Talk:Daisaku Ikeda/Archive 3

The Plot Thickens:December 2014 Page Protected (RFPP)
I am feeling not a little hijacked by the recent lockdown of this page. I can only talk about edits I made -- all but one were intended to clarify language, clean up links, fix grammar, spelling, etc. My one substantial edit (deleting Polly Toynbee) was made in the interest of balance for which I made an argument. It was reverted, but it generated some interesting discussion that I hoped to continue. Now suddenly it's trashed. Where was the edit warring -- I saw no one repeatedly deleting/reverting. I saw nothing that wasn't thoroughly researched. The RFPP includes an obscure accusation of "interested parties" making "unstable" edits -- I challenge you (whoever "you" are) to clarify your meaning. Surely you're not suggesting that someone like me can't have an opinion -- of course I do, but I work hard to base my edits on fact and provide references (check any of my edits) and I saw no one who didn't do the same. Are you saying that only those who have a history editing this page are entitled to continue? That is the definition, IMO, of hijacking. One purpose of locking a page is to get editors to discuss their disagreements here on the Talk Page, but instead it has stopped discussion in its tracks and disregarded valid work on this page. This is plain wrong. Please help me understand. Findemnow (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree the behavior by user Ryulong is wrong. Although Ryulong hasn't participated on this Talk page (not even once that I can see), apparently they feel ownership over this article.  Suspicious to swoop in and revert weeks of edits (by both long-time editors and new editors) with the excuse of "restoring last stable version without intrusion from people with vested interest and to a version that meets the manual of style."  What was unstable?  No explanation offered.  What problem with the style?  The page was more in line with the MOS than before Ryulong's interference.  What intrusion by vested interests?  All recent edits were copyedits, formatting, or facts with supporting references, and other topics were in discussion here on the Talk page.  From this unilateral intrusion, it would appear Ryulong has an agenda. TokyoSunrise (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

‘Please help me understand‘ It is unacceptable to delete sourced material just because you do not like the content – period. Ms. Toynbee is well published, her wok is acknowledged and honoured by well establish British news papers and universities. She may be an atheist but she is also the granddaughter of Arnold Toynbee. These are her observations … period. --Catflap08 (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

"My one substantial edit (deleting Polly Toynbee) was made in the interest of balance " That's a rather interesting interpretation of "balance".-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 01:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Tags
In terms of the Polly Toynbee quote I would like to see some tags removed: --Catflap08 (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * better source needed – It is a quote. It is a quote of Ms. Toynbee’s own published words.
 * copyright violation? – The article of Ms. Toynbee has been published in printing via a national newspaper and in the world wide web.


 * Not done.


 * Popham's book has no axe to grind. Polly Toynbee may be quoted via his book with no warning flags about a dubious source or a copyright violation.


 * Not all of what's quoted appears in Popham's book. Some is from one or other website with an axe to grind. We shouldn't rush to assume that the reproduction there of the article is accurate. Thus "Better source needed". Moreover, it can be assumed that anything appearing in the Guardian is conventionally ("all rights reserved") copyright and that reproductions of large percentages of the whole violate the copyright of the publisher or author. Thus the copyright warning flag.


 * Time permitting, I'll look for the original (newspaper) on microform. -- Hoary (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hoary: I have my severe doubts if this can account for copy right violations if one quotes an article or somebody’s work. After all this is also one of the reasons why quotes footnotes and what have you are inserted in the first place, as a published work is not copied but cited. Ms. Toynbee’s article was published on many sites critical of SGI and has conveniently disappeared from some sites (or the sites dissapeared) except for this last one (http://www.toride.org/edata/toynbee.html). I do have some reservations about toride, but not about her article itself. I am not concerned about Popham, but I strongly resist deleting or questioning Ms. Toynbee’s words. Too often I have seen some editors going to great lengths to even questioning Ms. Toynbee’s integrity. In the end Ms. Toynbee is not merely writing about Mr. Ikeda, but writing about on meeting Mr. Ikeda. WP:COPYRIGHT WP:QUOTE WP:CS H:FOOT--Catflap08 (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, quoting Toynbee (to the extent that we do) doesn't constitute a copyright violation. But WP shouldn't point to sites that violate copyright. And of course I'm not questioning PT's integrity at all. -- Hoary (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see the only thing that the toride site does is giving a complete quote. Author date when and where originally published are included. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reproduction is not legitimized either (a) by reproducing something in toto or (b) by saying who wrote it and where it's reproduced from. -- Hoary (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In that case any links, quotes and citations are a violation of copyright?? Are you being serious? We better shut down Wikipedia then. Complete newspaper Articles are cited all over the place. Please also note that the article is used in fair use. I have the impression some just do not like the idea of the article’s content to be read full stop. --Catflap08 (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think he's saying quotes gotten from websites or other sources whose accuracy is not necessarily verifiable or which may not be considered reliable is at issue here, and, yeah, there are at least a few cases when sites poorly reproduce material from other more reliable sources in a very problematic way. While the original source may well be reliable, the webiste might not be. Having said that WP:RX might have some editors who have access to databanks where the material might be reproduced. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The toride site is a clear copyright violation and I've removed it. The appropriate template would have been Template:Uw-copyright-link which says "Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement." Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well the article can be accessed here:The Guardian Archive.A wee fee though. I will happily include a few quotes from the article with the appropriate footnote. Anyone who wants to read the complete article can pay the fee then.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add a few notes
Happy New Year!

Please add some notes:

1) "Presidency" to the section heading "Resignation from Soka Gakkai" so that it reads "Resignation from Soka Gakkai Presidency"

2) Under "Further reading" please add
 * Hammond and Machacek: "Soka Gakkai in America". Oxford University Press, 1999.
 * Strand, Clark: "Waking the Buddha". Middleway Press, 2014.

3) Under External links please add
 * Academic Honors

Thank you very much. Starrynuit (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Good call. I've made the change.
 * Not done. The title of the first suggests that it's about the organization as a whole; the title of the second doesn't give an idea of its content (though it's published by SGI).
 * Not done. The article has enough documentation of academic honors as it is, I think.
 * -- Hoary (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the update. Your decisions about items #2 and #3 make sense, too.

Can you please make another edit or two?

1) Regarding the sentence: "He, along with Sōka Gakkai, was excommunicated by Nichiren Shōshū on August 11, 1992."

Can you please insert the sentence:

He, along with all the members of the Sōka Gakkai, were excommunicated by Nichiren Shōshū on November 28, 1991

before the sentence already in the article, "He, along with Sōka Gakkai, ...."

2) In the Selected Works section, can you please replace with
 * Human Values in a changing world with Bryan Wilson Reprint edition, London and New York: I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd., 2008; ISBN 978-1845115975
 * Human Values in a Changing World: A Dialogue on the Social Role of Religion with Bryan Wilson Reprint edition, London and New York: I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd., 2008; ISBN 978-1845115975

Thank you very much again for your time and best wishes.

Starrynuit (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Starrynuit The adherents of SGI were NOT expelled along with Mr. Ikeda in 1991 but in 1997. In 1991 Mr. Ikeda and large parts of the SGI leadership were expelled, but not the adherents of SGI. Would you please also get familiar on how to insert footnotes please? Under normal circumstances footnotes should not appear on a talk page.--Catflap08 (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Further the term ‘Excommunication’ is wrong as there is no Communion or Eucharist in Buddhism. Just because the term may have been used elsewhere does not make it right, even when repeated a mistake will remain to be a mistake.--Catflap08 (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It's normal for words to have their original meanings extended over time. Yes, the OED gives examples going back to 1526 for "To cut off from communion; to exclude, by an authoritative sentence, from participation in the sacraments and services of the church, or from religious rites in general". However, the OED's second meaning for the verb is "Transf." (i.e. "transferred sense"), first exemplified by this quotation: "To be reiected and excommunicated from the fellowship of all honest men." That's from 1602. I think the latter, four-century-old usage is good enough for WP.


 * I see nothing wrong with the appearance of footnotes on a talk page. However, it would help to have them dumped close below whatever they are for. This is easily accomplished: simply add " " where you want them dumped. (Shortly above, I've done this myself.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@ HoaryI agree words can change their meaning over time, but it would be strange to speak of excommunication when being kicked out of college for instance. In the article on excommunication the section on Buddhism mentions that there is no real equivalent – the only ones who used it were, again, those who inserted the Gakkai/ Nichiren Shoshu issue. I suggest to use terms that are generally accepted and explicit, most of all use terms that are neutral (one cannot always influence that when it comes to quotes though). The term „excommunication“ adds a bit more drama to something that can be described with a cool-headed wording. You have rightfully hinted at the authoritarian connotation the term holds, again this a road one should also not travel down. Some editors and authors use this terminology, but when looking at the subject objectively one also comes to the conclusion that at the bottom line this was a conflict between two equally autocratic organised leadership circles – again best to keep things neutral. Thanks for correcting the footnotes – sure one can insert them, but a talk page will look messy and all over the place when footnotes appear on the bottom of a talk page giving the impression they have something to do with the last comment added. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, fair enough. "Excommunication" is indeed not the best word. But let's try hard to preserve a collegial spirit hereabouts. -- Hoary (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for the feedback. Thank you very much to Hoary for the many updates to the Selected works section, for correcting my usage of the footnotes, and for sharing the OED definitions!

