Talk:Soka Gakkai/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

Violating Wikipedia Guidelines

To avoid future lengthy disputes, engaging many Wikipedia administrative editors - I am pointing out to current editors violations of Wikipedia policy and will leave the time for them to consider corrections to their editing.

For example, I did not find in any guideline that the way of “editing” can be done by deleting a whole text, (such as section of Perception and Criticism, or others) - and then retaining the title of deleted section - but with a tag implying that ‘the - empty now - Section is open for editing’!

I wonder whether the same guidelines regarding defaming a living person would apply to defaming an organization of ordinary people. The article became an Advertisement serving anti-SGI lobby, having political and religious interests, written to highlight the agenda of political and religious interest in defaming SGI. (Of course, editors’ “Consensus” cannot be applied to an agreement to violate basic Wikipedia rules). Defining SGI by POVs in highly politicised-aggressive terms such as fascist etc...is defaming millions of families who are not fascists.

Another example is the Noriega hint. Ikeda met Noriega as a president of his country, and what happened with him later is not SGI responsibility. Any wise person would understand this. And similar meeetings occurred with many other world figures, for example Nelson Mandela, who read SGI publications while in prison and requested to meet SGI president when visiting Japan. SGI connection with world figures (many Noble Prize winners) is a fact which will be stated. The length of the article will get richer and of course longer, as the article must offer reader a wide spectrum of perspectives and facts - with no bias. There are of course many other issues in this messy and amaturish article, and all will be dealt with one by one. As I may not have the time to frequently monitor this page for a certain time, I wish all editors a fresh start and a meaningful New Year.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy new year to you too, Safwan. I agree that it might be a little lopsided to give a whole subsection to the Noriega connection but not anything on Ikeda's relationships with less controversial politicians and activists. On the other hand, the Noriega connection is interesting precisely because it's controversial. What would a section on "famous and mostly non-controversial friends of Ikeda" and their back-patting really bring to the article? If they should be mentioned somewhere, which I'm not necessarily against, where should it be? And how? To what purpose? What do you think?
As for your other concerns, what can I say? Despite your allegations to the contrary, I believe the article has been drastically improved since before December, and I know I'm not the only one who thinks so. If the future edits you are planning on turn out to be a return to your rather creative use of sources (in conflict with WP:RS and WP:NOR) in order to glorify an organization in which you yourself are a member, you will most likely find yourself reverted. I'm open to discuss any issue you have with the article, but you seem more interested in constantly declaring you will improve the article than actually discussing precisely how to do so, together. Kiruning (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


Kiruning, you should understand that this article is about SGI. It is not about Ikeda's meetings with world figures. Ikeda met with Mandela, Margret Thatcher, Noriega, Gorbachev, Linus Pauling, Wangari Maathai, Rajiv Gandhi, etc..a loooooong list of many, some Noble Prize winners, which should be also mentioned in an unbiased article. There should not be fear from the truth. What some think about Alexei Kosigen (Soviet Union), Noriega, or Chu En Lai (China) or others - has nothing to do with SGI. Ikeda was severely criticized by Shoshu for meeting controversial non-religious people, but this is their personal view. Meeting with world figures belongs to Ikeda's page, but I don't mind it here, provided all other meetings are included.
I do not have time now to go into the article’s details, but, for example: about Forbes estimate of financial power of SGI: these money were generated by Ikeda’s hundreds of publications, tens of millions of books sold, flourishing daily newspaper and millions of members contribution to cultural centres-buildings, schools, universities and actions for peace – as SGI is a financial contributer to the UN Refugees Agency and other educational expenses. This must be also added. The horizon is open and time is unlimited to add this relevant information about the financial and costs of buildings erected by SGI.
Maybe you are not aware, Kiruning, that it is in the political interest of certain Japanese parties to defame their rival, the Komeito and SG Japan. It is a matter of votes. Also, the Shoshu has interest in defaming SGI which deprived them of millions of membership. Any reasonable person would understand these forces. The current article serves these political and religiously motivated hatred in Japan against the SG, using Wikipedia as a forum for their advertisement. POV calling SGI a fascist organization will be also balanced by other world thinkers support of SGI - considering it as working for peace and an organization for Buddhist Humanism (Historians, Peace activists, M.L.King’s and Gandhi institutions and others). All these thinkers statements will be added to counter the biased political and religious defaming POV. This will make the article – of course - many times longer. You have to accept the truth of SGI involvement in education, music performances, cultural exchange, activities against violence, - these are impartial F A C T S and perhaps one day you’d join a meeting and observe ordinary people gathering in harmony and peace. I wholeheartedly wish you harmony in life and peace.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
"these money were generated by ... members contribution to ... actions for peace" Is this a "fact" that you want to add to the article? How do you become a wealthy religious sect by making your members contribute to "actions for peace"? I can imagine a few ways. I'd like to get in on that racket
"it is in the political interest of certain Japanese parties to defame their rival, the Komeito" Hold on, I thought the Komeito severed all ties from Soka Gakkai in 1970. Isn't this unrelated? Shii (tock) 04:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Safwan: "It is not about Ikeda's meetings with world figures. Ikeda met with Mandela, Margret Thatcher, Noriega, Gorbachev, Linus Pauling, Wangari Maathai, Rajiv Gandhi, etc..a loooooong list of many, some Noble Prize winners, which should be also mentioned in an unbiased article." (my emphasis) - which is it? Please make up your mind. The whole Noriega episode is also not merely a "meeting". Soka Gakkai named a garden after a military dictator convicted of murder, drug trafficking and money laundering, and Ikeda allegedly provided him with money in highly suspicious circumstances, just before his downfall. This is relevant to the article on a whole other level than "Ikeda met with Nelson Mandela. Nelson Mandela is famous."
The fact that there might be a "political interest ... to defame ... SG Japan" is irrelevant unless you can actually prove that any specific source is biased. The only source used in the article that I think is highly questionable is Yano, which I've also expressed in edit summaries (and I've marked any reference to him with a "better reference needed"-tag").Kiruning (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Safwan are you aware that you are are on the best way to discredit yourself as an editor in wikipedia completely?? Numerous warnings have already been sent out and now you attack another editor personally. Your behaviour tends to discredit the credibility of an organisation that you yourself seemed to have decided to represent in Wikipedia. Each and every edit of yours has made matters worse rather than better. Please be reminded that each and every edit and comment of yours are archived in Wikipedia.--Catflap08 (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Catflap: First, Happy New Year to you. I will comment on your mistaken view you wrote above: “now you attack another editor personally” . You claim that I attacked a person on this page, but you failed to reveal who was that person (whom you imagine I personally attacked). If that person was weak enough not to respond to me (on your claim), and instead contacted you to ask you to 'take his case against me' and threaten me on his behalf, then this is not a mature Wikipedia environment, don’t you think so? If you imagine that Kiruning was the person involved – then the archive (just few paragraphs above!)shows that both of us exchanged good faith season wishes, and I even invited him to a meeting with an openhearted attitude. We do not have to agree on religious or political views, of course, but broadminded, humanistic and mature attitude enables to share an atmosphere of openness. Creating tension in Wikipedia is useless, especially that the subject of this article is impersonal, so why bother using heated words and nonsensical personal accusations. I also have a secure copy of these archives – and which support what I said.
Shii: It is important for the Law to know about the finance of any organisation. If there are any irregularities then the issue should be referred to the Law, in whatever country of activity. In Australia, the financial ins and outs of SGI is monitored and certified by an independent auditor and submitted to the government - to verify complience with the local Law, and this perhaps is the case in other countries. If you have suspicions regarding financial issues about SGI (or any other institution) and you do not make these suspicions examined by the Legal Authorities, wherever you are, then you are to be legally blamed as covering up irregularities or spreading rumours. Wikipedia is not to spread rumours. Go to court if you accuse of anything - otherwise making controversy and rumours implies that the Legal System is weak and incapable to examine what you imagine as irregular. I have been diagnosed with aggressive cancer 3 years ago, and only my practice in SGI to win over pain and depression could lead me to complete recovery and high lifeforce, and although I am not wealthy, I will donate whatever I can comfortably - to help in maintaining the Culture Centre and publications I benefited from. Many members who are also experiencing hardships appreciate the humanistic atmosphere and warm support they have. Examples of this run in the millions of people and their families. Some members do not donate at all, and that’s also fine. In the future, the article will include the fact that SGI donates to the UN Refugees Agency and other Education related institutions. Thank you for the exchange.
Kiruning: I’ll keep it short. Any intelligent observer understands that World figures in art, music, culture, politics, university professors, peace researchers, activists … etc… are well aware of SGI and Ikeda when they meet and publish books on which they gladly put their names and their respected institutions. Hundreds of such events occurred, and their occurrence is RS published. Ikeda Noriega and also Castro meetings did not prevent hundreds of highly respected people on the world stage from supporting Ikeda. As for the Komeito: please accept that SGI members have the right to vote. I don't think you'd disagree? If the constitution and the courts do not question this matter, then what is the benefit of losing time on an already established matter? OK, now I have to go back to my lengthy study and assignments, thank you.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Safwan your approach lacks objectivity. The history of the article shows that if you run out of arguments you even discredited sources and reference – so much for defamation.Interesting description of SGI … shame it is a blog, but matches my experiences and observations. http://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1rp7yf/ikedas_cult_of_personality_synonymous_to_idol/ --Catflap08 (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Referring to the title of this section: Violating Wikipedia Guidelines: here is a case of how the article is hostage to 'right wing' Japanese politics:
"I would add the the Komeito's support for the State Secrets Act recently rammed through the Diet by the LDP-Komeito coalition has been widely reported. Since many people have characterized that as "right-wing", there is another source that demonstrates such a proclivity. The only thing that has kept them from being more widely characterized as right-wing is probably the opposition to revising the Constitution and Article 9, but that may soon be revisited"
Members of SG Japan has a constitutional right to vote, any reasonable person agrees and SGInternational has nothing to do with politics. SGI activities in peace dialogue, art, music, dance group exchange, jazz performances, cultural performances, students exchange etc...will be added to the article, together with support from world figures. This will show the real picture of honest and sincere people working to overcome own and society's sufferings and will show the contrast with those concerned about their political seats or agendas.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The case is being built against the extreme bias and defamation in the current articles, using Wikipedia for political and religious agendas.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

