Talk:Soka University of America

Needs More Information
There could be information about concentrations at SUA including the heads of those concentrations. Also, the "Perspectives" heading is vague. If this is meant to be more than a replication of talking points, some more factual information along with perspectives examined in greater depth would make this more credible.

question
ciao sono ferruccio zanichelli sono buddista di Nichiren e vorrei venire a visitare la vostra sede in California ad agosto dal 10 al 20. E' possibile trovare un appartamento? o un hotel? ferruccio.zanichelli@alice.it           grazie

Teetering on POV
Its great that the article has been expanded, but we must be careful to not have it read too much like a brochure for the school. The model for the best university articles can be found here. --Bobak (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bobak. I have no complaint with this University at all,but this article reads as if it were lifted directly from its promotional materials. I believe it violates neutral POV. Of course, this University is new, so it doesn't have a lot of history yet. The article could, therefore, be shorter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.168.252 (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please be specific on which part should be edited to remove 'advert'. Thank you in advance for your suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.155.184 (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent Academic Events section
What is the relevance of this section? Can't anyone look up the university's event calendar and just go there instead? Taking a look at a few of the featured university articles, none have a similar section. I'll remove it in a week if there are no objections. -- Broken Sphere Msg me 00:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's an accurate assessment. There have been lots of positive improvements to this article, but I agree that's a bit excessive.  Just about every major university has distinguished speakers --perhaps something mentioning that the school attracts major speakers (with citations) could be added to another section, but a calender-like section is quite right. --Bobak (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, to be clear, an ideal university article on Wikipedia would look like one on the featured article list of the WikiProject Universities page available here, particularly the US-based FA articles for Dartmouth, Duke, FAU, Georgetown,Michigan State, Ohio Wesleyan, UC Riverside, Michigan, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech. I think it would be great if the SUA eventually reached that level. However, there's something to note about all of those articles: none have anything like this Recent Academic Events section that's continually being added. It really does not serve an encyclopedia article, and should not be included unless we're talking about something as historic as a presidential debate or a monumental speech. I think the efforts would be best served developing this article based on the guidance given by the successful WikiProject Universities group, available here. I will revert and, if necessary, protect this article if changes continue without any attempt to discuss the matter here on the discussion page. --Bobak (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Class Size?
The average class size is listed as 13. I doubt that's the correct number, someone may have left off a zero. Just a heads up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unquenchablefire (talk • contribs) 08:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You think a school with 355 undergrads attends 130-person classes? 04:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Maintenance
I did some maintenance on this page -- updated data, fixed dead links, rearranged sections, etc. The data for the undergraduate catalogs is old, from 2007. Someone should update that. --Margin1522 (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sectarianism edits
I have researched the articles cited in the section titled "Allegations of sectarianism" and I propose the following edits: First, based on my reading of the sources in question, I believe the Japanese-language publications are tabloid-level, not reliable, and negatively biased. Further, the contents are irrelevant personal allegations against Daisaku Ikeda and unrelated to SUA or the allegations of sectarianism. Therefore, I believe such personal allegations should be removed from this article.

In addition to deleting the irrelevant and improperly sourced material, I propose adding accurate material from follow-up articles by the OC Weekly, the publication that ran a story about the allegations of sectarianism in the first place. Adding more recent material by original writer and her editor about the subject matter (which is already cited in the article) is a balanced approach. For example, the writer published follow up material stating the professor who sued SUA lost her case on summary judgment (meaning the judge didn't even think it was worth sending to a jury). Also, the OC Weekly editor in chief said he got A LOT of flack from all over Orange County for the cover art that many felt was extremely racist. Some who were totally unrelated to SUA or SGI also found the article was unfair and negatively slanted. The editor in chief published an apology, and although his article is referenced, the balanced contents of it are not.

Finally, the current wording at the bottom of the section of "further reports of proselytizing" is misleading, because the contents of the cited source is also about the same issues noted in the first part of the article. The backlash is also relevant, since the local community largely saw the article as a racist smear against SUA (which has a largely Asian student body) in part due to the OC Weekly cover art of a fat Asian man drawn to look like the Great Buddha of Kamakura, which many readers pointed to as indicative of the lack of genuine reporting done by the publication. Baiabogo (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on your talk page, the cover of the OC Weekly issue has nothing to do with the content of the article inside. Please make your point without reference to that, which is a separate issue and not relevant to the charges made regarding SUA. BMK (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @Baiabogo - Having started a discussion here does not allow you to re-insert your disputed edits again. You must wait for a WP:consensus to form before you can do that.  Continuing to re-insert the material without a consensus could lead to your being blocked from editing.  I suggested on your talk page that you could put back in the uncontested parts of your edit, such as it being a four-year liberal arts school,  but that did not mean the entire thing, including material that may show bias on your part, i.e. attributing the founding of the school to a person and not to an organization.  I think it is best, considering all that has happened, that you just stop editing the article entirely until you've got a consensus. BMK (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