Best wishes

Starrynuit (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppets
On a more or less regular basis it seems, again, worthwhile to ask editors to take a look on the Wikipedia guideline on sock puppets WP:SOCK. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Need Help with References
I have added some awards and inserted references, but I'm not confident I'm doing it correctly. I'd really appreciate some feedback (this stuff is really complicated). Thanks in advance. Findemnow (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of macrons
According to Wikipedia MOS macrons for modern Japanese names should not be used. "Use current anglicization officially used by each party": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles#Names_of_modern_figures No Soka-related orgs or people use macrons. Please undo the revert of my edits. Thanks. Elemential1 (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Elemential1's request to remove macrons. This was an edit I made before the page was locked and all recent changes were reverted. Findemnow (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Urgh. You're right; I was wrong. This particular part of MOS-Ja is new to me. (It wasn't there the last time I looked.) I'll convert back. This may take a little time, but I'll complete the job eventually. -- Hoary (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, I think. I have of course not touched macrons in the titles of articles, books, etc, macrons in quotations, macrons in names that have articles with macrons in them, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Building peace
As a state house of representatives has declared that Ikeda has dedicated his entire life to building peace and promoting human rights through education and cultural exchange with deep conviction in the shared humanity of our entire global family I'm sure there's something to this. Personally I find the building of peace to be admirable (not that personal opinions should be here or there), but when I read the article I'm at a loss to see what his contribution has been. It all seems very abstract, which leads me to think that his contributions may have been theoretical, but there's no hint of theory. I understand that he likes to discuss things with people; has he perhaps persuaded opponents to talk directly with each other, or is there evidence that he's nudged the people he's talked with toward less bellicose stances? Or just what have the achievements been? -- Hoary (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree more on real life action. Leadership in Sino-Japanese relations was big. Founding one of the world's largest & most ethnically diverse Buddhist group. The daily practice of Soka people praying for and taking action for peace. Ikeda led the org. of that to go global. Soka schools teach peace & humanism. He preaches anti-nuclear activism through SGI & is pushing for a world peace youth summit. Last month Soka youth groups presented 5 million signatures for NuclearZero in response to his call for kids to get involved http://www.wagingpeace.org/five-million-voices-for-nuclear-zero/ Elemential1 (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the China initiative was real, and rightly is written up in the article. But the rest seems oddly nebulous. Any more of this "real life action" that you mention? In particular, what have all these dialogues achieved? Perhaps people could add this material to the article. -- Hoary (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Polly Toynbee
Apart from minor edits I have stayed clear to edit this article, and the one on Soka Gakkai, in any major way for quite a while. This is also due to my own engagement with the group in the past. What I will surely not tolerate is, if attempts are made to actively withhold information already been made public. Even though the copyright issue regarding the toride link does, at this point, seem to have substance I will seek clarifications within Wikipedia. Taking action outside Wikipedia is up to my discretion. As already stated elsewhere I have no problems whatsoever to cite the article and include referenced quotes. In my books however I believe that making the reader rely on my quotes is a somewhat mediocre solution. The average reader should be allowed to make their own conclusions reading the article of Ms. Toynbee completely may it be by link or a footnote. I would not go to such great lengths if the article by Ms. Toynbee would not be one of the very few critically describing meeting Mr. Ikeda in English. Due to my engagement with the organisation in question I am today more than ever before critical of religious fanaticism of which this article, and the one on Soka Gakkai, bears testimony. For that very reason my intention is to let Ms. Toynbee’s words to be read without interpretation. As said before some would like to see any mentioning of Ms. Toynbee be deleted full stop – such an attempt disgusts me to say the least as it also shows some individuals intentions. Making the full article available to a select few just does not seem to be a solution, a solution to those in defence of SGI and Mr. Ikeda have contributed. Some might not have noticed, but the more effort is being put in to withhold information the more interesting the information as such gets. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it worth noting that WP:ELYES would reasonably allow the reproduction site to be included as an external link, and the quotes based on the pdf version of the original to be included based on the text of the original. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I am not too worried about the toride link as such but that the complete text is made available. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am in awe of the lengthy discussion devoted to Polly Toynbee's words on this page. I appreciate the education about what WP can cite (or not), but I don't want to lose focus of the core issue: what PT has to contribute meaningfully to an encyclopedic entry about someone she met only once and only briefly. I remain concerned that PT's opinion leads readers to jump to the assumption that her grandfather would agree with her, which is clearly not true—to the best of my knowledge, she never discussed Ikeda with her grandfather, nor did she ever accompany her grandfather to Japan (despite Catflap08's assertion under the "Popham" section above). Even Hoary has asked about including responses from people who have had more meaningful interactions with Ikeda. Popham, without any firsthand experience with Ikeda or SG, resorts to inflammatory rhetoric (for example, he calls Soka Gakkai a "bizarre phenomenon" that "leaps out and punches you in the face") and raises allegations that have been totally discredited. Flimsy stuff. Personally, I don't see how PT's article is relevant. HOWEVER, at least one person has a strong personal attachment and seems to feel that PT's impression is key to understanding Ikeda. OK, then take it out of the books section and put it in a "Controversies" section, as is done with other WP subjects. Summarize her point (and, please, can we leave out the personal description, which, frankly, makes PT sound petty) and include a link to wherever. Findemnow (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@talkIt might be worthwhile to read her COMPLETE article. In the end most views on SGI are personal opinions. I guess why some adherents are cheesed off by Ms. Toynbee’s article – is her name, Toynbee. She is also one of the few individuals who met Ikeda in Person and who’s impressions and thoughts on SGI are not likely to ever be published in the SGI Quarterly or World Tribune, which is normally the place to praise the dear leader errr sorry Sensei. Belittling her won’t change the fact that she is a well published journalist in her own right.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the fact that virtually no one outside of the UK has ever heard of opinion columnist Polly Toynbee (who is listed on Wikipedia's "atheist activist" page), the point here is simple: What does one person's opinion about a subject have to do with the encyclopedia page on that subject? How does anyone's personal opinion, whether positive or negative, have a place on an ENCYCLOPEDIA page?  Polly Toynbee didn't write a journalistic report about Ikeda, she wrote AN OPINION COLUMN piece about her brief encounter with him.  Wikipedia isn't an opinion column, it's an encyclopedia.  A personal opinion is not a fact.  It's as simple as that.  Personal opinions have no place on pages of religious leaders like the president of the Mormon church, the Dalai Lama, and the Pope, because otherwise they are going to be long and contentious pages indeed.  Why is this page any different?  If Catflap08, who admits a negative bias against Ikeda and the SGI, is adamant about including personal opinions, then why not add positive opinions by far more famous and neutral people than an opinion columnist?  I'll tell you why - because a personal opinion has no place in an encyclopedia, no matter whose opinion it is. Basicallyyes (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the fact that virtually no one outside of the UK has ever heard of opinion columnist Polly Toynbee -- Oh, has a survey been conducted? &para; Toynbee was primarily describing what we saw. This is called journalism. Good journalism has its place in Wikipedia. An atheist can be a journalist, even a good journalist, about a subject to which she is personally unsympathetic. It seems to me unlikely that Toynbee is either negligible as a journalist or a rabid ideologue, when I consider the awards that she has been given. -- Hoary ("outside of the UK", talk) 08:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @talk) That’s the difference … what you or I say here ARE personal opnions. And the fact that you never heard of Ms. Toynbee what should that prove? Hardly anyone has heard of Mr. Ikeda, of SGI. Funny enough though if she would be in praise of SGI you’d think quite differently. Again, it’s a published article, not a letter to the editor, but written by an established journalist who just does not share your personal opinion. She is an atheist, yes, so what? You should allow the average reader of Wikipedia to form their own opinion. --Catflap08 (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hardly anyone has heard of Mr. Ikeda, of SGI. Well well, I learn more remarkable facts every day. &para; Funny enough though if she would be in praise of SGI you’d think quite differently. Here's a neat idea: Everybody keep their speculations about others' thought processes, motivation, etc to themselves. -- Hoary (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Hoary Listen I am not getting into a debate on the notability of Ms. Toynbee, journalist of a nationwide published newspaper, compared to Mr. Ikeda leader of a Japanese religious organisation. Also for the record Toynbee as far as I know is an atheist yes, I am not sure if she is an agnostic though. The article has a continuous history that SGI’s adherents are eager to drag anyone into the limelight who speak in praise of SGI, while at the same time belittling and even defaming editors and authors of sources critical of SGI. I guess if her name would not be Toynbee some could not care less. Ms. Toybee makes quite clear what she thought SGI was aiming at to invite her to Japan and as a Journalist it is her damn job to voice her opinion. In the days of religious fanaticism it becomes more evident than ever that some individuals expect their religious beliefs to be exempted from criticism. Wikipedia is a battleground of opinions and views but what it surely not is, is serving as an elongated propaganda and marketing tool. And even if your world view falls into pieces, at least in the West hardly anyone knows of SGI and Mr. Ikeda. Justified or not the most renown Buddhist would be the Dalai Lama, anyone willing to find out about SGI should be able to get an idea on Wikipedia, which is not a proselytising tool. Since SGI is hardly known in the West not to refer to an articles written by an established journalist would be somewhat irritating actually and since it’s a fringe subject even more so. Readers of the Guardian or the Independent are not known to be thugs and usually do not depend on opinions and views to be force fed to them. I say this because I would not be surprised if someone comes along to discredits the Guardian. Same could be said about “Die Zeit” a German newspaper also known to have published articles not in praise of SGI. What I can gather (and have experienced) SGI has enough “royal correspondents”.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be repeating yourself. Please don't. I'm not sure how the degree of fame in the West of Ikeda or the organization he heads is relevant here; but its relevance aside for a moment, assertions of yours such as "in the West hardly anyone knows of SGI and Mr. Ikeda" are so hard to believe that I start to question the credibility of the more reasonable-sounding among things you say. -- Hoary (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Presenting only Polly Toynbee's comments is misleading to Wikipedia users, since the rebuttal to her article isn't presented. The man who invited her to Japan (Richard Causton of the UK) published his own view in The Guardian on May 28, 1984. In it, he expressed disappointment that Polly Toynbee did not present "both sides, part of a journalist's duty." And that "at least three-quarters of the time in Japan was taken up with political matters and, at her request, no space was given to religious matters, i.e. the Buddhist movement, the members of which were her hosts, and who are the target of her attacks in this article." Causton wrote quite a lot about it in The Guardian, and his view emphasizes how misleading PT's comments could be, especially taken out of context and excerpted as they are on this Wikipedia page. When an atheist activist requests of a religious leader "no space for religious matters" during her visit with him, then later slams him for not having "even a whiff of spirituality" (as she did in her article), then I'd say her reporting of the experience lacks credibility - it's both biased and misleading. Basicallyyes (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Now this could be interesting. Wikipedia has articles about two Richard Caustons, and it's obvious that this one can't be either. A bit of websearching came up with this obituary of a Richard Causton, described as the head of SGI in Britain (and posthumously "Honorary General Director of the worldwide SGI movement"). So he was very close to Ikeda indeed, and it's normal for such a person to react in such a way to a portrayal that's less than flattering. This certainly doesn't mean that he can't be cited in rebuttal of Toynbee, of course. Still, it would be interesting to have a second lively (journalistic) description of the style of the man from somebody who is/was not so related. Anyway, do you have the title and page number of Causton's piece? -- Hoary (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well in the world you live in it might come to a surprise that hardly anyone has heard of Ikeda and SGI. The average reader will hardly know anything about Nichiren Buddhism. I do interact occasionally in Buddhist forums and even amongst those hardly anyone has heard of Nichiren Buddhism to any great extent. What leads you to the conclusion that I dispute the notability of the article itself beats me. So, Mr. Causton was not pleased with the article (The way I can see it covering two pages at the time) now that’s a surprise isn’t it? His response to my mind rather reads on how unthankful M. Tyonbee was (how could she dare) – though that is the way it is. After Mr. Causton’s passing I lived in the UK and saw with my own eyes with which fierceness the reassessment movement within SGI-UK was wiped out – so much for democratic structures. It puzzles me why the article should not be mentioned, good grief the SGI folks invited her even and were/are cheesed of she did not buy into all that. She was invited because she was the granddaughter of the late Arnold J. Toynbee and in the article she clearly states what she thought SGI was aiming at – to this day SGI can pride themselves only with this one book and they did not get hands on his notes.  Again the fierceness with which SGI editors fight criticism says much about SGI full stop, it reminds me of Islamic fundamentalist or adherents of Scientology … that is an opinion by the way.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Catflap08 that you've had negative experiences with some members of SGI in the UK, but I'm not sure that gives you the right to grind an axe on Wikipedia. I had thought you were a bit more neutral, even though you've admitted hard feelings about the SGI, but now it appears you are strongly biased against the subjects of the SGI and Ikeda.  Your "imagining" of Polly's article filling up 2 pages of the Guardian is telling, since you provided the Guardian archive link that shows it was only a part of 1 page.  And you state the SGI and Ikeda are not well known, yet the archives you mentioned (costing 8GBP or $12 USD per day to access) show that The Guardian alone has mentioned the SGI or Ikeda in some 50 articles.


