Talk:Daisaku Ikeda

/Archive topic

How to confirm questionable source reliability
Thanks to for identifying the International Journal of Humanities and Social Science (isbn 2220-8488), the February 2016 issue of which was a cited source, as predatory and deleting its use in the revision logged here. While IJHSS for its issues in 2012 and 2013 does appear in the now-deactivated Beall's List, the caveats on page 5 of the 2015 report "Predatory open access journals in a performance-based funidng model: Common journals in Beall's list and in version V of the VABB-SHW" leave open the question of whether subsequent IJHSS issues, such as February 2016, are reliable/unreliable. In case useful to know, the journal's website declares it's peer reviewed and refereed, and neither the journal nor its publisher are mentioned among predatory examples in Potentially unreliable sources, Reliable sources and the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. What is advisable in this case?

Unverified statements
I deleted a number of unverified and un-sourced statements in the Intro. There appear to be a number of wholesale changes made by someone on a soapbox. Daveler16 (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * the statements you deleted are perfectly sourcable and are part of D. Ikeda's history and reputation, wether you agree or not. Even the Soka Gakkai's website talks about a "controversial reputation in Japan"... Raoul mishima (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I added some quotes to the end of the 3rd parapgraph so the statemnents match what the cited footnotes say. Daveler16 (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * I'm sorry but this page needs secondary sources and the one you added is problematic : Jason GOULAH (not GOULAN) has undoubtfully responsibilities within one or more of the institutes founded by D. Ikeda. As he is paid by those organizations, and also teaches in an university that receives funds from the Soka Gakkai, we can safely say that his judgment cannot be considered objective, and is in contradiction with Wikipedia's principles and rules. If you wish to improve this page, please suggest relevant and objective secondary sources. Raoul mishima (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The footnotes were already there as sources for your paragraph, and I quoted them direcctly. And Goulah was not the only one. As I understand the word "controversial", it does not mean merely "bad reputation", but that there are two views. Daveler16 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"Books" sub section
Not sure why someone thought criticism of Arnold Toynbee belongs in this article - perhaps it could be placed in the entry on Toynbee? Daveler16 (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * This particular point only concerns the Ikeda/Toynbee book, which means it is relevant on this page. Maybe you could ad it to the Toynbee page if you wish too ? Thanks. Raoul mishima (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * This page has several problems and needs to be improved to better suit Wikipedia's rules. If you're interested, I'd advise you to try and include secondary sources, rather than censoring certain passages.
 * 1) The quote does not say Toynbee was greedy for money, but highlights a criticism that has sometimes been raised concerning D. Ikeda: the use of his influence and money to obtain honors. This is not criminally reprehensible, but even great men have their faults and deserve criticism, don't they?
 * 2/ You're pretending not to see what Toynbee's granddaughter is mainly saying: that D. Ikeda was a man of influence and power. Everyone who met him says so. This testimony therefore belongs on the page dedicated to D. Ikeda, and I'd be grateful if you'd stop trying to censor it.
 * You could, instead, add new passages, which would be more enriching, don't you think so ?
 * I would remind you that Wikipedia's rules include objectivity and contradictory discourse. They also require editors to indicate whether they are members of the organizations whose pages they are editing: is this your case ? Raoul mishima (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, let’s discuss. Why do you insist criticism of Arnold Toynbee belongs in a Daisaku Ikeda Books section? The points you are adding are 1.) Toynbee was greedy for money and 2) his granddaughter, years after the fact, considered him to have been senile and decrepit and unable to make decisions for himself. The first might be true – I honestly don’t know but take your word for it – and the 2nd is not a fact but an opinion, and a rather absurd one at that. If you ask me. Neither has any bearing at all on the contents of the book – which is what this sub section is about, is it not? It seems like bringing them here is an attempt to impugn the significance of the book.

Since it's been almost a week since mylast comment, and since it does not appeared you discussed adding the anti-Toynbee comments before adding them, I'm going to delete them again today.

In an effort to be conciliatory, I actually added more of Polly Toynbee's article, including - since her quote about the OUP "firmly rejecting" the book was cut short, that she then said the OUP decided to publish it after all.

But let me reoterate: this stuff doesn't belong here. That Toynbee liked money has no bearing whatsoever on his dialogue and book with Ikeda. Even if he was paid for it - so what? Does the WP article on every author mention that they were paid? And the Polly Toynbee article is more about her dislike for Japanese customs and distaste for Ikeda that about the book. She.by her own admission, hadn't even bothered to read it until she was about to meet Ikeda. She encountered others who weren't impressed by him - what in the world does that add to understanding the book? Nothing that I can see; it's just some arbitrary information to disparage Ikeda, isn't it?

I left in Toynbee's need to be paid, but took out Polly Toynbee's article about her distaste for things Japanese.

Vandalism
@QuotidianAl It's great if you wish ot make this article better but you cannot vandalize the page.

1/ D. Ikeda might have been an intellectual but "philosopher" was not his job. Can you quote a book of philosophy written by him ? Also, a majority of scholars and journalist agree to say he was a controversial leader. Controversial does not mean "bad", it means people had various impressions from good to bad. The Soka Gakkai became a rich organization under his reign, investing in japanese corporations, buying a large real estate in Tokyo and elsewhere. Thus, he can be considered as a businessman.

2/ The numbers of adherents released by the SG (12 million people, same number since 1990) is not an official account. Again, a canadian scholar estimates the number around 3 million in Japan. To respect NPOV, the article has to keep a critical look.