''' *I have posted neutral pointers to this discussion on the talk pages of WikiProject Universities, WikiProject Buddhism and the Southern California task force of Wikiproject California. BMK (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)'''


 * Hi BMK, okay now I'm confused. You specifically stated to me on my Talk page: "You are free to re-instate the non-controversial parts of your edit, i.e. "four year liberal arts" etc."  So I reinstated those as you said, and I posted my other proposed edits here, as you asked, for other editors to discuss.  However, you have once again reverted the non-controversial copyedits.  Please explain. Baiabogo (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I said that, but your idea of what is and isn't controversial is much more liberal than mine. Because you don't seem to have a clear sense of what part of your edit was uncontroversial, I suggest that you simply refrain from editing until a consensus is reached.  The actual non-controversial changes you made were indeed improvments, but the article does not suffer significantly from not having them - they can wait. BMK (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do BMK, but can you please give me examples of what you considered "controversial" about the edits I made? That would be very helpful. Baiabogo (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Better than that, I've taken a closer look and split the baby, restoring your changes with the exception of the 1st graf under "History and philosophy". Can we both live with that while discussion continues? BMK (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine BMK, but I'd like to politely point out that the edits I made to the 1st graf under "History and Philosophy" exactly match the contents of the cited source (the PDF catalog). So, the current text of that graf is different than the cited source, and different than every other source I can find regarding these facts, namely, that the founder of SUA is Daisaku Ikeda, president of Soka Gakkai International, and Soka University's educational philosophy is rooted in the work of Makiguchi, who created a society for educators in Japan in the 1930s. Baiabogo (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If it exactly matches the source, then it is a copyright violation or WP:Plagiarism (or both), neither of which is allowed. BMK (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The edits @Baiabogo suggests are reflected in the content of the cited history/philosophy source, so those edits are appropriate. I agree with @Beyond My Ken that the stuff about racist cover art should be left out of the sectarian criticism, but otherwise I think the proposed edits for that section are appropriate too. LovLove (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The proposed edits seem good to me, minus the cover art mention.Elemential1 (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If a source has updated its own statements, then it seems to me that, not only is it ethical to make the edits, but an indication of an intent to maintain neutrality in the article. And I say this having no idea what the source is saying.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In the first paragraph of History, the sources contradict the text, so those corrections should be made. I agree w/ all the other suggested edits under Sectarianism, except drop the cover art topic. -Basicallyyes (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree the proposed changes should be made. Momiyori (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you everyone for your input -- I've made the edits along the lines of consensus. Baiabogo (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about pictures
Why are there so many pictures of the campus? I hadn't noticed this in articles on other niversities They are nice, but at some point don't they become like an ad for Soka precisely because they are so nice? Maybe just one or two would be more appropriate? (I'm new, sorry if this has been addressed already). --JackBnimble10 (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

No interest? Any objection if I remove a picture or two?--JackBnimble10 (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

template
Hello. The template banner should be removed because the strong "affiliation with Buddhism" is not a major part of the university. The non-sectarian statement toward the end of the article explains the history of that accusation. The school is founded on Buddhist principles (e.g., the interconnectedness of all life and respect for the dignity of life)but does not offer any classes on Buddhism. The current introductory paragraph covers the main tenets of the school according to Goulah & Ito (2015) Daisaku Ikeda's Curriculum of Soka Education: Creating Value Through Dialogue, Global Citizenship, and “Human Education” in the Mentor–Disciple Relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debbie Goss (talk • contribs) 02:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Debbie Goss (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. According to my review, the Buddhist organization is mentioned 10 times in this article, so the editor who added the template clearly didn't read this article.  It should be deleted due to its inaccuracy / irrelevance.  HaleyJMich (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

NextShark for sexual harassment and assault petition
There is a discussion on whether NextShark (nextshark.com) is a reliable source for information related to the sexual harassment and assault petition described in Special:Diff/892086344. If you're interested, please participate at. —  Newslinger  talk   09:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)