As soon as you learn what they are, please tell us. Shii (tock) 03:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe you need to be informed of anything.
The article - at the moment - is a clear expression of bias. It is an advertisement - in particular for anti-Komeito political parties, and please read for yourself the comments above (about the Japanese political atmosphere). But SGI and - hence this article - has nothing to do with that political analysis, POV-s and nonsense. There is a possibility of raising a fromal challenge in the future - this will engage lot of resources and creates lot of arguments. It would be beneficial, however, to use this way in order to raise awareness of this (currently messy) article.
But there is also another - probably better - solution: leaving the biased text as it is - while adding to it the "On The Other Hand..." principle, a principle required in all intelligent editing. It is within Wikipedia guidelines to bring neutral, reliable and balanced information about SGI, its activities in culture, peace, education, humanism and support of world acknowledged figures from various universities and peace-based institutions, including the United Nations, and so on. I believe this is a better solution, maintained by RS and within Wikipedia guidelines.
This method of responding to the hatred-based fanaticism against SGI - I believe is more appropriate, balanced and most reasonable as it offers the reader a wide scope of reliable information. It is also beneficial for a wise reader to understand that attacks against SGI carried half a centaury ago ( in the 70-s as the Introduction famous fascism says) were mostly due to association with the rigid Shoshu, and all the nonsense about rigidity in SGI has evaporated since the Independence from Priesthood. At the moment I have a huge project to finish, lot of engagements and studies... I will revisit the page from now and then or occasionally. I wish you Shii Catflap and Kiruning and others all the very best - and thank you for offering a great opportunity to enhance the contrast between biased views and the truth, which all reasonable people would respect - accepting facts as facts. We will communicate later and I am sure you have the ability to work in a team, joined by others. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
We don't write articles in a point-counterpoint style. Such a style violates WP:NPOV by giving the appearance of refuting every criticism, implicitly and erroneously suggesting that the counterpoints align with Wikipedia's editorial judgment.
"Balance" or "equal coverage" is not a requirement in an encyclopedia. Articles should reflect the cross-section of reliable, independent, secondary (not primary) sources available. Nevertheless, editors of this article should take care to ensure that negative opinions are properly attributed to those who espouse them, and not expressed in Wikipedia's narrative voice. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course, Amatulic, as you mentioned: not every criticism has to be answered back. For ex., SG involvement in politics or practicing without priesthood - are frequently leveled criticism which should be mentioned as they are.
BUT: calling SGI a fascist and militarist etc… organization by whatever "source" - is neither a criticism nor a controversy. It is inclusion of intentional falsehood and disrespect to Wikipedia itself, operating in Western societies. The mentioned accusations are not criticism, they are blatant aggressive lies motivated by religious hatred and political voting aims – and as such this should be addressed. This section is too long to discuss this, so will start a new one.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Controversial articles

I wonder if it might be of use to list this article here: Wikipedia:Controversial articles ; Wikipedia:List of controversial issues. It would be useful to get even more editors involved who are:

  • Familiar with articles on faiths, beliefs and religion
  • Not, and never been, active members of SGI.

--Catflap08 (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I simply added the article now. As stated earlier apart from minor edits I remain to be an observer concerning this article. As a former member I guess its better to focus on the talk page.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Catflap, you’d agree that is important to use words in their proper meaning. Let’s look at what the word 'Controversy' means: “Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view”. How this would apply to SGI? There is no public dispute or debate about SGI. To stick an inapplicable word to SGI may originate from misunderstanding the word 'controversy'. And who would benefit from 'controversy theory' about SG? Only the political parties vying for votes in Japan, who would invent such inflammatory words.
The dispute about the right of SG members to vote to Komeito, IS the only controversy regarding – not SGI – but SG in Japan.
Wikipedia mentions an example of controversy : “anthropogenic climate change that is prevalent in the United States". Ok, there was - and still is - a prolonged debate about that subject, cited as a clear and precise example of controversy (in America). Similarly: precision is required in statements regarding SG as SG in Japan. Precision, clarity and neutrality are not difficult to exercise, and they are what Wikipedia requires in editing. The proper section to deal with Controversies is the General Perception (and which will be revived after it was bluntly deleted without giving reasons) - as it will also contain criticism of Buddhist temples, Japanese political parties, and so forth.--Catflap08 (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Naming of SGI as fascist militant and so forth – occurred half a century ago when SG was under Shoshu domination. Such words are judgmental POV and are not covered by the word ‘controversy'. Inflammatory wording serve only political and religious hatred. However such calling of SGI is beneficial for SGI and will still remain in the article but will be challenged by RS which regard SGI as a humanistic society working for peace, culture and education.
Perception of rigidity in SG in Japan was the result of association with the rigid Shoshu priesthood, almost quarter a century ago, and quotations from independent scholars on this subject will be provided in a future article based on Wikipedia guidelines unlike the current editing.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I thought the Gakkai respected the leadership of Tsunesaburō Makiguchi and Josei Toda. But you throw them under the bus because you don't like anything that happened before 1991. Shii (tock) 06:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Safwan, the history of this article alone is a testimony why SGI is controversial. It is interesting that SGIists do underline the Internationality of SGI but when it comes to its involvement in politics its all of a sudden a Japanese issue – which I doubt especially in respect to the US. SGI is controversial due to its lack of financial transparency – i.e. use of donations. SGI is controversial due to its involvement in business – also not transparent and unaccounted for. Any SGI organisation outside of Japan is anything else but independent form its mother organisation. SGI is controversial due to the cult of personality concerning Mr. Ikeda. SGI is controversial because even though it likes to compare itself to Protestantism its leaders/representatives do not undergo any election process known to the public – this is in stark contrast to protestant congregations, excluding evangelical movements to which SGI has far more similarities. This may be due to the fact that 90 % of its members are not members in a legal sense anyway. So when speaking of precision it is incorrect to speak of members in the article full stop as adherents would be the correct description. It would be more than correct to challenge the conclusion that SGI has gained spiritual independence since the spilt form Nichiren Shoshu as this can only be said to be true for SGI’s leadership. In effect though the priesthood has simply been replaced with the SGI leadership. SGI is controversial because even though is eager to mention doctorates of all sorts it is more than a surprise to see that SGI is not known to have spoken out on human rights violations especially in China and Russia. It beats me why SGI officially conducts same sex wedding ceremonies in the US and Europe while at the same time Bharat Soka Gakkai is not known to have spoken out against discrimination of homosexuals in India on an official level. This is maybe the only issue where SGI is not controversial – it does not engage in controversial issues such as human, religious or political right unless SGI is affected. Furthermore it is incorrect to say that the article labels SGI as fascist. The article quotes and states critics which a balanced and neutral article should do – an article does not discuss, debate or takes sides. What it surely should not do is to describe a fluffy SGI-land. Keeping all this in mind (and much more could be said) SGI is just as controversial as Scientology, Eckankar, Evangelical movements, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and so forth. Your edits on the article have been anything but neutral – especially when labelling critics or alternative views as defamation you seem to imply that you are the one who is to decide which views are to be heard and which not – this is maybe a notion of free speech as practised in the organisation you are a member/adherent of. Wikipedia is not censored and it surely is not extended SGI-propaganda. So listing this article as controversial will get more editors on board who are simply neutral on the matter. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Shii, my friend: please understand that there are Causes and Effects. SGI evolved greatly, it did not depart from the essential spirit of Makiguchi and Toda at all - but it evolved to new horizons where the domination of Shoshu got abolished. Prior to 1991 SG was not free. It was pressured, bullied and forced to follow priesthood's feudalistic rigid ways. Now that is gone forever. And thank you for alerting me to the fact that the article does not give fair information about prior to 1991 - so the gaps in this messy article will be filled later (such as Toda's declaration of Abolishing Nukes, publishing all scriptures which were in possession only to priests and so on).SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Catflap: I hope you arrive to a peaceful mind. Religious comparisons you cited are very helpful for Shoshu and other trends. Don't you believe that focus on religious divisions is comparable to demeaning the value of humanity in others? - Religious divisions and labeling treat humanity of others as inferior (to the religion they believe in) and this promotes hatred in society. People have the legal right for belief as far as they are not breaching the law, so what is the problem. I have respect for your humanity, whatever your beliefs are. And I think your personal(or borrowed) views on how SGI "should" conduct its activities in India, China, etc... is utterly meaningless, as no one will take your demands to lead SGI in reality.
The article hasn't finished yet. It is not controversial, it is simply messy, containing falsehood and gaps.

Now, whatever the article develops, the final word is for the truth and reason, no doubt about that.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see following the principle that when you do not like the message - kill the messenger--Catflap08 (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

“It was pressured, bullied and forced to follow priesthood's feudalistic rigid ways. “ Makes one wonder why SGI waited to be excommunicated in the first place (having said that excommunication is not really the right term unless the Nichiren Shoshu practised the Holy communion; expelled might be the better term). Seems a trick of fate that SGI was in strong support of Nikken when he succeeded Nittatsu. The most neutral description I ever came across can be found here (http://www.geocities.ws/chris_holte/Buddhism/IssuesInBuddhism/nikken.html). A view that can do without the usual muckraking and less drama.--Catflap08 (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Refusing Diversity

Catflap; I doubt that you really know what you are talking about. Please focus on the subject. Here: you lack concrete understanding about the difference between Controversy, Criticism and Accusations. Using words without properly evaluating their meaning comes from lack of clarity.

You have published a looooong list, regarding SGI, believing of course that these accusations can be called “controversies”. Ok, now use your right to accuse, and listen to the answer you yourself triggered by your accusations. You don't agree?

Your list of accusations pertain to various important subjects in which the Law of the country is interested in. If you really beleive that SGI is of a threat to society, and that SGI is associated with unlawful or illegal actions, teachings, trends etc... then, Catflap and others: you missed the address; it is not Wikipedia to deal with your Accusations, you should go to Court: you are obliged to go to the Court by the Law and not hide your evidence. If no item from your lengthy list (of imagination against SGI) - is illegal, then your accusations are legally: invalid. You must accept this logic. What other option you have?

I do not know what priorities you acknowledge in your values: is it the “Law” or your “Personal Theories”. The “Law” of the country we live in - is part of the “Law of Life” , which we in SGI religiously respect. If you have respect to the Law of your country, then the Law must b your priority.

Let me have the right of expression, can I? Your problem is not with SGI, your problem is with Refusing Diversity in others. You are refusing the right of others (here SGI) to have their beliefs. But: not all people have to be, for example: Catholics, Catflap - nor Jews, Hindu,Muslims. Also not all Buddhist have to be Zen, Tibetan, SGI, or others. If you accept human rights and diversity then you accept that people can practice their diversity without threatening each other. (If there is a real threat: you should report it honestly to the Law). Harmonious coexistence of diverse organisations or beliefs - is possible.

You displayed in your list a judgmental categorisation of several minor sects or religions - squeezing them into an image of "dangerous". This is sterotypes baking. You are using the elemnt of fear : highlighting imaginary threat to society. What you are doing is spreading discomfort between human beings in society they can live pecaeflly in. Threre is a lot of religious hatred in this article. Because you started listing other religions you don't approve of, now let me ask you : does your religion teach you this behaviour to hate and accuse peaceful dignified people striving hard to live in harmony and peace. Is it your beliefs that are unhappy with SGI so you spend all your efforts on hate-sowing? Please don't answer me, just meditate on this perspective. I know you for about 2 years and I can understand something in your posts.

SGI teaches that we have to accept diversity and respect all religions and that this is possible. SGI Charter mentions this - and this must be included in the article.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Safwan, first of all you are in no position to judge me, not my person and not my knowledge. So criticism that is not answered is an accusation then? That’s one of the weirdest theories I heard in a long time, but does serve as an answer why SGI is not known to face criticism. You made a disservice to yourself here concerning your motivations, since your own edit history shows that you are unable to answer critical questions. But rest assured even SGI does not answer the question why its “members” are no legal members and why it instead decides to use organisational structures that hinder any financial transparency. And so far no member was able to explain the decision making process within SGI, who decides who is to become a so called leader may it be locally, nationally and internationally. Which council decides in which direction SGI moves and why there is not even a minimal democratic input by its so called members – ah sorry they are not members anyway. SGI and religious tolerance? I won't even go there – I was a member for more than twenty years and SGI is anything but tolerant on other faiths. The say one thing in public and another behind closed doors. On the other hand I heard quite a few members that thought Scientology was treated “unfair” - interesting. Hate? I have no hate except against lies, arrogance, self-adulation and misinformation.--Catflap08 (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

For the attention of all editors. Further up in the discussion I mentioned a web page on the SGI/NST issue. Even though it is a personal homepage and hence may not qualify as a resource on an article it does contain useful links. Its one of the most useful pages I came across in the internet written by someone familiar with SGI and Nichiren Shohsu that describes the history of this Buddhist branch without to much personal and emotional (propagandistic) baggage. The insights are quite detailed and it does take some time to read it all: http://www.geocities.ws/chris_holte/. --Catflap08 (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Catflap, Again, SGI welcomes criticism. Let's be concrete: there r 2 major area of criticism, one about politics (the right of members to vote), and doctrinal criticism - voiced by the Buddhist community - being SGI doctrine that enlightenment can be achieved without priesthood. These r controversies because they occypy public debate of different views. But they are not accusations of conduct against the LAW of society. You should acknowledge the truth that the Section on Criticism was initiated by me, and it will be returned to the article. Words have concrete meaning: "Controversy" or "Criticism" are different from baseless judgements or aggressive accusations based on lies. However, even these accusations, they will be answered (by quaotaions from world leaders who support SGI).
As for your questions about financial issues, what is your problem, can you specify what you want? If you are implying that there is something you want to know, then what is it? You mentioned donations: people donate to their organisation as people donate to the church or any charity. You want to know more? Ok, donations go into maintenance of culture centres, to the UN department for Refugees, for education, buliding schools, universities, for cultural activities, music performances, publishing of books…SGI abides by the LAW of the country regarding its registration, administration, finance. Financial transparency of SGi is available to the governments of the relared countries - not to you personally, Catflap. Your question about money-related issues is welcome and will be added to the article based on your demands here. If you do not accept it, then go to Court. I believe that your implications of SGI financial misconduct is a violation to Wikipedia, and this will be answered as you asked for.
As for your criticism that SGI administration and group leadership, membership etc...should be different, again, the Law of the country is more important than your views on how the SGI should be organised. Please create your own organisation and run it as you wish. If the Law agrees on SGI activities, then accusations of improper conduct are but gossips and ruoumers - not encouraged in Wikipedia's policy.
And finally Catflap, when you say that: " I was a member for more than twenty years and SGI is anything but tolerant on other faiths." - I would ask you to please wake up to 2014. Your views on SGI (you claim you were part of 20 years ago) - are outdated. SGI was under Priesthood authority, rigidity, exclusiveness, and constant demands and threats (of not issueing the Gohonzon..etc). Any disagreement with the priesthood resulted in oppression and forcing leadership to resign. Part of SGI religious toleranceon was meeting with non-religious scholars in Moscow in the 70-s which enraged the Priesthood. Inter-Faith dialogue followed by many events recorded on You-Tupe and books of published dialogues with scholars and ordinary people diverse beliefs - Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and others. SGI has a Charter and its basic religion is Hunaity based. At this moment, Catflap, I am putting your humanity :first - as I am respectfully answering your doubts and worries (through most of them r but emotional and baseless). In the coming article you'll see a title with Beethoven's 9th symphony -sang by SGI members and criticised by the Priesthood for praising God (a sentence within the sang lyrics) - and that event showing religious intolerance and rejection of others - you were talking about, was one of the reasons mentioned by the Priesthood - leading to the split. You asked for these issues to be answered and they will be. But arn't you the one who has no religious tolerance? Please reflect on your attitude. Listing several religions as 'dangerous' and putting all in a bag for classification, wht is this called? I asked you whether your religion encourages dividing people and spreading hatred and accusations. You too need religious tolerance.
Most of the emotions, accusations, hatred-based allegations, rumours …etc… come from one thing: Refusing Diversity in human beliefs. A dualistic perspective - prevelant in Western societies - is based on "We- vs - Them". The background of attacking SGI is religious intolerance and refusing the right of individual to choose another religion. Only fanatics think that Coexistence is not possible, so this 'Cold War' of propaganda and inventing accusations, creating distrust in society…. Ikeda said: ":Instead of saying 'we have a conflict' - we can say 'we share a problem' - together, inviting both sides to dilaogue. Putting "Humanity first" - does not mean we have to be identical - it is to be wiser and mature enough to acknowledge the right of others (for ex. to openly answer criticism and accusations). I suggest to have a list of all the Q you raised to be in the Section of Criticism. I will list all your questions and answer them: you asked for this. And you don't have to agree about the answer, it is your choice, but there must be an answer to Controversies, Criticism and Accusations.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Reading helps the issue. I was not not a "member" 20 years ago, but FOR 20 years. So that Beethoven's 9th symphony myth still kicks around as the start of the conflict? Who the hell is listing religions as dangerous? Who speaks of rumours and allegations? Why should I list questions over and over again? You are a master of twisting issues. Editors have added referenced alternative views on SGI. You are in no position to label those who have different views on SGI as liars, spreading rumours or question their integrity. This goes for editors as well as the authors of references listed in the article. In the long run an article is not even the place to discuss or challenge views on a subject. It is obvious that SGI and some of its faithful have a different view on certain issues may they be historic or current. It is however also a fact that perceptions exist that will collide with SGI's self-perception. The world is not black or white. Authors and sources critical on SGI are not automatically in favour of Nichiren Shoshu. The questions I added were rhetoric in the sense they summed up some of the criticism SGI faces. You may have made it your mission to fight the “enemies of the law” (to say it in SGI lingo). Safwan, this is the real world not SGI-land. In the real world people who decide to look up SGI may also want to find out why SGI is controversially discussed and what the content of views critical of SGI is. For instance a while ago I added a reference to the article stating that an OFFICIAL German parliamentary commission on cults came to the conclusion that SGI is 'problematic' (http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/13/109/1310950.pdf Endbericht der Enquete-Kommission Sogenannte Sekten und Psychogruppen, page 105). I know for a fact that SGI was heard by the commission. You Safwan have challenged even that source … and by surprise it disappeared from the article. Controversies and Criticism stand in their own right, SGI may face and answer them in time but an article doesn't.--Catflap08 (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Please calm down, and seek peace of mind. You speak of criticism, controversies and accusations. These are welcome. All objections to SGI will be present in the article, and also the answers will be present. I'm not saying people who criticise are liars, they are judging according to their perception. But others have the right to speak about the same matters from a different perspective. Both perceptions and perspectives - both must and will be present in the article. This may take long time as the cleaning up will be in all sections. But time does not matter. And this is only the beginning, as all Nichiren Buddhism related Wikipedia pages were also potrayed under the pre-made negative editing implying that "Nichiren Buddhism is threat" (but of course, the SGI is a primary example). This is a case of inciting religious hatred and religious bias in these articles, and to balance that - these articles will be examined through neutral non-biased sources, as Wikipedia guidelines require.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Stop speaking as if the article is going to be extensively rewritten. You have already had your chance to do this. You are now in a minority of one with regards to how the article ought to look and you should be proposing the specific changes you want to make on this talk page to prevent a revert war. Shii (tock) 06:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia and Western Societies