 * In a search of The Guardian archive employee listings, Toynbee doesn't show up as a staff writer until 1998. This is consistent with her own Wikipedia page and The Guardian Wikipedia page, where she's described as a commentary/opinion page writer.  In 1984, she was a freelancer who wrote approximately 2 commentary/opinion pieces per month. The topics she wrote about in The Guardian in 1984 included her irritation at long lines in the post office, her friend Marj who took on everyone else's problems, a neighbor who was evicted for not paying rent, a former prostitute who became a teacher, an old cow that someone wanted to kill, a class reunion, and one titled “If your children snarl, argue, and kick the hell out of each other, don’t worry, it’s not your fault.”  Many of these ran with cartoons on the same page, so based on the archive listings from 1984 it would appear Polly Toynbee was not the illustrious journalist she is made out to be on this Talk page.  Certainly her status is higher now, 31 years later, but trying to give greater weight to her 1984 writings in light of who she has become today is disingenuous.


 * The well-written and level-headed rebuttal to her article by Richard Causton was published on page 10, May 28 1984, titled "The double shock of Japanese culture." Causton politely asserted Toynbee's biased view, calling into question the credibility of Toynbee's framing (when she herself requested to talk politics and have no discussion of spirituality, then later criticized Ikeda for not seeming spiritual, etc,) and Toynbee never denied Causton's recounting of those facts. As such, and in light of Toybee's farcical role at the paper in 1984, I believe her comments in the context of an encyclopedic entry are very misleading.Basicallyyes (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well in the world you live in it might come to a surprise that hardly anyone has heard of Ikeda and SGI. A small part of the world I live in is this Wikipedia article. One part of the article is the long list of honorary doctorates. Many of these currently lack independent sources (which they should eventually get), but I find it hard to imagine that people would perpetrate fictions about them. Let's err on the side of (extreme) caution and say that in reality he's only got a hundred of them. I imagine that a number of places claiming to be universities are autocratic, but most are some mixture of democratic and bureaucratic. In these, people sit in dreary committee meetings to decide such matters. They talk (boast, complain) to their friends. So you have thousands of people right there. If I understand correctly Ikeda has universities deliver their doctorates to Tokyo; but I may be wrong and I know that's he has at times travelled to pick them up. There could have been hundreds of people present at the same event. &para; Another small part of my world was, on and off, Richmond Green. For a long time there a shop announcing itself as "SGI" was there. Acquaintances in the area asked me about it ("It seems to be Japanese, but religious. What's it about?"). No, the number outside Japan who have heard of the religion and/or its head is negligible compared with the number of who heard of, say, Beyoncé, but the same thing can be said about most people (e.g. Polly Toynbee) who have biographies here. SGI is not part of my world and never has been, but whether or not they're members of SGI, presumably somebody is buying at least a significant percentage of the Ikeda production of I B Tauris and SGI's own publishing branch Middleway. &para; As it happens, I've a hunch that if you were to take a random sample of twenty Brits and asked them who Ikeda and Toynbee were, you'd get somewhat better answers for the latter; but I don't claim this as fact and even if I had clear evidence for its truth I'd find it no more than mildly interesting. -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Basicallyyes I am sorry your post actually is quite ridiculous, but follows the same tactics as the one of other editors prior. Maybe it surprises you that journalist tend to write on a wide range of issues not focused on one issue alone … prostitute that became a teacher – what is irritating about that? A newspaper has limited space … oh dear there are cartons in a newspaper now that is truly new to me. Honestly, there is no doubt about Ms. Toynbee’s integrity as a journalist, free-lance by the way … hence not employed be for example by the Guardian/Independent … but being published numerous times does count that at least some hold her in some sort of esteem. The history of this talk page does however show that usually SGIists tend to defame critics which I find rather irritating but what does not come as a surprise either. Sure she has not as many honorary doctorates as Mr. Ikeda but I am quite sure she deserved them based on her OWN work– not to shabby. Also the British Press Award and Orwell Prize. I am an academic myself and thankfully, since mostly financed by public funds, the honorary doctorates Mr. Ikeda received from west European universities are quite clearly arranged. So quite a number of people will find the list included in the article illuminating and amusing at the same time. Actually it back fires. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I totally understand your point of view, I simply don't think grinding an axe based on personal bias is a proper framing for encyclopedic information, even when it's thinly veiled by esteem for a journalist. Also, as is evident in the archives you mentioned, comical photos and cartoons were often added within the text written by Polly Toynbee, emphasizing the sensationalistic and farcical nature of her writing in those days.Basicallyyes (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