3/ Please stop pretending you "corrected some grammatical errors and repetitive sentences" when you simply vandalize the page. Raoul mishima (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, I am sorry, but I have not engaged in vandalism on this page. It is you who is doing so, if at all, by removing most of my edits (which are source-based). Daisaku Ikeda was not officially a businessman (this distinguishes him from another East Asian religious figure like Sun Myung-Moon who clearly was a businessman, for example). He was the founder of two universities and various schools, so that qualifies him as an educator. As far as his philosophical books are concerned, "Wisdom of the Lotus Sutra" series is one example. It is your editorializing assessment to describe his as a businessman. Further, when I did my initial edits on May 14, and added that two percent of the Japanese population are Soka Gakkai members, that was edited out by a different editor to remove editorializing. Also, you have removed a cited reference that I made to a New York Times article published on his death, which made reference to his various activities, including outreach to China (something that was also mentioned in his NHK and other Japanese news broadcast obituaries). Further, I find it noteworthy that a critical comment I added regarding his controversial past is what you kept. It seems your effort is to paint him in as negative a light as possible in the introduction to the article. If in the past this article was hagiographical, now it is at the other extreme of being too critical and not being at par for the quality of a Wikipedia article. I ask that you stop removing all my edits (and references, like the New York Times article). You do not own this page. Wikipedia is supposed to be a shared endeavor. QuotidianAl (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * I agree with you on some points, but you should keep in mind that Ikeda was a controversial leader, in Japan and abroad, as remind most of his obituaries. This information is part of his life, and deserves to be denoted at the beginning of the article. I have read some pages of the book you quotes as a philosophical reference, I'm sorry but this does not make Ikeda a "philosopher", his books are not classified in philosohpy but in theology, and his teachings are not studied in any philosophical college : that's why I deleted this designation. Also, Jason Goulah can be considered as one of his followers and I don't think his books should be quoted here without any mention of that. This page needs better secondary sources, thanks for keeping this in mind. Raoul mishima (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Irresponsible Editing Without Prior Discussion
I've studied religion and philosophy focusing on comparative religion and Eastern traditions for over 30 years, and I've watched many Wikipedia articles related to Buddhist traditions (particularly from Japan and Korea) for over a decade. I haven't looked at this article in a long time, and I was shocked to see the recent "editing" that borders on vandalism by some new editors who have unilaterally slashed nearly 60% of the material from this article before they even participated in one discussion on the Talk page. This behaviour is irresponsible, disrespectful, and unacceptable in the Wikipedia community.

This article has been stable for nearly a decade. It has been contributed to by dozens of diverse editors for two decades. Then, this year, one new editor in particular during a period of just a couple months has deleted over 100,000 characters of material, without any discussion on the Talk page. I could easily report this as vandalism to administrators and request the editors who did this be suspended, and this article be locked. Clearly such vandal editors have an agenda that is biased, and I will report them to admins if that behavior continues.

It is also unacceptable to unilaterally add content back into an article that has already been thoroughly discussed and researched by other editors, who came to a consensus to remove such material. If you wish to add something you think is significant, the likelihood that it has already been discussed is very high, so please read the Talk page archives. Among the many different editors over the past two decades who have worked on this subject you will find multiple discussions about some content the "new" editors/vandals this year have been adding to this article.

For example, Talk page archives show there have been multiple discussions about the negative bias of Polly Toynbee who led controversial atheist organizations in the UK which ran ads bashing religious organizations and religious leaders. She publicly said "the only good religion is a dead religion." Such a source is not credible for a neutral point of view when it comes to the topic of a religious organization or leader.

As has been previously discussed on the Talk pages for decades, most religious leaders of global organizations are considered "controversial" by some sectors of society and the media for various reasons, whether they are Mormon, Catholic, Buddhist, and so on. This is not something that defines who the leaders are factually in a biographical, encyclopedic entry such as Wikipedia. The proper place to discuss properly sourced facts about "controversial" topics is in a section called "Controversies" like in other Wikipedia article about major world religious leaders (look at articles about past and present Popes, etc).

Also, the "edits" by some new editors this year appear to be people who are not native English speakers. If non-native English speakers would like to add significant content, it would be nice to first mention it on the Talk page so others can help convey the content in proper English. Finally, another indication that some new "editors" this year are behaving like vandals is that they deleted 90% of the images that were in this article. Obviously the intention behind someone deleting longstanding images from an article without any prior discussion is indicative of vandalism and/or negative bias.

I will soon begin working to correct all of the above mentioned issues with restorative edits. JimminyOzland7 (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello
 * This article has not been stable for nearly a decade, just have a look at the previous "talk" pages please. There has never been a clear consensus here, as the same pages show. The modifications you just made are a real problem according to WP standards, NPOV mainly. Also, the sources you added are mainly primary sources, as you know it, and this page lacks secondary/tertiary sources. I'm going to republish the page as it was before your intervention, we should talk about this here. Eventually, if you are a member of this organization, WP asks you to say it clearly : ? Raoul mishima (talk)) 13:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Raoul: You have also repeatedly evaded the question about conflict of interest. In addition, you have falsely tagged the article as protected. This is disruptive activity on your part, and can lead to your account being blocked. Make the COI declaration as you are required to do, and refrain from making any substantive changes to this article without first gaining consensus on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)