Any reasonable person would agree that – essentially - an Encyclopedia is a “Source of Information”. But what is the value of the offered information? This depends on the policy practiced in selecting or suppressing data. A North Korean encyclopedic work about USA is also a “source of information”, and intelligent reader understands what value one expect from such encyclopedic work.

In Western democracies, it is simply uncivilised and unacceptable to listen only to one side in a case and suppress the right of the other side to respond to what is said. Wikipedia policy is based on this spirit of neutrality – which guarantees being independent (and not under pressure from political or religious forces).

There is a difference between criticism of an organisation - and sheer aggression based on false accusation (such as SGI a fascist quasi militarist etc...) these accusations convey an image of trends and actions which are against humanity and breaching the law of western societies. If you are accused - directly or indirectly - of breaching the law of society, then you have the right to respond. The sources which accused SGI of fascism - rejected by the law of civilised society – are only "primary sources" of defamation. These are sources which fabricated accusations by themselves.

An organization labeled as fascist and brainwashing cult in this Wikipedia article would not have been praised by world acknowledged figures, many Western politicians, several Noble Prize Winners, or by historians, university professors and art and culture researchers (who conducted and still conduct close dialogue and publish exchanged views on humanity's sufferings and hopes). The article is not degrading SGI, but insulting all the thousands of universities professors in their associations with fascist militarist cult.

This may be now a matter much bigger than the current article on SGI itself, as it pertains to Wikipedia’s policy: the right of accused side to respond to false accusations – this is a right respected in all democracies. A subject as essential as this requires detailed preparation for raising the matter to proper avenues in Wikipedia. There is no hurry in bringing this up, but it is inevitable - and I have good faith that aggression and falsehood will not win over reason. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"An organization labeled as fascist and brainwashing cult in this Wikipedia article would not have been praised..." Why not? Are criticism and praise mutually exclusive?
BTW, Wikipedia is not a court and there is no space to present personal views on an article. Shii (tock) 08:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Shii: Criticism is truly welcome. I am saying this wholeheartedly, and with a friendly attitude. Criticism triggers an answer. Answer (and expression) is a right in the civilised world. If you have the right to say something, you have to share this right with others. This means that you should accept that SGI has the right to answer criticism, in particular if the claims become deformed into accusations of anti-social behaviour of SGI.
it is exactly as you said, Wikipedia is not a court. Wikipedia is not about posting allegations about the breach to the law in society (of someone or whatever organisation). For this reason, your published allegations against SGI (of anti social behaviour as fascist, as posing an implicit threat to society teaching or (practicing brainwashing) accusation of being with militaristic values ... these allegations should be submitted to the Law, and not to Wikipedia.
These accusations have serious implications of SGI behaviour against the Law in democratic countries. I am not saying that you ‘should not’ say these accusations, please say more: you have the right even to lie, but you do not have the right to prevent others from their right to answer. Any intelligent person agrees. Criticism must be answered. If not it becomes accusations . Wikipedia is not a place for accusing others.
Wikipedia - in any of its wealthy articles, does not agree with using its domain to throw allegations or accuse others of issues which are from the domain of the Law. If you know of a terrorist threat and you do not report it to the Law, you are part of the crime. Similarly, if you have evidence of fascism - a threat to people, conveying also anti semitic inclination - go to the court and don’t use Wikipedia as your blackboard of “private accusations”. But you also have the right not to go to court and if you do not go the court then you have no other option but to listen and accept answers to what you started triggering against others.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
"In Western democracies, it is simply uncivilised and unacceptable to listen only to one side in a case and suppress the right of the other side to respond to what is said." --- Hear, Hear. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Safwan is not the only SGI member guilty of using fallacious reasoning [faulty logic]. Perhaps it is a consequence of his SGI training?

SS [talking about honorary SGI President Daisaku Ikeda]: 250+ honorary doctrates, etc. is not going to be given to someone who has an evil mind.

MR: Honorary degrees are often rubber stamped. For example, never has the City College of New York tabled any honorary degree. It is well known that benefactors are often awarded honorary degrees, people like your mentor who donate thousands of books to the various university libraries. It has been rumored that many of Ikeda’s degrees have been bought and sold for a lot more than books. Here is another example:

“The PM News of Sunday, 19 June 2011 also reported that President Goodluck Jonathan had approved N3 billion for the development of the University of Port Harcourt. The news was announced by Vice President Namadi Sambo who represented Jonathan at the 27th graduation ceremony of the university. The news came on the same day and in the same event in which Mrs Jonathan received the honorary doctorate degree awarded by the institution. Formally, Jonathan serves as the official visitor to the University of Port Harcourt.”

