narrow self-interest, but rather something that might be called enlightened self-interest. It is never in conflict with the public good."
I have no objection to saying "the SG has always been interested in religion providing personal gain", but if we leave it just at that, it kind of mischaracterizes what Ramseyer is saying and perhaps betrays a POV on the part of the editor who extracted that bit and only that bit. I think either we can add Point 6 above; or, we just drop the sentence because these issues are all covered elsewhere.
(And, btw, goes on to p. 161 betraying an utter lack of understanding the concept of dependent origin. And this whole section seems to be about how Christianity is better - but a lot of what he seems to consider weakness (e.g., "there is no discontinuity between the object of worship and the worshipper") would be a strength to most Buddhists, and certainly to SG members.) --Daveler16 (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Removed a small paragraph from the "Chanting Nam...." sub section. It wasn't all that informative or necessary.--Daveler16 (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Therte seemed to be no objections, so I msade a change - included more of what Ramseyer wrote rather than deleting.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The Gohonzon just a tool? Not possessing the Three Virtues? My my, how SGI has deviated from the teachings of the Master Nichiren. 2602:306:CD27:E499:B0D2:DA36:DF1E:9008 (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Mark Rogow 3/7/2015
JTB thing
I'd like to add the JTB scandal in here - where Soka Gakkai asked JTB (of whom they are a major customer) to ask its employees to sign a list they would support Komeito in the previous election. Note that Soka Gakkai are careful to note it wasn't the party but only the religious organization that asked for this. This was broadly covered and heavily criticized in Japanese mainstream media. But where should it go? It seems like there's currently no section for anything non-historic. It's confusing with one headline reading "Ikeda (1960-)" and the next headline being "1969" - why not keep with the "Makiguchi, Toda Ikeda" headlines and make 1969 thing a sub-headline under Ikeda? As it's now, where do I put something that happened in 2014? 126.59.94.184 (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- For those who don't know what I'm talking about (just posting the tiniest sliver of all the coverage this has got in Japan): , — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.59.94.184 (talk) 01:32, 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: ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Buddhism articles
- Top-importance Buddhism articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- C-Class New religious movements articles
- Top-importance New religious movements articles
- New religious movements articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class sociology articles
- Low-importance sociology articles
- C-Class social movements task force articles
- Social movements task force articles
- B-Class Japan-related articles
- High-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics