Talk:Criticism of Soka Gakkai

Use of the word sensei
I think the wording around the phrase sensei in this context as if attempting to say that it promotes the leader to cult leader status is ridiculous and can't be taken seriously be any serious student of Japanese. Living in Japan, and seeing how the term is used to apply to anyone with a special knowledge to share or use, be it religious or mundane makes this claim illegitimate. For example anyone and everyone from doctors to swim coaches, music teachers or study tutors could all be referred to as sensei without a bat of an eye. If he was referred to as ~sama then this would have weight but sensei only sounds menacing when (mis-)translated as "master". Furthermore why prefix it with the adjective "familial". This also is a great mystery.

IMO, the way it is described in this article makes no sense to me whatsoever, as one who is a former member of SGI-USA, I have to say that there is undeniably a huge unhealthy focus on Ikdea Daisaku. Why this article chooses to use the title of Sensei as an indication of this is beyond me. Doesn't every martial arts student call their teacher Sensei?

There are many other aspects of the Ikdea-centric teachings that could be used that would be quite valid. RaiderSithLord 10:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Patrick P

This article should be merged with Soka Gakkai International
This article does require some cleaning up, and there are a wealth of sources to support many of the arguments made in this section, alas they are not cited, nor are other valid criticisms.

This article should be on the Soka Gakkai main page, as this represents a valid side to the Soka Gakkai storu that is convienently hidden away in its own subsection. RaiderSithLord 10:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Patrick P.

Personally, I believe the information outlined in this article belongs not in a separate POV fork, but in the main article itself (properly referenced with inline citations to the criticism). Also, the text appears to draw "original research" conclusions via not directly citing where the claims come from (merely noting certain references at the bottom) - this needs editing, and sourcing needs to be fixed. At first glance, it's difficult to work out which source belongs where in the article; so at some point, I will read through all of it carefully, and work out what factual elements belong to which source and remove the original research claims. I'd be most grateful for input from other editors on this. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I'm not sure whether I agree with your take that this is a POV fork or your opinion that a separate article is unnecessary, I do welcome your intent to provide sources for the content more rigorously*. Some of it is obviously inaccurate. Likewise, the main article is also heavily POV and biased toward presenting an overly positive picture of SGI, and it, too, contains factual inaccuracies. I hope you will be as rigorous in sourcing statements and pursuing a non-POV presentation in the main article as well. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 23:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC) * In any event, the job at hand—in my opinion, at least—is to present the content in a NPOV manner, not to remove material that is unfavorable to SGI. I hope you'll agree.


 * Thank you very much, Jim. You are right on both counts of the inaccuracy - we seem to have two polarised articles, both of which are rather wide of the mark. I'll do some in-depth research (possibly a rewrite) of both, and then we can re-evaluate whether a merge is appropriate; admittedly, I am not in truth terribly familiar with the critical sources in question but I do insist on ensuring my own editing is as NPOV as possible, regardless of my own personal point of view. Rest assured, Jim, I have not the slightest intention of whitewashing criticism even though I am an SGI member - all aspects of factual subject matter, including criticism, should I believe be documented as fairly, accurately and thoroughly as possible throughout Wikipedia, and I do not intend to compromise this. I look forward to working with you on improving these two articles. Peace, and best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Nicholas. If you have the time, please look at the archived SGI talk-page material. There's a lot to wade through, so there are parts the you will probably want to only skim, but there are also a number of contributions of substance. In any case, such a read will give you plenty of context about the article's development so far. All the best for your improvement efforts, too—I think input from new blood could be quite beneficial. Best, Jim_Lockhart 02:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to this sentence:

They assert that members are pressured to view Ikeda as their mentor in life.

That's not true. Members look up to him, yes, but there wasn't pressure in the fact being so (except if you count parents force-feeding their children religion, in which case happens in most religions). Also, looking up to a person doesn't necessarily mean that you're viewing him "as a mentor in life". Angerona 15:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether members are pressured to view Ikeda as their mentor is true or not is, for Wikipedia, irrelevant; what it is relevant is whether secondary sources as per WP:ATT think it is true or not. Since many of them do (see the list of references at the end of the article), the statement “They (=critics) assert that the members are pressured to view Ikeda as their mentor in life” is correct and it should remain in the article. See the list of books at the end of the criticism sub-article; I have read the relevant portions of all of them, and every one of them agrees in substance with this sentence. If someone hasn’t experience such pressure, it’s because either they’re not a member or they have never resisted accepting Ikeda as their mentor. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 14:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal Experiences of SGI in the UK

Having taken time to read through literature and consider members of SGI amongst my personal friends i find it hard to agree with the critics section and get the feeling that it is very pov and distinctly un-substantiated in places,

Cult of personality could be seen as useful choice of term where there is personal or societal loss involved (e.g. Stalin, Hitler, Kim il Jung) whereas the term may not be as readily associated with role models and examples of people whos lives have contributed to world peace like Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Mpther Theresa. Ikeda is recognised by the UN for his work and take a look at his writings, they are really inspiring i find i.e. ikedaquotes.org

When it comes to the members evangelising? Well the members i know are certainly open about their faith and welcoming of new members. They also seem to take pride and commit themselves to supporting interested persons/new members, but i have never been or seen them pressure anyone to join in with them. I have been evangelised to by Christians, Baptists, Marxists, Trotskyists, Muslims, and vegetarians at verying degrees of intensity (some instances leaving me quite shaken up!) The members ive met are a really good bunch of people.

Ive looked for substantiated claims against the group as i am going to become a member. I really have not found anything and in fact have mostly found the opposite including a study undertaken by Oxford University in the UK (see http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Sociology/Religion/?view=usa&ci=9780198279150)

Lets keep itreal and work away from dogmatic polemic, please!!!