Some examples of evil men, monsters, tyrants, and dictators who have received honorary degrees: “The most morally grotesque academic elevation was perpetrated in Spain, in 2005, when the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid conferred a doctorate honoris causa on Santiago Carrillo, former leader of the Spanish Communist Party. As chief of police in Madrid in 1936, he had presided over Cheka death squads that murdered huge numbers of people (2,800 in one weekend) for the crime of being ‘bourgeois’. Benigno Aquino; Robert Mugabe; President Sukarno; Adolph Hitler, Robert M. Gates; Billy Graham; Sonia Ghandi, Jessie Jackson, Harry Laughlin eugenicist, the list goes on and on…

“The free distribution of honorary degrees, always a possible source of evil, is especially dangerous in the case of professional degrees, since the latter indicates the completion of an apprenticeship rather than the attainment of learning and confer priveleges of practical commercial value and subject to abuse.” — A.L. Benedict MD

Is it unthinkable that SGI is praised because of its power, influence, and money rather than its merit? Posted by Mark Rogow Feb.3, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC5C:C639:D483:38B9:4186:90EB (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Serious problems with this page

This page needs to be rewritten. Most of the information on this page contains malicious rumors against the Soka Gakkai, with very little basis. It rehashes stories in the Japanese tabloid press, while excluding important information about the Soka Gakkai's activities. Daisaku Ikeda and the SGI are considered the only groups in Japan, willing to take a stand against racism and anti-semitism! Does this page include this information (that can be cited)? No. There are credible books written about how many elements in Japanese society have conspired to malign Mr. Ikeda and the Soka Gakkai. "A Public Betrayed" for instance should be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatrunjaymall (talk • contribs) 01:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"A Public Betrayed" is an extremely fishy book, both of its authors have connections to SGI. Shii (tock) 19:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Shatrunjaymall: at this stage - the article on SGI is a violation to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality and balanced information. This will be corrected, whenever the time is available, by adding the facts about SGI contribution to society and promoting global-citizenship, non-violence, cultural exchange in education, music ...etc.
There was a mention of a book "Public Betrayed", but regardless of that book, the current article is in itself a "Public Betrayed", a betrayal to people about the truth, and here about the truth of SGI, for the benefit of political and religious fanaticism. It requires maturity to accept the truth rather than POVs. Honesty in presenting all perspectives about SGI (including quotations of some Noble Prize Winners) will make the future article meaningful and balanced.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

photo of gohonzon

There should be no depiction of gohonzon in any publication. This is verified in the gosho, as well as in the writings of all three presidents. 75.33.213.4 (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean the Gosho, On The Treasure Tower which states, "You must never transfer it to anyone but your son. You must never show it to others unless they have steadfast faith. This is the reason for my advent in this world."?

Leaving aside that this Gosho is not in the Daishonin's hand and it is a problematic text, what is it that you do at your SGI meetings? You show it to countless potential converts who lack steadfast faith. Incidently, who cares what the three presidents say, what does the Lotus Sutra and the writings of Nichiren Daishonin say? The Nichiren Shoshu created this myth because they didn't want anyone photographing their fake DaiGohonzon for comparison and analysis. Photographing and copying Gohonzon is invaluable in order to learn about the Lotus Sutra Buddhism of Nichiren and the development of Nichiren Daishonin's faith. -- Mark Rogow Feb 3, 2014

Part of the burden SGI is facing is demystifying Buddhism as taught by Shoshu, HokkeKempon, Nichiren Shu and so forth. One of these issues is about image making of the Gohonzon, the "DO and DON'T" imposed by feudalistic mind. Shoshu like all other priesthood based sects, has a tendency to have authority over people, and use the Gohonzon for this purpose. Nichiren wanted all people to know about the Gohonzon, and SGI is making this a reality.
There is a difference between making a photo of the Gohonzon to sell it or use it as an object (bypassing the Sangha (or Community of Believers) - and making the image of Gohonozn visible to all. Image of Gohonzon on Wikipedia is welcome and there is no SGI list of DO and DON'T - the commonsense will prevail. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

In Nichiren Shu it never was forbidden to take a photo of the Gohonzon. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Guidelines: Fishy References

Wikipedia’s classification of references and RS has been now enriched by a new category; “Fishy”.

I don’t know whether the editor involved (in endorsing this Fishy category of references) belongs to Wikipedia’s administration or not. This situation of arbitrary setting rules to prevent some references or quotes from appearance in the article - just because these references are associated with SGI - this needs addressing before the coming up change in the article.

The article is falsely implying that SGI has anti-social agenda, and this is an accusation which must be addressed. References from university professors, independent scholars will be added. But if such references are going to be considered as Fishy - according to this newly introduced category - then I will write to these professors that their integrity and due respect can be considered as under attack from some Wikipedia editors.

Past experience proved that the Dispute Resolution Board is not an efficient tool for examination of disputes. The DR Board allows independent Editors to take interest in the submitted subject of dispute, but as it happened before - for certain subjects those editors suddenly lose the ability to consider the subjects. And the submitted complaint (against bias) gets buried on the lengthy list of Disputes under a heap of other complaints.

Because of this fact, which I encountered in 2012 - I wrote to the three Wikipedia founders (Jimmy Wales, Richard Stallman, Rick Gates) - about sudden lack of editors in Wikipedia who would be interested in a given problem (it was about a Misleading Reference falsely implying that SGI lacks religious tolerance) - and I received from Richard Stallman a reply saying literally:

“Your experience parallels mine.  I tried to find an editor willing to lead a dispute resolution process about the question of what name Wikipedia should use for the system which was made by combining GNU and Linux, and was unable to. It seems to me that Wikipedia needs to reform this process because the process does not in practice function.  But I have little influence in Wikipedia”. Dr Richard Stallman, President, Free Software Foundation, 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA

While Wikipedia is making contact with Universities and Libraries around the world, (many of which shared with SGI some activity of cultural agreement (and some of their professors had dialogue with P.Ikeda published by reliable press) - then it is a conflict of interest to regard such publications supporting SGI peace and culture movement - as “Fishy”.

SGI has received over 330 acknowledgments from universities across the globe. The awards were delivered by a board of decision-making professors, at least 4 or 5 of them, which makes over 1000 professor world wide whose integrity and cultural weight is now being regarded as Fishy (when it comes to SGI article). There are literally thousands of local cities, including their mayors etc... which also do not know that to associate with SGI means contact with a fascist orgnanisation of anti social agenda.

Now please focus and read this: “ John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006) Born in Ontario, Canada, Emeritus Professor at Harvard University. Served as president of the American Economic Association in 1972, economic adviser to President John F. Kennedy, and U.S. ambassador to India. Author of “The Affluent Society”, “The Age of Uncertainty” and many other works. His dialogues with SGI President Ikeda were published as a book entitled: “Toward An Age of Humanism”.

The “Fishy” category of references should not apply to books published by world figures (there are over 60 books co-published by Universities and SGI) - because Universities world wide are also cooperative with Wikipedia’s projects (such as Wikipedia Library and Universities scholars). I think taking the opinion of such professors about labeling SGI - an organisation they cooperate with in the field of peace and culture - as being “fascist” in Wikipedia Library must bring into a debate about the necessity to keep Wikipedia articles free from tabloid quality aggressive accusation serving only political interests of Japanese hatred to SGI. A non-biased article must contain an answer to each and any accusation using Wikipedia as a tool for political interesrs opposing to SGI. The whole scholastic and mature world would agree that the article , any article, should be non-biased. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on this one " Wikipedia is making contact with Universities and Libraries around the world"?--Catflap08 (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Do not run away from the subject! Just face the subject at hand: it is about this “new category” of “Fishy References”- labelled here on this Talk page - to a reference which includes acknowledgement of the truth about various matters including about SGI. Was it a joke or an attempt to oppose citing the truth? This page is not about fishy jokes, or is it?
A Reliable Source is a reliable source. Judging a reference as Fishy because it does not smear or attack SGI – is a matter of bias and lack of reason - that all people should be aware of, whether on university level, libraries or just ordinary users of Wikipedia. Biased editor are discrediting Wikipedia by discrediting RS motivated by personal hatred and bias against SGI. If you have something against SGI then go to court rather than listing false accusations against SGI on the Wikipedia.
Why not make university professors, peace activists etc...know that their quality of mind is Fishy and their quotes in support of SGI - were deleted just because the quotes (which were on the previous article) do not support hatred and political interests of Japanese politics.
Because SGI propagates concepts like Bodhisattva as World Citizens, Humanism, World Peace and opposes fascism, militarism, wars, mass murders committed by Japanese nationalists, rape of thousands of women by soldiers, murders of Jews…etc… then all who are committed to Antisemitism, and to anti-fascism.. (and all who are based on Humanism as SGI does) – should know that defaming SGI is equal to sharing in anti-Semitisms, and closing the eyes on mass murders (of the brain-washing cult of Emperor Worship) which destroyed millions of families…etc… a cult which SKG opposed.
All those independent figures, artists, world leaders in science, culture, music, human rights...who shared with SGI thousands of activities for peace in society - must know about the bias, hatred and defamation SGI is facing on Wikipedia. Remember that the forces that were behind militaristic Japan did not disappear after the war. They appear now in these references that speak of SGI as militarist and fascist, while they are the militarists, fascists and brain-washing people. The truth will be known world wide and there should be no doubt about that.
I will give here you a summary of a RS that was labelled by an editor(an Administrative Editor?)- as Fishy: “A PUBLIC BETRAYED: Exposes deceptions, lies, and abuses of power in Japan that have led to such profound degrees of misunderstanding, confusion, and suffering that they have inspired the phrase "media atrocities." Key examples include: vilifying innocent victims of terrorist attacks; denying the Holocaust and supporting anti-Semitism; smearing a prominent Buddhist leader; whitewashing and denying one of history's worst war crimes, the Nanjing Massacre; and defaming Second World War Japanese military sex slaves or "comfort women." This book lays bare the mechanisms and motivations behind these sobering abuses”.
Every single misleading information about SGI will be answered, and time will tell.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Just carry on. --Catflap08 (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Ahhh now I know what you are aiming at. Anyone in opposition to SGI is a fascist, militarist, surprisingly even anti-Semitic and whatever “ist”. Is that right?--Catflap08 (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC) By the way I was not changing the subject I asked if you could elaborate on  " Wikipedia is making contact with Universities and Libraries around the world" a statement you made, not me. You could not elaborate so be it. Secondly “fishy” is not a guideline. I can not speak in Shii's defence but he refers to references that are NOT supported financed or what so ever by SGI – especially and even more so when it comes to controversial issues. The term “fishy” may rather be colloquial but it boils down to the fact this book would not stand up against guidelines on references – especially in this context. Its counter-propaganda. Also I asked you to elaborate which resulted in attacks on those having critical views on SGI an labelling them quasi fascist. You may not be aware that you are contradicting yourself even more , lashing out against those sources that do not share your view does not help matters either. Instead of contributing to describe the beliefs and practise of SGI you seem much more concerned with PR related matters. You are beginning to walk on thin ice here and editors have warned you about that ages ago. SGI is a controversial issue inside and outside of Japan – your contributions here are a prime example of that. I respect your faith in SGIism but at the same time it is a pity to witness how you are simply the epitome why SGI is being regarded with suspect in the first place.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