“comical photos and cartoons were often added within the text written by Polly Toynbee, emphasizing the sensationalistic and farcical nature of her writing in those days” Good grief give me a break … now you are trying to make it look as if Ms. Toynbee was asked to publish her articles in order to make fun of the content? --Catflap08 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Popham on Toynbee on Ikeda
The article says:


 *  British journalist and political commentator Polly Toynbee, an avowed atheist, was invited to meet Ikeda in 1984 in memory of her grandfather. (According to Peter Popham, writing about Tokyo architecture and culture, Ikeda "was hoping to tighten the public connection between himself and Polly Toynbee's famous grandfather, Arnold Toynbee, the prophet of the rise of the East." ) Polly Toynbee described Ikeda as "a short, round man with slicked down hair, wearing a sharp Western suit"; they talked from "throne-like" chairs in "an enormous room" reached via "corridors of bowing girls dressed in white".  She wrote "I have met many powerful men--prime ministers, leaders of all kinds--but I have never in my life met anyone who exudes such an aura of absolute power as Mr. Ikeda."  In The Guardian on May 19, 1984,  she also voiced the wish that her grandfather would not have endorsed their dialogue, Choose Life: A Dialogue. She wrote, "I telephoned a few people round the world who had been visited by Ikeda. There was a certain amount of discomfort at being asked, and an admission by several that they felt they had been drawn into endorsing him."   

Some strange phrasing in that. First:


 *  British journalist and political commentator Polly Toynbee, an avowed atheist, 

I don't know why her views on religion are so important to this article. I have Popham's book in front of me; Popham doesn't mention it. Secondly:


 * According to Peter Popham, writing about Tokyo architecture and culture

This is an important part of chapter 3 ("The Righteous and the Damned") of his book, about extremes of wealth and poverty in Tokyo. Popham writes about SGI/Ikeda at length, for his discussion of extreme wealth.

There's also quite a bunch of warning flags, etc.


 *  She wrote "I have met many powerful men--prime ministers, leaders of all kinds--but I have never in my life met anyone who exudes such an aura of absolute power as Mr. Ikeda." 

This is on p.65 of Popham's book. No second source is needed; the book does not purport to be an archive of the Guardian; copyright is not being violated.

Popham quotes more of Toynbee on Ikeda than currently appears in the Wikipedia article; it's interesting material and perhaps the addition of more of it would be beneficial. -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ms. Toynbee is not a political commentator, but as it states on The Guardian Wikipedia article, she is an opinion columnist. She is also a long-time leader of controversial atheist organizations and a proud anti-religion activist.  Popham repeated lines from an opinion piece by Polly that was critical of a religious leader.  Huge surprise, since she gets paid to promote negative opinions about religion and its leaders.  Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia of opinions, or an encyclopedia of facts?


 * There are many other problems with the Popham text. He alleges that Ikeda was "hoping to tighten the public connection between himself and Polly Toynbee's famous grandfather, Arnold Toynbee."  How could he know what Ikeda was "hoping"?  Sheer speculation.  Regarding Popham's second-hand conveyance of Polly's slams, what is the relevance of how Ikeda's hair, weight, and clothing appeared?  Wikipedia is not a gossip tabloid.  Her other comments in Popham's text show how sadly ignorant Polly was of Japanese customs, and the rest of the scenes she describes sound like any hotel hallway or executive meeting room in Tokyo.  As an opinion columnist and anti-religion activist whose style is sensationalistic anyway, she was just doing her job, but her job as a paid atheist propagandist is extremely misleading when framed on Wikipedia in any other way.


 * Then there's her vauge "I telephoned around" comments, although never mentioning to whom she telephoned, and claiming those unnamed sources conveniently said something that supported her opinion. The reference given here is a website called Toride, an obscure anti-Gakkai group in Japan, not The Guardian, so citing any text found there is extremely misleading as well.  No matter who references Polly's opinions, they are extremely biased and terribly misleading, which violates Wikipedia standards and should therefore be deleted.TokyoSunrise (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Toynbee has long been high up in humanist organizations that aren't obviously controversial. I am not aware that her style is "sensationalistic". I am not aware that she is a "paid atheist propagandist". The text here is not about the religious beliefs of Ikeda and the organization he headed (and heads), it's about the opulence of what surrounds him. Popham (himself not a fanatic) doesn't present Toynbee as some fanatic or paid mouthpiece; Wikipedia need not do so.


 * I'm interested in the opinions of established editors who have edited a wide range of articles here. -- Hoary (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Toynbee has often worked as an employee of activist atheist organizations, such as the one for which she organized atheist ads on public buses and tube stations at Christmas. I'd say that means she is a paid atheist propagandist.  She also used her opinion column in the Guardian (for which she is paid) to promote the same atheist organization.  In any case, I think this Ikeda article would be a lot less contentious if everyone would edit based on facts rather than opinions.TokyoSunrise (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Read about Polly Toynbee she is one of the most renowned British Journalists. She may be an atheist but she has every right to one as some others describe themselves as Buddhists. She was in Japan and accompanied her grandfather – her cedibility and integrity is undisputable. It appears however, that the conclusions and observations bug you as a person which is of no relevance whatsoever here. If you say she is a ‘paid atheist propagandist‘ one could say Ikeda is a paid Buddhist propagandist – so what? It just proves yet again that some SGIists react quite irrational to critical views – as this is one of them … a critical view. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The Popham use of The Guardian article by Toynbee is clearly a copyright violation.  Popham reproduced verbatim some 6 full paragraphs of the text of The Guardian, adding his own commentary before and after it as if he was also present (although he wasn't).  He added conjecture on his part about someone else's experience, as if he was involved, and also added unreferenced and libelous allegations about a woman being raped.  The entire framing of the Toynbee material is also inflammatory, opening with an assertion that the Toynbees had "no idea" why they were being "mysteriously" invited to Japan.  In Popham's permission acknowledgements, The Guardian is not listed, although the text of the chapter in which it is pasted states it originated there.  In the back of the book, the Toynbee material is listed as having originated from the Daily Yomiuri, although no permission is acknowledged from that source either.  A search for it in the Daily Yomiuri archive doesn't show it ever existed.  The Guardian doesn't allow use of its material without permission, as is clearly stated in their archive, so apparently Popham's book used it improperly, cut and paste.  It's also odd that this material, besides violating copyright, is stuck in the middle of an obscure 1985 book about Tokyo architecture (which was only published in Japan, and in English, making it even more obscure).  Most everything else in the book is about buildings and design, including some architectural drawings. It would appear the author threw it in to get some sensationalistic attention for an otherwise drab book about buildings. Basicallyyes (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Basicallyyes Please note that anyone can CITE Toynbee … as Popham did. Anything that is publicised can be CITED. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The above series of attacks by a series of SPAs on Popham and Polly Toynbee seem to be geared at moving from one angle to another simply to discredit the sources. The assertion of a "copyright violation" is over the top, but you have to give them an A for effort. Also (not that it matters mcuh), the Daily Yomiuri does not maintain a full archive online, nor does the JapanTimes, etc. If sources are RS, they should be used according to WP:DUE.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 21:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note
WP:SOCK--Catflap08 (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Just eight days ago, you wrote pretty much the same thing. (See above.) Repeating it is unlikely to have any effect (other perhaps than to irritate people). Do you have good evidence that one username is a sock of another? If so, please read Sockpuppet investigations, very carefully. Once you've marshalled your evidence and are able to present it clearly and coherently, take action. -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Hoary I am quite aware of the process on how to proceed on sock puppets – it is annoyingly bureaucratic. Actually this would lead to an off topic discussion how some things are handled in the English Wikipedia … sorry it’s an open invitation to vandalise articles. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Remarkable deletions
In this edit, brand new editor TokyoSunrise (contributions) removes a chunk of the article, with the summary Unverifiable allegation of violent assault, violates Wiki libel policy. The material comes with sources. I haven't seen these, but TokyoSunrise doesn't claim that what's attributed to them isn't in them, or that they are unreliable.

