Talk:Jimon Ogasawara

Problems with point of view

Could some others look at a this article? I don't think there is any question about the existence of this priest, although I wonder if the article does pass notability criteria (there is no JA wiki article, by the way). But I also worry about its tone and stance. It is almost unrelentingly critical until the last paragraph, and most of the sources are from Soka Gakkai related publications (particularly the Daisaku Ikeda books), the organization that has apparently long had a beef against Ogasawara. The user who started the article has not made many edits, but most are on Soka Gakkai related pages. There are writings like this on the net which argue that much of the content of the complaint against Ogasawara was made up by Soka Gakkai (that, of course, is not an RS, but it makes one think this is an article one has to be careful of). I do think there is reliable evidence that Ogasawara was not a wonderful person, especially because of his stance supporting the war (see [1]), but I just feel there is something that stinks about this article. Any thoughts or ideas about what to do with this? Does anyone have any expertise on this matter?Michitaro (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Michitaro, thank you for your interest in this article. I would like to respond to a few points now and a few more when I get a bit more time. I believe Ogasawara was a crucially important historical figure who merits his own article. I created this article because I feel his personal actions before and during the war to consolidate all Nichiren sects was an attack on religious freedom anywhere and at any time. His collaboration with military authorities is a vivid example of what happens when church and the military collude. I believe that readers interested in religious freedom may want to have articles such as this one at their disposal.

I also believe Ogasawara is crucially important as a symbol of the revisionism of the Japanese intellectual and politician after the war. Overnight, in many cases, firm apologists for militarism turned into fierce advocates for democracy. But did they really change at the core or was this just a surface transformation to survive in a new political climate? Ogasawara was an example of the second type: the people who tried to integrate themselves into the new order without any real transformation.

So yes, I believe this is a critically important standalone article and by all means it should meet the WP standard for biographies. As time passes I think there will continue to be interest in Ogasawara. That was a different day and age--Truman was still president when the Ogasawara incident occurred. Yet, as you can see from the Reddit postings you link, it still attracts so much attention and passion, as if it were yesterday.

I am a graduate student and am very pressed for time so I apologize for my late reply. I will add a few more thoughts in my next response, particularly about my sources. But in closing, I would like to ask you to remove the tag that I am too personally close to the topic to be neutral. This is absolutely not true in my case. My family does have some SG affiliation but what family in Japan does not? My life perspective, like that of many Japanese, draws on a very wide variety of spiritual, religious, folk, and secular traditions. I am 100% neutral.Lmkei22 (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Michitaro and @Lmkei22: I am a pretty regular editor on a few SG-related articles so I think Michitaro's call for more opinions is a very good idea.

I believe we have to take @Lmkei22's word that he/she is not too close to the source to warrant the tag.

I personally got a lot from reading the article. I think other editors will take a look at Michitaro's points and I am sure the article will improve with time. I think we should give it a chance.

BrandenburgG (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)