Here is the latest, information from the fascist Japanese who oppose SGI: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/21/world/asia/japan-anne-frank-diary-vandalized/
I am going to bring this subject to the article in regard to SGI activities of Peace, Nonviolence, and anti-Fascism including Anti-Semitism - and also Ikeda’s visit to Simon Wiesenthal Centre citing THIS reference:http://www.sgiquarterly.org/global2001Oct-1.html
This reference is SGI related and is a RS, which contains statements by Rabi Marvin Hier and P.Ikeda on the Holocaust. If such references are going to be opposed by editors, or regarded as Fishy, then I will inform Simon Weisenthal Centre about it. Any suggestion that Simon Weisenthal Centre or Rabi Marvin Hier are influenced or financed by SGI - or that their words are refused in Wikipedia - because they were mentioned by an SGI refrence - this will be reported to them and so will be mststed to all Universities and scholastic institutions.
SGI Quarterly is a RS, a publication which reports on cooperation with world figures on world problems such as the environment, poverty, education, peace. These activities - with world figures - are facts. They are traceable and verifiable facts puts in journalist reports accepted by the independent researchers who contributed to the Quarterly. These are not endorsement or advertisement to SGI. These are records of painstaking activities for peace, interfaith dialogue, and anti-racism. There is a difference between cheap and false advertisement of Japanese anti-SGI tabloids – and citing true facts of contributions, speeches (by independent and nonSGI scholars) and whose statements are published in SGI publications.
It is of course true that not all who oppose SGI are fascists Japanese, some are motivated by religious hatred - and they place themselves in the same camp with the fascists, antisemitics, and fanatics. SGI opposes religious fanaticism and promotes the concept of Humanism first and sharing society in peace and value creation.
Dr Linus Pauling, twice Nobel Prize Winner, had his dialogue with SGI president published in a book: "A Lifelong Quest for Peace". This is a fact. Scholastic honesty does not fear facts. Dr Pauling passed away but many other world figures are still alive. Their shared publications with SGI are reliable, and pertain not to SGI but to world problems, such as violence, racism, poverty, and so forth. The whole world of journalism, publication, literature and academic research will not agree that these are Fishy references that should not be mentioned in Wikipedia.
SGI has received the United Nations Peace Award, the Rosa Parks Humanitarian Award and the International Tolerance Award of the Simon Wiesenthal Center - among hundreds of other acknowledgements - and this will be placed in the Introduction of this article - among other facts which are essential in defining SGI in reality. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Safwan, you are using the talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX, and it is not the first time you have done this. Cease and desist. Shii (tock) 02:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


Be very careful with your wording and language, Shii.
The subject raised here - and which you are putting under the category of Soapbox - is about the insult of Japanese fascists to Anne Franks. This is not a Soapbox subject, and I am correcting you here on this subject.
SGI arranged an exhibition about the struggle and sufferings of Anne Franks and survivals of the Holocaust. The biased article you shared in editing - avoids facts of SGI struggle against fascism. Inclusion of such activities of SGI needs references - such as the SGI Quarterly. This is a RS, and if it is going to be refused by you - or termed as Fishy - then related institutions who cooperated with SGI in these activities for peace and anti-fascism (such as Simon Weisenthal Centre, and other institutions) - will be notified. You are a Wikipedia Editor so complaining to the Dispute Board will not give results (read Richard Stallman's email about the subject).
Opponents to SGI, mostly Japanese fascists, have the money to buy tabloids to voice their disrespect to the Holocaust on their tabloids financed by whatever political forces - but Wikipedia is a different environment. That book, which was criticizing the fascist Japanese and their war crimes - you termed as a "Fishy Reference". You should not use Wikipedia page to show your lack of respect to the subjects which that book was documenting: mass murder in Nanjing, rape of tens of thousands of women and so forth - of Japanese hatred to others, including SGI.
Just take a look at the title of this thread, and admit that it was your label "Fishy" about a book which criticised Japanese media (denial of mass murders during the war and rape of tens of thousands of women). How Refrences are classified - or treated - in Wikipedia is important news for Libraries, Universities, Human Rights Institutions etc...
Now a new label: "Soapbox" - is put here to describe SGI and Simon Weisenthal Centre cooperation against fascists. I was referring to recent disrespect to Anne Franks by Japanese fascists and you are very wrong by describing the subject at hand as a Soapbox subject.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Shii referred to YOU as using this here as a Soapbox. Do not twist issues. --Catflap08 (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I am actually half-Jewish and not at all amused by a religious cult appropriating the memory of Anne Frank in this way. But I'm not angry at Safwan because he clearly doesn't know what he is talking about. Shii (tock) 17:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Since I am at least half a German I am not amused about this language either and rather think its quite o.t.t. . I am not even going there to comment Safwan's post with regards to content. Its simply distasteful and disrespectful to any victim of fascism may it be in Europe, China or elsewhere . Much more so attacking other editors in such a way like calling them fascists etc. is a personal attack (this goes also for a group of editors). I should advise you Safawan to read this WP:WIAPA. On the other hand you have shown what you are made of and clearly have crossed some lines here – again if you believe of yourself being a prime example of an SGI member you have just yet again made a disservice to SGI. Again everything is nicely archived here.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Face reality. Do not run away from the subject into nonsensical personal attacks (or publishing here a list of your religious and ethnic background). Focus on the subject at hand: books and references that will be used in the coming clean up of the article, including SGI Quarterly (shared action with Simon Weisenthal Centre, Anne Franks SGI Exhibition etc…).
Whenever the time is appropriate, the article must contain not POV but FACTS about SGI activities - for which it received the United Nations Peace Award, the Rosa Parks Humanitarian Award and the International Tolerance Award of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, as well as joint activities with Gandhi Smirit and Martin Luther King JR church - and other institutions. This will be placed in the Introduction of this article – because these are not POV but FACTS identifying SGI.
Now about the Fishy, the Soapbox and Dispute Resolution Board:
That RS book (labelled as “Fishy”) describes the politically financed fascists. The Japanese fascists, with enormous guilt, try to deny their criminal past haunting them forever, and baselessly attack SGI, the Holocaust,… etc. Describing that book as "Fishy" is a proof of rejection of its contents, revealing media bias and hysteria. The article will focus on SGI struggle against fascism and its promotion of World Citizenship through the action of Bodhisattva.
Opposition to inclusion of such FACTS about SGI in the article - is usually suggested to be settled in Dispute Resolution Board, but this proved to be futile ( just read the above thread, R, Stallman’s email, and the disappearance of editors from dealing with SGI subjects). There is then no other way but to put the bias of the article to the knowledge of all universities, cultural institutions, libraries, who cooperate with SGI (literally hundreds of these institutions). This will definitely create questions of interest or help in maintaining neutral and mature article.
Additionally, as you can calmly understand, the thread above referred to recent disrespect to Anne Franks by Japanese fascists – and my post about THAT SUBJECT was labelled as a “Soapbox” subject. I don’t know whether apology to Anne Franks will be sufficient or acceptable. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
When is somebody going to move to have Safwan blocked? He contributes nothing but to making the talk page a confusing mess. He doesn't reply to questions with answers but accusations, even to questions of the simplest kind. He seems to be, literally, crazy. I'm sorry if that statement violates WP:GOODFAITH but seriously? Kiruning (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello everybody its been a while since I checked wikipedia. Its clearly evident that few people (catflap,Kiriung and Shii) are hell bent on spreading negative propaganda on Soka gakkai and Daisaku Ikeda etc. While I don't understand the motives clearly everyone can clearly see what they want !. So being a soka gakkai member it clearly disturbs me to see so much of negetive bullshit being said about my faith. you people are clearly insulting ! Imagine how you would feel if someone maligns your beliefs like this ! Now let me come to the point The article recently was modified in such a way that it clearly violates WP:NPOV, not even a single positive or neutral point was added by these people. Everything so negetive and biased. Hence Im going to make changes accordingly and also as Safwan said this fishy references and related lines need to be eliminated from the page. Shit this article stinks, stinks like with your dirty minds and motives who foolishly dare to malign a organization like SGI. All the best for your efforts !! Naveen Reddy (talk)

Prime source removal

These are not inherently bad sources. They just need due caveat, if one is to add it back it would need the caveat of where the source is [1](Lihaas (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)).