In this edit, the same editor removes something attributed to 週間新潮, with the comment ''Referenced source of 週刊新潮 is the Japanese equivalent of National Enquirer in USA. Not credible source, not NPOV. Gossip magazines and "speculation" about someone''. The assertion that "週刊新潮 is the Japanese equivalent of National Enquirer in USA" surprises me. The article shūkanshi says: "the genre is 'often described as bizarre blends of various types of U.S. magazines, such as Newsweek, The New Yorker, People, Penthouse, and The National Enquirer.'"

I suggest that both deletions should be reverted, and that uninvolved editors should pay close attention to the waves of edits to which this article is subjected. -- Hoary (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I am also a new editor to this page. I appreciate your excellent admonishment to "pay close attention to the waves of edits." I have read over several pages in the Talk Page and the history, but the sheer quantity is daunting. I'm sure I will miss important threads, but I hope that will not mean I -- or anyone else -- cannot still contribute.


 * FWIW, I appreciate TokyoSunrise's deletions: Concerning this edit, I did what research I could (I love research). It will surprise no one that the only sources are either pro-SGI or pro-Nichiren Shoshu. I found the following sources: The Human Revolution, Book 1, starting on p. 677 (approx. 40 pages); Jisai Watanabe interview: http://www.sokaspirit.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Senior_Priest.pdf; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jōsei_Toda (then search for "Ogasawara"); https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren/lZY3eYfCaVo; plus an abundance of blogs and obscure YouTube videos and websites.


 * No source seems to argue with these points: 1) During WWII, the priest Jimon Ogasawara, in line with government and military authorities, promoted the belief that Buddhism was subordinate to Shinto. 2) For this reason, he was expelled as a priest and excommunicated in 1942. 3) Toda believed Ogasawara's actions led to Makiguchi's death in prison, and he conveyed this to other Soka Gakkai members. 4) On April 27, 1952, a group of young men, including Ikeda, confronted Ogasawara and demanded that he recant and apologize. Here's where stories diverge, but the bottom line is that no one was charged, ever, with anything. No one required medical treatment, and eventually Ogasawara and the Soka Gakkai mended their relationship.


 * IMO, this event, which happened more than 60 years ago, is not reflective of Ikeda’s life. The deleted text blows the story out of proportion, and the wording is not neutral; in fact, I would call it inflammatory. Findemnow (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the allegations of a "violent" assault, which is a felony in Japan, the sources that were referenced in fact do not say anything about Ikeda assaulting anyone. There was an allegation made, long after Josei Toda's passing, that Toda struck the priest after the priest kicked Toda, and that was mentioned in the source given.  That claim is denied by the Soka Gakkai members that were present at the event including Ikeda (they say the priest didn't kick anyone and Toda didn't strike anyone).  The writer who claimed there was a physical altercation Murata, who later (after Toda's death) said that Toda described to him that the priest and he hit each other.  I believe Murata is an unreliable source, as he's written unverifiable anti-Gakkai allegations, but in any case Murata never claimed that it was Ikeda who assaulted anyone.  Since it is libelous to claim someone committed a felony with no source for the claim, I deleted this from the article.


 * Next, regarding 週間新潮 (Shūkan Shinchō), clearly this tabloid is an unreliable source, and negatively biased, since on the same page you referenced regarding shukanshi it states that Shūkan Shinchō was convicted in Japanese court of libel against the Gakkai. I believe a tabloid paper like Shūkan Shinchō is not a reliable source for encyclopedic data, let alone one that has been convicted of libel against the subject.  In any case, I do not believe speculation about an individual's personal health (unverified by any source) is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic entry, so I deleted it. TokyoSunrise (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Murata's book in hand: Ikeda wrote the foreword. Pgs 61-68 include bad blood between Toda/Ogasawara who exchanged blows. Ogasawara filed complaint on Toda naming no other individuals. Dropped it after Toda/Oga made up. Ikeda's name is mentioned once that he was in Taisekiji with 4,000 others when Toda/Oga fought. Murata says Ikeda wasn't a leader but became one in 1953. The info on Ikeda page is not what Murata wrote and is in no other source.Elemential1 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Having the book in hand or not is no good reason to delete a whole section that also includes other references and make it appear as if the incident never took place. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Catflap08: As I wrote, no other source contains the info on this page. All sources agree Toda/Ogasawara got into it. None of the references has Ikeda personally involved in an altercation, but state he was present with between 47 and 4000 others depending on the source. The incident is appropriately listed on the Josei Toda page since it was Toda's fight. If you cannot provide a reliable source that contradicts the above then please undo your reversion of my edit. Thanks.Elemential1 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Elemential1 Daniel B. Montgommery, Fire in the Lotos, Page 186 --Catflap08 (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Catflap08 Page 186 of Fire in the Lotus doesn't even say Ikeda was in the room with Toda and Ogasawara. Montgomery states Ikeda was among the 47 youth who went out looking for O. Then page 187 Montgomery says "Murata claims Toda told him that Toda struck Ogasawara twice." Murata is the only reference on this Wiki page claiming Ikeda hit anyone yet Murata only says Toda hit O, and O in turn admitted kicking Toda and they apologized. No source says Ikeda ever hit or "violently harassed" anyone. I noted this when I made the deletion. If you have a source that states otherwise please provide it, otherwise I again kindly ask that you undo your reversion of my correct edit. Thanks.Elemential1 (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Elemential1 In the Montgomery book there is no Murata mentioned !? Violently harassing as the sections states does not say he (ikeda) was beating him himself, having said that he is also not known for having stopped anyone beating him either. Toda did indeed leave the room leaving the priest to the SG mob and actually saying so before leaving. You disagree with one source – and then you even try to portray it as if Ikeda and Toda had nothing to do with it? You are not serious are you? You deleted the complete section on the Osagawa incident not one sentence. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Catflap08Please re-read what I wrote and then you may see how nonsensical your reply is. You still provide no references to support what is on this page regarding the incident and Ikeda. Reviewing all sources- worst case scenario is Ikeda at age 24 witnessed Toda/Ogasawara hit or kick each other once or twice. Statements that Ikeda led a violent harassment and admit hitting someone are on this Ikeda page but neither of those scenarios are in any of the sources cited. So then how is any of the paragraph relevant? Most of the other info isn't supported in the references either, instead showing Toda headed a pilgrimage of 4,000 men and women to celebrate the 700th anniversary of the temple. Despite Murata's account that Toda struck Ogasawara, in the Human Revolution Ikeda describes the incident as more civil and when some young men later start to harass Ogasawara he told them to leave him alone. Whatever version you want to believe none of the sources support what is on this page.Elemential1 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The human revolution is a novel. Again you deleted a complete section/paragraph because ONE source does not fit your view of the world. A novel does not really count as a reference. I think you should be reading some Wikipedia guidelines … in case this is your first time round here. --Catflap08 (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Catflap08 As I've stated repeatedly- ALL sources refute the text regarding Ikeda. ZERO SOURCES state the text about Ikeda. You continue to attack me and ignore what I say but it doesn't change these facts. Why would you want to keep text that is refuted by every reference cited in the text? If this is a game you play to vent your hate, then your game is up.Elemential1 (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

So far you have referred to one source mentioned in one sentence – so far so good. You, however have deleted the complete paragraph about the incident, referenced by not only one source. Do you get the difference?? Again, a novel does not count as a reference. --Catflap08 (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Going line by line: "In 1952, Ikeda was one of the leaders in violently harassing Nichiren Shōshū priest Jimon Ogasawara." No reference cited, and this text does not exist in any reference. "Ogasawara had allegedly cooperated with the authorities during the war against Soka Gakkai's founder Tsunesaburō Makiguchi, who had died imprisoned, before the end of the war." No reference cited, but similar text appears in Murata. "Ikeda and Toda headed a group of 4,000 men belonging to the Youth Division to the Taiseki-ji, the Nichiren Shōshū head temple." No reference cited, and this text does not appear in any reference. Murata contains different text, that Toda headed a group of 4,000 Soka Gakkai men and women to celebrate the 700th anniversary of Taiseki-ji. "When Ogasawara initially refused to apologize, the men tore off his vestments and tagged him with a placard reading[citation needed] "racoon dog monk."[19]" No reference cited, but an explanation of racoon dog is provided. Murata contains different text with no mention of tearing off vestments.  "He was then forcibly carried to Makiguchi's grave, where he was made to sign a written apology.[20][21]:698–711[22]:186" Three references cited, but this text does not appear in any of the references. Murata contains different text, that Ogasawara was taken to Makiguchi's grave, not carried, and made to sign an apology.  The other two references simply repeat Murata's text. "Ikeda, who admitted to hitting the priest "once or twice" later referred to the incident as an "act of kindness" because "the old priest, made to realize his apostasy, was grateful to Toda and Soka Gakkai and died a happy man."[20] Murata is cited, but this text does not appear in Murata. Murata says *Toda* admitted hitting Ogasawara once or twice after Ogasawara kicked Toda and they apologized later.  To recap, (a) none of the text regarding Ikeda appears in any references. (b) the other text differs from the cited references. (c) without the false text on Ikeda, the other text is irrelevant. (d) you have presented zero reasons why this text shouldn't be deleted as both false info on Ikeda and otherwise irrelevant info on others.Elemential1 (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

