User talk:Raoul mishima

Point of View? Conflict of Interest? Coincidence?
Hi. Viewing your history, I have to ask: do you have ab agenda, a less-than-neutral point of view? The question arises because, unless I’m missing something, it appears you have edited exclusively on pages related to the Soka Gakkai, and always in a way to diminish the subject in some way. You have questioned whether the founder of a worldwide network of schools is really an “educator”, you have questioned the circulation of the Soka Gakkai newspaper because the numbers came from the paper. You have introduced scandal (some of which has long been settled) into related institutions, and of course there’s our disagreement about Toynbee.

I believe Wikipedia requires that you reveal any connection you have with anyone who has a vested interest in denigrating the Soka Gakkai, whether that be another Buddhist sect or a connection to a blog o message board devoted to attacking the Soka Gakkai.

I have long been open about my SGI membership. I don’t mind honest editing – someone just lowered the membership number and that seems perfectly fair to me – but I wonder if you have an agenda? If not, could you explain why all your edits are of a negative nature? And why your only interest seems to be the Soka Gakkai? I think we can work together to make the Daisaku Ikeda page informative and neutral, but we have to be honest with each other. Thank you. Daveler166 (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * it's just a SPA, very common on WP.
 * Do you think SG pages respect NPOV ? I honnestly don't think so and I'm just trying to make them more encyclopedic and professionnal. If you want to make it neutral too, I'd be more than pleased to collaborate with an SGI member. Thank you. Raoul mishima (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If your account is a SPA, do you have any other accounts? Mokadoshi (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But why exclusively Soka Gakkai? What led you there? Please forgive my suspicions if unfounded. For instance, the Polly Toynbee article is not one that readily pops up in a routine Google search of "Ikeda". But there are sites where it does appear frequently, and those sites have a very clear (even stated) agenda. Daveler166 (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * SPA is for SG.
 * your suspicions are not totally unfounded, I've seen some very very agressive anti-SG websites, especially in japanese.
 * for the Polly Toynbee article, it does exist on The Guardian's website, I agree she's a bit disillusioned, but it's a matter of balance, and as you might notice the current D.I. page has been extensively written by SG members and desperately needs some critical mind. More important : most of the sources are primary sources, which makes the page look like an advertisement.
 * There are some very interesting works about DI and the SG, those from D. Métraux and Levi McLaughlin are the best ones, and they're not harsh critics. I'm a scholar too, and when I see those sources apparently scientific but close or funded by the SG, I'm sorry but this is not scientific.
 * I live in Japan and know SG from here, had discussions with actual and former members. DI is a very controversial figure here.
 * How long have you been a member ? Raoul mishima (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy here is WP:DUE. If reliable third-party sources detail that there are controversies with the subject, then that information can belong in an article. The question is to what extent the article should focus on it, which is where the due weight policy I've linked comes into play. Say for example that 10% of sources are about controversy related to the subject - then it may make sense for about 10% of the article to detail those controversies. It doesn't matter how long ago the matters may have been settled. If you have criticism about the controversies added to the page, then you can ask yourself: do the sources seem reliable? does the source verify the claim on the Wikipedia page? is the information undue weight? It would be easier to talk in specifics if you give diffs, but at that point it would be better to discuss on the article's talk page. Mokadoshi (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024
Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Daisaku Ikeda, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''I see about 5 reverts from you in the last month with an authoritative statement that people are not allowed to edit the article without discussing changes on the Talk page first. No editor is required to gain approval from anyone to edit an article. You may very well disagree with some edits to the page, but unless someone is breaking the rules with their edit, you do not own the page or have the authority to dictate your personal beliefs of quality onto the page. If someone is breaking the rules you are welcome to revert with a description detailing the policies they are violating. Do not revert someone for no reason other than you want them to discuss changes first.'' Mokadoshi (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * I'm not acting like I'm the owner of this page. If you get a close look at what I've been deleting, it's mainly unsourced statements or statements with primary sources. If you're interested in this page, please work on it's possible secondary sources and its NPOV. Raoul mishima (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Like I said, If someone is breaking the rules you are welcome to revert with a description detailing the policies they are violating. Mokadoshi (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Warning about unsourced and subjective
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Soka Gakkai, you may be blocked from editing. Your edits have not cited any sources, and have included instances of unsubstantiated puffery.

If you have a conflict of interest regarding Soka Gakkai, you need to declare it. It's discussed above, but you have not directly addressed this. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Writing SG owns publishing companies, a school network, a newspaper, and founded a political party, is not a personal analysis, check the rest of the article, thanks. Raoul mishima (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are still evading the question about conflict of interest. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

recent edit
howdy fellow editor,

i noticed a large removal of well sourced content from an article, in a topic around which you seem to have considerable interest.

reading over the sources, it is unlikely that your preferred version will withstand scrutiny, and your insistence is creating a slow edit war over other uncontroversial changes.

we're going to go ahead and check these edits more thoroughly, and we request that you receive solid consensus before continuing.

thanks in advance, Augmented Seventh (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
Hello, I'm Swadge2. I noticed that you recently removed content from Humanitarian response to the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Swadge2 (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

July 2024
Hi Raoul mishima! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)