There surely are bad sources especially in controversial issues. Even more so if the sources are identical to the organisation in question. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User Ubikwit, sabotage

I think User ubikwit be warned about sabotage. He removed the lines about SGI's nuclear weapon disarmament efforts sourced from UN office of disarmament affairs. Naveen Reddy 16:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveen Reddy (talk • contribs)

Collection of articles, books, etc. to incorporate in the article

Also useful Brian Daizen Victoria, Senior Lecturer Centre for Asian Studies, University of Adelaide, Engaged Buddhism: A Skeleton in the Closet?--Catflap08 (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Toshiaki Furukawa: Shisutemu to shite no soka gakkai (1999). "... 海外での名誉博士号取得や国内でのさまざまな謀略活動のための「裏工作費」に充てられているものと大別される( ※ここで「池田個人の資産」といったが、現実には、学会内部で池田が絶対的な権力を握り、学会を私物化している以上、例えば、学会施設内の「池田専用施設」や、特に事実上の私邸として使っている「学会本部第二別館」などは、本来、池田個人の資産とみなすべきなのだ る[sic]ための工作資金である(最終的なタ—ゲットはーノ—ベル平和賞」であるが)。" (p. 231). "こうした形で、池田大作が海外で表彰、名誉博士号等を受けるにはそれなりのコストがかか池田大作がゴルバチヨフと面会するための工作費は数十億円社会福祉団体から「福祉功労賞」を授与されれいる。" (p. 236). 126.25.72.25 (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • LA Times interview - perhaps more interesting than the Tricycle magazine interview (at least it's not glorifying to the degree that Ikeda uploads it to his website). Kiruning (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • REUNION WITH PANAMANIAN LEADER (excerpt) "President Ikeda had met General Noriega four times in the past, twice in Japan and twice in Panama, the last time being in 1981 when President Ikeda visited Panama City. Mr. Ikeda noted that peace is being maintained in Panama while other Central and South American countries are hit by civil strife, and hoped that Panama would act as a “pillar of peace. General Noriega assured President Ikeda that Panama would continue to assume the role of mediator in the internal conflicts of Central American countries. President Ikeda thanked the Panamanian leader for erecting a monument in his honor at a scenic observation point on Flamenco Island in the Bay of Panama at the Pacific approach to the Panama Canal last year. The name, “Mirador Ikeda.” was given by General Noriega to commemorate his meeting with President Ikeda on February 20, 1981, on Flamenco Island. At that time, the two discussed the problems of world peace and the future prospects of Central America. The plaque on the monument is inscribed with the words “Praying for world peace from this place looking upon the Pacific Ocean.”" The Soka Gakkai News (precursor to the SGI Quarterly)　Kiruning (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "Kempe writes that Noriega first heard of the Soka Gakkai in the early 1970s when as the intelligence chief in the Panamanian military he studied judo with a Chinese-Panamanian named Chuh Yih. By the mid-1970s Kempe relates that Noriega was an occasional visitor to Taiseki-ji and an acquaintance of Ikeda. At the height of Noriega's reign, a life-placque [sic] honoring Noriega was placed at a Gakkai meeting hall in Japan. Ikeda visited Noriega in Panama several times in the 1980]s and both leaders praised each other's virtues in public statements. Kempe reports that Noriega's friends say that Ikeda provided the Panamanian leader with several million dollars' worth of assistance during 1987 and 1988 but that Soka Gakkai officials deny that Ikeda provided Noriega with money. Kempe believes the two men were attracted to each other because both had "great intellectual pretensions, but only modest education. Ikeda "boosted Noriega's ego by calling him 'Shogun' (and) Japan was a place where Noriega never had to apologize for human rights violations or repressing democracy." p. 160 The Soka Gakkai Revolution, Metraux Kiruning (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
"Mr. Ikeda has also become known for his expensive trips around the world to meet with various dictators, including Krushchev, Noriega, and Ceausescu" p. 79 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiruning (talk • contribs) 06:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Japan Quarterly, Volume 47 (2000): Assessing a Patchwork Coalition, Tominomori Fuji ([2]) "Soka Gakkai's aggressive proselytizing, which had been quite effective in the past, no longer carries the same weight. It has obviously become increasingly difficult to maintain a financial base strong enough to support such a huge organization. During the immediate postwar years, Soka Gakkai membership was largely made up of people with low incomes, owners and employees of small businesses and homemakers and other nonprofessionals, among others. As such, the organization had to compete with the Communist Party in the makeup of its voter support base. In Japan's postwar economic miracle, however. Soka Gakkai followers, too, gradually became affluent. affluent. One report sets their current average annual income at ¥7 million, whereas the average annual income for those backing the Communist Party is estimated around ¥4 million. One way Soka Gakkai could reinforce its financial base in the face of declining membership is to try to help lift the level of affluence of its members. I believe this is precisely what New Komeito is now trying to do, on the assumption that by being part of the ruling power structure, it would have a better chance of achieving that goal. Coalition Advances New Komeito's Game Plan New Komeito has already achieved some benefit from being part of the coalition in many local governments. This makes it perfectly logical to see the party trying to achieve the same objectives from the central government to pass on benefits, both tangible and intangible, to Soka Gakkai members. Late in 1998, when New Komeito was still outside the coalition and thus regarded as part of the opposition, the party proposed 'regional business promotion coupons" as a way to encourage consumer spending to spur the economy. The original idea was to give merchandise coupons worth ¥20,000 to families for each child up to age 15, and for low-income elderly people aged 65 and older. The administration was at first skeptical of the effectiveness of the measure, and was reluctant to go along with it. Out of fear of antagonizing New Komeito, however, it relented. New Komeito trumpeted this outcome as a major coup. As a result, according to one Soka Gakkai watcher, at least ¥50 billion poured into the Soka Gakkai coffers. Most of it came from Soka Gakkai-related companies and shops that benefitted from the coupon program through purchases made by its followers. Given the strict observance of the Soka Gakkai rules by its followers, it is only natural that the organization would see its coffers swell as its members gained income and had more money to donate. Soka Gakkai and New Komeito had maintained an anti-establishment stance from their inception. To them, joining forces with the conservative camp was a drastic shift. Not that they had not contemplated such a move. On the contrary, they had been exploring the possibility for many years, but just could not follow through. What made them finally decide to follow through this time? The answer to this question requires a recognition of the current wave of conservatism apparent among Japan's voters. More Japanese now feel their nation's postwar democracy needs to be reviewed." (this is not openly accessible but I was able to extract this one page through google books' "snippet view") Kiruning (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Asiaweek, Volume 20, Issues 14-26 (1994): The Komeito Factor. Fears Over the Rapid Rise of a Buddhist-Backed Party Soka Gakkai: Aggressive proselytizing, extensive networks - and big money. (not available freely online, copy-pasting here)
"In mid-May a group of conservative legislators, religious leaders, commentators and scholars met at Tokyo's tony New Otani hotel. They were worried about Komeito, the "clean government party" supported by a shadowy, nationwide Buddhist sect. The party's increasing power "is a problem shaking the basic principles of democracy," says Kamei Shizuka, a Dietman of the once-dominant Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and a member of the "April Association" set up to oppose Komeito and its founder and backer, the Soka Gakkai Buddhist body. "The most dangerous scenario," warns Kamei, "is Komeito taking control of Japanese politics."
At a time when most political parties are showing signs of turmoil or imminent disintegration. Komeito is on the rise. For some time, the centrist group has held more than its share of power. With 52 seats in the 511-seat lower house, it has played a pivotal role in critical political contests. It gained influence several years ago by helping the LDP, then the ruling party, pass crucial laws, including those that allowed Japanese troops to join U.N. peacekeeping missions. When the Liberal Democrats' 40-year rule ended last August. Komeito became a key player in the new governing coalition led by Hosokawa Morihiro, with four cabinet posts. Its clout grew again in April when Hosokawa's successor, Premier Hata Tsutomu, gave the party six of the 20 cabinet portfolios.
Komeito has downplayed its pacifist philosophy in favor of the conservatism of dominant parties. To detractors, that's evidence that its sole goal is to grab power. They see behind such ambitions the Soka Gakkai, principal lay group of Japan's largest religious body, the Buddhist sect Nichiren Shoshu. Running Soka Gakkai is Ikeda Daisaku, 66, its charismatic and, some say, dictatorial leader.
Since he became its head in 1960, Soka Gakkai has become richer and more powerful. Aggressive proselytizing and extensive grassroots networks have helped build membership: an estimated 10 million in Japan and 1.26 million in 115 foreign countries. Followers reportedly donate $2 billion a year - funds that enjoy generous tax exemptions for religious bodies. Soka Gakkai invests actively in stocks and real estate, including extensive Tokyo properties. Its most lucrative venture publishes the Sei-kyo Shimbun newspaper (circulation: 5.5 million). The organization also sells gravestones - its No. 2 business - and performs religious services. Soka Gakkai uses much the same strategies and organization to promote Komeito, which it founded in 1964. Ikeda is said to have exerted influence on the party as Soka Gakkai head and later honorary president. To admirers he is a missionary of world peace. Soka Gakkai-backed newspapers run articles praising him and pictures of his meetings with religious and cultural figures. "He's just so great," says Tokyo housewife Kuniyasu Kuniko. "He says only good things and tells us what to do." Kuniyasu regularly volunteers to go door to door flogging subscriptions to the sect's newspapers and magazines. During elections her family campaigns for Komeito.
But some former members, including a powerful Soka Gakkai lawyer, paint an entirely different picture of Ikeda. They portray him as a greedy autocrat who views the lay group as his private fief. All top leaders of Soka Gakkai and Komeito are said to be Ikeda proteges, including Komeito chairman Ishida Koshiro and secretary-general Ichikawa Yuiichi. Ikeda's grip on Soka Gakkai is so strong that reports of corruption, tax evasion, tyranny and alleged links to money scandals have done little harm to his reputation among followers. Nor has Ikeda lost clout after his own Buddhist temple excommunicated him three years ago. Commentators wam that if Komeito took power Ikeda might move to restrict religious freedom. "As far as religion is concerned, politics must remain neutral," Komeito' s Ichikawa said last year.
But many doubt him. Watanabe Michio, a powerful LDP leader, recently criticized Soka Gakkai's control of Komeito, hinting that the religious body's tax privileges should be reviewed. That criticism is said to be one reason why Watanabe failed to win unified support from the ruling coalition for a deal to bring in his LDP faction in exchange for the premiership after Hosokawa resigned. Another sign of Komeito's growing influence is Ichikawa]s increasingly cozy ties with Ozawa Ichiro, probably Japan's most powerful politician. Komeito would make a good building block in any future governing party. The ruling coalition's chief strategist, Ozawa may be anticipating the single-constituency system that is to apply during the next general election. Under its rules, 100,000 votes can conceivably clinch a Diet seat. Soka Gakkai is believed to have some 20,000 votes in each of the new, smaller constituencies. That seems sure to increase Komeito's clout - and the fears of those worried about its unconventional ways." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiruning (talk • contribs) 08:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I set the changes back made by User :Naveen Reddy as the AnomieBOT only restored the references. Sentences like “Shit this article stinks, stinks like with your dirty minds and motives who foolishly dare to malign a organization like SGI” neither help the article nor the talk page and do raise some doubts about SGI's adherents active in Wikipedia. --Catflap08 (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Catflap ! Please enlighten me what kind of doubts arose in ur mind ? If I'm right you are solely concerned and work on only few articles in wikipedia like SGI Daisaku Ikeda and your contribution in those articles is negetive propaganda. Wont it raise doubts about your intentions, that you are one of those persons who belong to a group or organisation anti to Soka gakkai and who's sole aim is to malign Soka gakkai and people concerned !! Why did you revert my edit ? I made it look better "SGI is not a business entity which sells happiness,benefits and prosperity...We are a faith group we chant "nam myoho renge kyo "and we get courage wisdom and compassion in our daily lives. We work along with our mentor Daisaku Ikeda for betterment of ourselves and the society we live in.,... whom you labelled as a cult leader who is power hungry and greedy !! with your fishy references !! which serve only one purpose which is to malign SGI and Daisaku Ikeda. Have you ever thought how can a person or organisation can keep 12 million people around the world in an illusion and fool them and get around 200 honorary doctorates, meet so many well known personalities like politicians, artists and academicians and fool around with them. Would they even care to meet a person if he is like what you people are trying to portray ?? ..... Naveen Reddy 13:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC) (talk)