References are usually stated at the end of a sentence or section. When one cites the footnote is usually made immediately afterwards. The paragraph is about the incident were a priest was beaten and harassed … who ever authored it used his/her own word an afterwards included the references. That’s how those things are normally done. You want a reference after each sentence??? It becomes evident that it is not the Muarta reference that bugs you but the whole paragraph. Please note WP:CS The paragraph cites following sources: When reading Montgomery it becomes evident Toda and Ikeda were in the mob that harassed the priest. Montgomery does not state Ikeda was beating the priest but he was in that crowd- not in defence of the priest. --Catflap08 (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Shimada, Hiromi (2008). Sōkagakkai (Kindle) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Shinchōsha. ISBN 978-4106100727.
 * Murata, Kiyoaki (1969). Japan's new Buddhism: an objective account of Soka Gakkai ([1st ed.]. ed.). New York: Weatherhill. pp. 96–97. ISBN 978-0834800403.
 * Montgomery, Daniel B. (1991). Fire in the lotus: the dynamic Buddhism of Nichiren. London: Mandala. ISBN 978-1852740917.
 * You say "whoever authored it used his/her own words", but the problem is those words don't appear in the references. Yesterday you referred to Montgomery page 186, but on page 186 Montgomery doesn't even state Ikeda was in the same room as Toda when Toda and the priest struck each other, as I noted above. Montgomery simply states Ikeda was among 47 youth who went out looking for Ogasawara and on page 187 Montgomery says "Murata claims Toda told him that Toda struck Ogasawara twice." Shimada and Montgomery simply quote Murata, and none of the three state Ikeda was violent. If you cannot offer supporting reference (not your own opinion or interpretation) about the text, then it should be deleted.Elemential1 (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

When I read Montgomery it is only stated the Toda left the room before the mob started attacking the priest – and he warned the priest that the situation will become violent. If you like I can later cite the whole page just takes a little while. Again, you can challenge the source, but you CAN NOT delte the whole paragraph on the INCIDENT. The incident took place i.e. Toda and Ikeda being involved. I never said Ikeda or Toda beat the priest – did I? The mob was led by Toda that’s what sources are clear about and encouraged by Toda and Ikeda was amongst those organising the mob and part of it. --Catflap08 (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source Yanatori (pp. 309-313, in Japanese) on incident and Ikeda's role, etc.
Yanatori states that the information he is reporting on with respect to the incident was taken from documents filed in a related court case. (Yanatori, Mitsuyoshi (1977). Sōka Gakkai (in Japanese). Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai.) 別のリンチ狸祭り かなり古い話になるが、事件が起こったのは、昭和幻年4月幻日夕刻から夜にかけてのことだ. 被害者の小笠原慈開師ハ故人)が裁判所に提出した資料によると、事件の内容は次のようなものだったという. その日の夕刻、慈聞師は総本山大石寺内にある寂日坊と呼ばれる宿泊所の二階で地元愛知県から登山してきた信者たちと歓談していた. 面会人があるというので出てみると、中年の女性信者数人が居り、学会の婦人部長と名乗る女性(柏原ヤス現参院議員)が「法門(教義〉のことでお尋ねしたい」と師を同じ坊内一階の事務所に誘い出した. 行ってみると、当時の戸田城聖会長を先頭に青年部の屈強な若者がずらりと並んでいた. 呼び出しの理由は簡単にいうと、戦前慈聞師が唱えていた教義解釈が間違っていたのだから謝れというわけだ. 師が拒否すると戸田会長が殴ったのをきっかけに、青年会員が衣をはぎ取り、写真にあるように下着だけにしてかつぎ上げ、「牧口先生(初代会長)を殺した悪僧」「狸坊主」「大石寺を売った悪僧」などと書いたプラカードを持ち、シュプレヒコールをやりながら見せしめに境内を引き回した. さらに暗閣の中を牧口会長の墓の前に連れて行き、滞の上に ひきすえて、自分の唱えた教義は間違っていたとの詑び状を書かせた. 急を聞きつけて地元消防団がかけつけたため慈聞師は宿坊に帰され、騒ぎは収まったが、このリンチで師は内出血のため四週間も休まなくてはならなかったという. この事件で戸田会長は警察に二日間拘留され、取調べを受けている. リンチの理由は学会によると、慈聞師は戦前、軍部に迎合して神を中心にした神仏一体論を唱え、これも軍部の宗派統一方針に迎合して大石寺〈日蓮正宗〉を身延山(日蓮宗〉に合併させ、売ろうとした裏切者であり、その裏切りによって牧口初代会長が獄死し、戸田二代目会長は獄中につながれた、というのである. この話は池田会長著の『人間革命』に出てくるが、ともかく「四十七士が吉良を憎むが如く(辻武寿青年部長・現副会長〉学会は慈聞師を憎み、復讐した」という. 慈聞氏によると、学会の主張は全くのすりかえで、師は学識深く、布教に熱心で、僧侶で、軍部の弾圧からご本尊を守るため神中心の神仏一体論を唱えた. 牧口、戸田両会長が投獄されたのは、「明治神宮の前でツパを吐いたり、宮城に向って小便をしたりの不敬罪が原因」ということになる. (後略) かくして、次々と過去の事実とは暴露されて行くのである.

'''The passage states that states Toda hit the priest. It also says that the priest was said to have suffered internal bleeding, and that Toda was taken into custody and held for two days while the incident was investigated. It does not implicate Ikeda or say that he was there; it only says that he addressed the conflagration in his book, "Human Revolution". You should confirm the brief translation when you get the chance, because the source has been ignored. I didn't know no one else would translate it.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:39, 14 February 2015; 02:09, 15 February  (UTC)

それはまるでファシズムだ さて、今回のテlマである学会員の反乱に入る. 最初に紹介する反乱の拠点は福井県. 福井大学を中心に学生印人、それに男子部、女子部の若者が加わって削人余が池田会長や幹部を手厳しく批判して強く抵抗し、学会本部も手をつけられないありさまだ. 福井県といえば先週号で詳しく紹介したK住職のいるところ. K師が教義問題や池田会長本仏論などで学会のあり方を批判したことはすでに述べた. 抵抗むなしく学会からF詑び状d を書かされるハメになってしまったが、ともかく物いわぬ僧侶が多い中では骨っぽい人物といわれる人物だ. かくして福井県は「Kと学生たちが学会をつぶしにかかっている」と池田会長を嘆かせたほど学会にとってはうるさい存在になっているのである. きっかけは昨年日月ごろ「人間革命の歌」を本山や寺での儀式や学会の座談会などで必ず直立不動の姿勢でうたうようにと指令が学会本部から出されたことに始まる——と 、反乱グループの学生たちはいう. 池田会長の筆になるとされる『小説・人間革命』が大ベストセラーになり、映画にもなったことはすでに周知のとおうだが、その『人間革命』に寄せた池田会長の次のような歌が問題になっているのである.