In general I stay clear from editing articles like SGI or on its president for over a year now and keep myself mostly to contribute on the talk page. I do however interfere when it comes to edits that could be regarded as vandalism. Reverting already starts with the first paragraph – SGI may say it has has 12 Million members … other sources including official japaneses ones do doubt that number. This continues throughout your deletion process.--Catflap08 (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

User :Naveen Reddy, if you are editing as a member, then there is a COI problem. Also if you are a member and write something like that, I can only imagine what the readings are teaching you about the negativity you are eliciting in the world. Have you reached 3:20 mins a day of 1 million daimokus chanting? Work on that please instead of converting people to your cause with abuseLihaas (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Reddy “We work along with our mentor Daisaku Ikeda for betterment of ourselves and the society we live in ...” if that means betterment then it can not get much worse. So far you and Safwan have set a prime example of why the organisation you yourself have declared to represent are regarded with suspicion in the first place. From my point of view you can corrupt this article to your hearts content. I do not care as again it will then represent SGI. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Pointing to Safwan or Naveen as "examples" in why to regard SGI " with suspicion" - this quality of attitude of personal attacks should be banned in Wikipedia. I had no time lately to even quickly view the Article or Talk page (only now an exception) as I have more important projects at hand. This means I will not have the privilege to read others comments for a while.
When the time is appropriate, the Article will change to a balanced and neutral edit. Universities and cultural institutions which were approached by Wikipedia in its projects - will also be asked to share in editing. Defaming SGI on Wikipedia is a case for Conflict of Interests and Conflict of Information.
It must be clear that among a spectrum of far-right to far-left opponents of SGI, some of those who attack SGI are the same who deny the Holocaust and vandalise books about Anne Franks and other, and while this is a FACT not a Fishy reference - then it will be also mentioned in the Article. To define an organization, both supporters and its opponents should be mentioned - including the rewards of recognitions of SGI by impartial neutral sources such as the UN, Gandhi Institute, Martin Luther King Jr Moorehouse Chaple... as well as meetings with world figures: Mandela, Margret Tatcher, Gorbachev, Linus Pauling... Yes, I know that I am repeating this coming approach in editing, and this to help expand the horizon for both neutral editors and opponents to SGI. Opponents to SGI will come to slowly understand that emotionalism, religious hatred and politicizing the article - will be exposed and will lose before the mature attitude of humanistic coexistence of all religions and accepting the reality of facts as provided by RS. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


Mr Lihaas, Am I eliciting negetivity ? I'm fighting negetive propaganda against SGI/Sensei. Please, Don't undermine a practitioner !.People here are not so naive or innocent as you think ! they are here with a solid purpose. I don't have any regrets in pointing out what they did and doing wrf to SGI and Daisaku Ikeda pages. I will fight till the end ! Naveen Reddy 16:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Mr Catflap For your hurting words the following sentences from "Writings of Nichiren Daishonin" will suffice as an answer The “Teacher of the Law” chapter reads,“Since hatred and jealousy toward this sutra abound even when the Thus Come One is in the world, how much more will this be so after his passing?”,,,The “Encouraging Devotion” chapter reads, “Many ignorant people will attack us with swords and staves . . .again and again we will be banished.”The “Peaceful Practices” chapter states,“It [the Lotus Sutra] will face much hostility in the world and be difficult to believe.” Writings of Nichiren Daishonin Pg 200, Regards Naveen Reddy 16:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveen Reddy (talk • contribs)

You just keep on fighting - who cares anyway. You carry on with your edits and the article will be a perfect reflection of your org - absurd.--Catflap08 (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

When my niece, a Soka Gakkai member, became aware of my participation on the Wikipedia entry for Soka Gakkai, she sent me the book “Encountering the Dharma” by Richard Seager. I just finished it and was very impressed by his conclusions. I think he explains the political agenda behind the press vilification of the Soka Gakkai quite well. One of his references was to a 1965 New York Times Magazine article on the Soka Gakkai in which he points out that the Times “dismissed charges that the Gakkai was fascist or even right wing.” (P. 69) He also writes: “I think it is time to cease being overly intrigued by the Soka Gakkai’s history of controversy.” (P. 209) I again submit that Wikipedia referring to the accusation that the Soka Gakkai is fascist (or quasi-fascist) is not applicable to this religion and the accusation should not continue to be perpetrated by Wikipedia. WmSimpson (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)WmSimpson 4-8-2014

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soka_Gakkai/Archive_9&oldid=607705174"