君も立て我も立つ 広布の天地に一人立て 正義と勇気の旗高く 創価桜の道開け

君も征け我も征く 吹雪に胸張りいざや征け 地よりか湧きたる我なれば この世で果さん使命あり

君も見よ我も見る はるかな虹の晴れやかな 日いずる世紀は漂々しくも -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Although I cannot confirm the Japanese-language source above, I have read Montgomery, Murata, and other sources, and I concur with Elemential1 that none of the sources available in English say what this page now claims. No one is saying that the Ogasawara confrontation did not happen, but it is, at its core, between Toda and Ogasawara (related to Toda's perception of Ogasawara's role in the death of Makiguchi) and is already appropriately part of the Josei Toda page. It does not belong here. Ogasawara eventually charged Toda (charges he later dropped), but never charged Ikeda; he never even accused Ikeda. Verbage such as "violent harassment" leaves readers to conclude, incorrectly, that Ikeda was directly involved in some obscure physical violence, for which there is no proof. I believe this amounts to libel. As for Ikeda not stopping the violence, Ogasawara's fellow priests were also witnesses to this event and none of them stopped it -- do we blame them for the harassment? Of course not. Nor should we make Ikeda a scapegoat. Findemnow (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Well if no one is saying that the confrontation did not happen why was the complete paragraph on the confrontation being deleted?? Just because of one source?? Odd behaviour that is. The complete incident was deleted. Here we go, the Montgomery citation. Page 186 - 187. ''Only a year after Toda’s inauguration, however, the society’s zeal amost brought it to an ignominious end. In Aprol 1952 Taiseki-ji and other Nichiren temples throughout the land were celebrating the 700th anniversary of the founder’s first proclamation of the Daimoku, Namu Myoho Renge Kyo. Believers from around the country came to their head temples for special festivities. At Taiseki-ji four gala days were planned. The first two were to be managed by the sect’s official laymen’s association, called Hokkeko. The last two days were for Sokagakkai. Toda planned a show of force. The Hokkeko was bringing 2,500 members, and he would muster 4,000 from his one-year-old society. He also saw an opportunity to avenge his two years of imprisonment during the war: he had learned that the leader of the compromising party, the priest Jimon Ogasawara, was going to be present. (footnote 72: In his historical novel The Human Revolution, Daisaku Ikeda gives Jimon Ogasawara the name, ‘Jiko Kasahara’.) There could be no better time for a showdown. ''Before leaving for the head temple Toda organized his younger members like shock troops. He instructed them to search directly for the offending priest, and then be ready for action once they found him. They were to challenge him to debate the views right then and there. Forty-seven leaders of the Youth Division, one of whom was Daisaku Ikeda, worked out a systematic plan to locate Ogasawara and bring him to judgement. On arriving at Taiseki-ji, they fanned and carefully combed the temple grounds. Nevertheless, they might have missed him entirely had not a young lady from Hokkeko inadvertently tipped them off by innocently remarking that she seen the famous Reverend Ogasawara at one of the priests’ lodging houses. Instantly, the Youth Division members sent one of their number to advise Toda while the rest of them converged on the house. They barged straight in, and found the 69-year old theologian clad in his priestly garments and talking cheerfully to several other clergymen. ''The young men immediately challenged him to debate his views. The old priest tried to put them off, saying the hour was late, and the he was tired after the long journey to the temple, but Sokagakkai members kept pouring into the room and demanding that Ogasawara retract his views and take the blame for the imprisonment and death of Makiguchi. The old man, now thoroughly annoyed, told them to go away and leave him alone. The lady from Hokkeko, embarrassed by the results of her innocent introduction, slipped away without a word. Three other priests, who had been chatting with Osagawara, sat in shocked silence, unable to believe they were hearing such abuse heaped on so venerable a devine.'' ‘Take off his robe!’ someone shouted. ‘Take off his robe a and take him to the grave of Makiguchi’ Four men picked up the squirming priest. They were just about to carry him out when Toda appeared in the doorway. ‘Stop!’'' ''What happened next is not clear. According to Ikeda, Toda reasoned calmly with Ogasawara, demanding an apology, while the old man ‘drolled out of the mouth’ and ‘howled like a rabid dog’. But Murata claims that Toda told him in an interview that he struck the priest ‘twice’ (96). In any case, Ogasawara would not be intimidated, and would admit to nothing. ''Seeing that he was getting nowhere, Toda finally strode out, leaving the old priest to the mercies of his tormentors. ‘If you so stubbornly refuse to apologisem, whatever may happen to you is no longer of my concern. Whatever the Youth Divison members may do to you, I will not take the responsibility. ‘ ''As soon as their leader had left, the young men once more hoisted the priest up onto their shoulders. By then they had torn off his priestly robe and stripped him down his underclothes. They carried him out into the temple grounds, shouting through megaphones, ‘This is Jimon Ogasawara, a parasite in the lion’s body, gnawing at Nichiren Shoshu … This is a villanous monk, the actual murderer of Mr. Mkiguchi!’. They tagged him with a placard reading. ‘Racoon Monk’, and bore him to the grave of Makiguchi. There the thoroughly shaken old man was forced to sign a prepared apology and repudiation of his theological opinions.'' ''By then a large crowd had gathered at the scene. Chief Director Izumida of Sokagakkai took charge. The scene in the cemetery was lit eerily by light from the exploding fireworks celebrating the festival. Ogasawara tried to joke about the incongruity of it all, but this only enraged his captors all the more. ''Some local firemen serving as temple guards, thinking that the priest was about to be lynched, finally managed to break through the mob. However, when it turned out that the firechief was Izumida’s brither-in-law, the matter was settled amicably. Ogasawara was released, and the crowd disappeared.'' One could actually say that the early Soka Gakkai had a strange affiliation with vigilantism. Said to have resurfaced in later years. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Findemnow Mr. Ikeda was clearly involved in the incident. If not why should he even mention it in his novel? The section on the talk page is about major changes to the article. Since active only since December 2014 it might be worthwhile to seek a tutor on Wikipedia. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Both the Japanese text pasted above and English text pasted above state Toda (allegedly) struck Ogasawara. Murata states Toda "admitted" to striking Ogasawara. The Japanese text is not a court record but claims to be from a civil complaint Ogasawara filed then later withdrew and the only individual he named was Toda. No source has been presented here that states Ikeda was violent, yet this Wikipedia page still states he was violent. Certain editors who have admitted a negative bias block the correction of these falsehoods. I suggest everyone read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles  Elemential1 (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Elemential1 Again, this clash contained violence not even SGI denies that. Having problems with a sentence or a source is one thing – deleting the whole text on the incident is another – makes it appear it never happened. Please note WP:SPA.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Evidence, please
From not far above:


 * Mr. Ikeda was clearly involved in the incident. If not why should he even mention it in his novel?

Wikipedia talk pages are full of enjoyment, often unintended. But I shall long treasure this particular nugget.

This article is about Ikeda, not the organization that he has headed. If an event didn't involve Ikeda personally, I don't understand why any summary of it should be in this article. If there is evidence that Ikeda was personally involved, let's see it.

Arguments (even good ones) by WP editors that he must have been present won't wash. By contrast, arguments that can be ascribed to reliable sources that he must have been present might be of interest, although they'd have to be handled very carefully (Not "Ikeda did...", but "X infers from Y that Ikeda must have done...".)

If there isn't such evidence, remove the whole thing. -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Peacock
In this edit, Catflap08 reverts the addition of a long quote from Rosa Parks, citing "WP:PEACOCK".

Wrong. Let's take a look at WP:PEACOCK. It's about boosterism by WP contributors, not about boosterism (or bullshit) in cited sources. Here's what it says, in part:


 * Peacock example:
 * Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter.


 * Just the facts:
 * Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, where he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation". By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists.

Notice how the (acceptable) "facts" include the unadulterated reproduction of the words of others. Now, within those words, if anyone were interested, I, personally would describe as "peacocky" or unearned or both all of: But if I supposed that anybody would be interested in these opinions, I'd write up them up in a blog or somewhere; I wouldn't inflict them on Wikipedia articles. -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * master poet (According to which authorities on poetry? [Authorities on pop music don't count.])
 * social critic (Please name one cogent piece of social criticism.)
 * intrepid (If this means anything other than "Didn't give up very quickly", then I can't think what it might be.)
 * guiding spirit (Well, they bought his records. Anything else? Evidence, please.)
 * Most Important People of the Century (Oh, pull the other one.)
 * artists (No need to aggrandize; try "musicians", or indeed "singers".)

Ocht, I can live with that. At least it’s a bit trimmed down now. Hopefully this not another start for the article to blow up as bubble. At least Shii was able to boil the article down a bit.--Catflap08 (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Murata reference
Since there was some dispute about the Murata references I included the quotes from page 96-97. Same talk page content included on SG/SGI page. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Please note; --Catflap08 (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's what the article now says:


 * Ikeda, who admitted to hitting the priest "once or twice" later referred to the incident as an "act of kindness" because "the old priest, made to realize his apostasy, was grateful to Toda and Soka Gakkai and died a happy man." (attributed to an unspecified page of Murata, Japan's New Buddhism)
 * Via a reference: Recalling this incident in an interview with the author in July 1956, Toda admitted hitting the priest 'twice' and said that this was the cause of the extremely unfavorable press his organization then received. . . .] (visible on a page I can't identify of Murata, Japan's New Buddhism)


 * Of course it's possible that Ikeda admitted to Murata that he'd hit the priest once or twice, and Toda also admitted to Murata that he (Toda) had hit him twice. But somehow there seems something screwy about this. &para; Incidentally, I've marked as a dead link a relevant link that, when I attempt to view it, is dead. I'm not sure that it really is dead; perhaps Google limits the number of snippets of a book that any one IP number can access within a certain time. Anyway, it would be a big help if people adding references did so informatively: not bare URLs, please; instead, "Title here" (and more detail if appropriate, and it usually is). -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * THe link should not be marked as "dead link" - it works fine for me126.59.94.184 (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can remember the quote originally said that Toda admitted to hitting the Priest twice. That was before it was attempted to delete the complete paragraph on the incident, to which I was opposed. Then it was claimed that the Murata quote does not exist – seemingly it does though. --Catflap08 (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As the article is about Ikeda, the question is of what is said about Ikeda. (Stuff about Toda can go into the article about Toda.)


 * This edit, by you, either adds or restores -- I can't be bothered to check which -- a lot of material to the article. Very possibly it is on balance a good edit (I can't be bothered to check). But whatever its virtues, it adds or readds the following sentence:


 * Ikeda, who admitted to hitting the priest "once or twice" later referred to the incident as an "act of kindness" because "the old priest, made to realize his apostasy, was grateful to Toda and Soka Gakkai and died a happy man." 


 * Now, does Murata say that Ikeda (not Toda) either did this or admitted doing it? If so, which page? If Murata doesn't say it, then who says it, and where? If no source can be found for this immediately, then let's get rid of it immediately. -- Hoary (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The incident included Ikeda who was in the mob. The hitting underlines the violent nature of the incident. May they both hit before deleting yet another quote I would check. At any rate the Toda hit fits well into the SG/SGI and Toda article. Again, I asked for the quote to be researched because some editors doubted its existence. --Catflap08 (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Murata writes (p. 96): "Recalling this incident [the Ogasawara incident] in an interview with the author in July 1956, Toda admitted hitting the priest 'twice'" [The footnote in Murata cites Japan Times, July 21, 1956.]

Montgomery (Montgomery, Daniel B. (1991). Fire in the Lotus: The Dynamic Buddhism of Nichiren. London: Mandala. ISBN 978-1852740917) writes (p. 187), "What happens [after Toda encountered Ogasawara] is not clear. According to Ikeda, Toda reasoned calmly with Ogasawara, demanding an apology, while the old man 'drooled at the mouth' and 'howled like a rabid dog.' But Murata claims that Toda told him in an interview that he struck the priest 'twice' ([Murata, p.] 96)." [as seen in the preceding quote from Murata]

Ikeda, (Ikeda, Daisaku (2004). The Human Revolution. Santa Monica, California: World Tribune Press.ISBN 0-915678-77-2)) writes (pp. 710-711) that Toda never struck Ogasawara but rather that Ogasawara kicked Toda twice. Ikeda writes that after Ogasawara kicked Toda the first time, Toda would not let the young men retaliate. He told them, "Stop! Don't hurt him! This vile fellow is not worth beating. Leave him alone."  After Ogasawara kicked Toda a second time, Toda left the room and then warned the youth division leader Seki, '"Don't harm Kasahara [Ogasawara], Seki."' Starrynuit (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me be clear here. This whole issue becomes growingly bizarre. The discussion about this incident dates years back. First of all it was disputed that the incident took place. When sources were included the sources were doubted. Then the credibility of authors was doubted. Then it was disputed who was involved. Finally, back to square one, a quote within the quote was doubted. In the end though even if there was an article on the Jimon Osagawara himself the incident will not go away. @ Starrynuit The human revolution is a novel. --Catflap08 (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Please, Catflap08, you're not clear at all. You seem to be trying hard to slither away from my simple question. It won't work, and it doesn't become you. Maybe almost anything happened. Wikipedia doesn't fill its articles with stuff that this or that editor thinks may be true. Now, can you or can you not present evidence from reliable sources for any of the following:
 * Murata says Ikeda said Ikeda hit the priest.
 * Murata says Ikeda hit the priest.
 * Somebody other than Murata says Ikeda said Ikeda hit the priest.
 * Somebody other than Murata says Ikeda hit the priest.
 * ? If so, then add the evidence. If not, then no, you can't have the article continue to include factoids such as this merely because you, personally, happen to think that they have a certain aura of truthiness. So remove the assertion. By which I mean that you, Catflap08, shouldn't simply see how long it can remain until somebody else removes it, but instead that you, personally, should remove it, as one small demonstration of your neutrality and dedication to factual correctness. If on the other hand you continue to show reluctance to remove unsourced stuff such as this (in remarkable contrast to your eagerness to remove more or less hagiographic content), I'll no longer find it possible to think that you value neutrality or factual correctness.


 * Imaginably there's no evidence that Ikeda hit the old fellow, but there is evidence that he played an unsavory role in an unsavory event. (I don't know. This is a mere thought experiment.) If this is so, then let's see the evidence. But if there is evidence that he did X, and if X is compatible with Y, this is not evidence that he did Y -- but your user page says that you have a higher degree, so surely you know all this. -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Hoary Listen, I never said Ikeda hit the priest!! The issue resurfaced when the COMPLETE paragraph on the incident in which Ikeda was involved was deleted. Maybe at some point somebody inserted the name Ikeda. – I do not know! I researched the Murata quote or rather asked for it to be researched as one editor challenged the fact that the Murata quote is not correct. And Murata states TODA hit the priest. --Catflap08 (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You readded the assertion (as part of something larger), and now you seem reluctant to remove it. Well, remove it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ikeda was involved in the incident. An incident in which apparently 47 people were involved. An incident which turned violent. An incident in which Toda hit the priest twice. To be honest I could not care less if Ikeda hit the priest or not or if he was waving with pom-poms. Since the articles on Ikeda and SG/SGI were reshuffled considerably within the past few weeks and since the incident is mentioned in both articles I included the Murata source in both articles as the Murata quote was questioned BEFORE the reshuffling too place. --Catflap08 (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm delighted to read that you couldn't care less. I infer from this that, like me, you would be equally happy for the article to reflect the fact that he didn't hit the priest (if this were indeed factual) as for it to reflect the fact that he did hit the priest (if this were indeed factual). My understanding of Occam and of Russell's teapot suggests that if there's no evidence either that he did or that he didn't, then we should assume that he didn't. On 22 January, with whatever good intentions, you (re)added the assertion that Ikeda hit the priest. This is what the article still says. Are you happy with the way that it still says this? If you are happy with it, is this because you have some other evidence for it, because you disagree with Occam and Russell, because you don't care whether articles are factual, or for some other reason? -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Who got the Murata quote checked? Me or you? I included the reference into the section that deals with the incident.  --Catflap08 (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Who got the citation checked? You got the Murata citation checked. We can see the question and answer here. And very interesting it is too. Here's your question.
 * I would like to know if this quote can be found in the above mentioned work or in an interview by Murata: “ later referred to the incident as an "act of kindness" because "the old priest, made to realize his apostasy, was grateful to Toda and Soka Gakkai and died a happy man."
 * (Here and below, is mine.) Good question. Well done so far. Here (after markup stripping) is the answer:
 * Hi Catflap08, here is the relevant text: [4] [5] [6] -
 * Recalling this incident in an interview with this author in July 1956, and said that this was the cause of the extremely unfavorable press his organization then received-which labeled Soka Gakkai as a "violent religion".............In a pamphlet issued in May 1955, Ogasawara similarly "repented" his "indiscretion in having had the unfortunate conflict with Soka gakkai." Ikeda, who led the four thousand young men to mob Ogasawara, says now that the incident was an act of kindness because the old priest, made to realize his apostasy, was grateful to Toda and Soka gakkai and died a happy man.
 * (The ellipsis is not mine; presumably it's NQ's.)
 * No mention in that of Ikeda hitting the priest. Oh, sure, Murata says that Ikeda "led the four thousand young men to mob Ogasawara", which is eminently worth reproduction in the article, but there's a difference between (A) leading a mob and (B) hitting.
 * And here is what you're happy to leave in the article after this checking:
 *  later referred to the incident as an "act of kindness" because "the old priest, made to realize his apostasy, was grateful to Toda and Soka Gakkai and died a happy man." 
 * So you'll get the veracity of a citation checked, be shown that it's wrong, leave it just as it is, and refuse to change it even when the difference is brought to your attention. Well, I've given up waiting, and have deleted the sentence myself. -- Hoary (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I will say this for the last time. The issue on the quote came up not because of Ikeda or not Ikeda. The issue started suggesting that Murata did not make that quote full stop. Do you get the difference? Look at the history of articles concerned. I could not care less if Ikeda was doing somersaults … The debate started (a) Disputing Ikeda’s presence during the incident (b) That the Murata quote in his books exists. At the beginning of this dispute the COMPLETE section was deleted … because of the MURATA quote. Understood? And since the quote as such was questioned I asked for it be researched thereby also clarifying who was hitting who. --Catflap08 (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Since it was also you who threatened me on my talk page with a topic ban I did not edit the sentence as such but included the QUOTES. --Catflap08 (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)