Talk:Daisaku Ikeda

/Archive topic

How to confirm questionable source reliability

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

Hagiography ?

I held up several banners relating to neutrality. Many paragraphs, passages or sentences do not respect Wikipedia's standards for neutrality. A lot of sentences or quotes are laudatory statements without proof, demonstration, sometimes even interest.

Among the scholars and specialists quoted, some of them are members of the SG, teachers at Soka University, or have responsibilities in the organization. But it's not specified, and that raises doubts about the neutrality and objectivity of their comments.

Worse : some sentences are copied from Soka Gakkai's websites, which 1/ is illegal, and violate Wikipedia's rules. 2/ shows that the article was not dutifully writen.

Please, let's try to make a new page for D. Ikeda, freed from these defects.

Raoul mishima (talk) 09:31, March 21st 2024 (UTC)

Sandalwood33 : please don't touch the page without talking and giving your arguments here. I'm not sure we need to clutter up the introduction with contentious figures. And the controversies from the 70s onwards are not only linked to Komeito, as you no doubt know. I'd be delighted to continue the discussion with you here.(talk) 20:57, March 21st 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for revisiting the quality of this article.

I participated in the "B-class review" exchanges. Specific recommendations were made, which have since been followed and resolved. One outstanding recommendation remains however from @Farang Rak Tham:: "Though B-level is certainly attainable for this article, writing style may have to be reviewed first."

It would be helpful if you:

* include a meaningful edit summary when you edit the article—a rationale is also helpful, e.g., when you delete sourced material

* refrain from altering sourced text in a way that is inconsistent with the source(s) cited—otherwise, it risks misleading the reader into thinking the insertion is from the source(s) cited when it is not

Sandalwood33 (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your observations.

As for the number of people involved in Sôka Gakkai and the number of countries where it is implanted, I don't think this should be in the introductory paragraph of the page since it is not of one the most important informations about Daisaku Ikeda.

Would you please add some reliable sources ? In the meantime I think the page needs to warn that "the number is controversial and impossible to verify".

I also questionned his characterizing as an "educator" since I could not find any information for him being employed as a teacher, and though decided to keep it aside waiting for sources.

Raoul mishima (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Sandalwood33 (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, you have been quoting Vinicio Busacchi in a new paragraph, saying he is a "professor of theorical philosophy".

M. Busacchi is above all an official representative for the italien branch of the Soka Gakkai. I have the feeling quoting him raises a source problem, and that we should avoid quoting advocates or partisans, because it carries doubt on the content. Would you please find some more objective sources and Raoul mishima (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

In the absence of any reaction from you, I'll take the liberty of deleting this contentious passage, but suggest that you continue to discuss it here, thank you. Raoul mishima (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Unverified statements

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

Hello,

the statements you deleted are perfectly sourcable and are part of D. Ikeda's history and reputation, wether you agree or not. Even the Soka Gakkai's website talks about a "controversial reputation in Japan"... Raoul mishima (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I added some quotes to the end of the 3rd parapgraph so the statemnents match what the cited footnotes say. Daveler16 (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm sorry but this page needs secondary sources and the one you added is problematic : Jason GOULAH (not GOULAN) has undoubtfully responsibilities within one or more of the institutes founded by D. Ikeda. As he is paid by those organizations, and also teaches in an university that receives funds from the Soka Gakkai, we can safely say that his judgment cannot be considered objective, and is in contradiction with Wikipedia's principles and rules. If you wish to improve this page, please suggest relevant and objective secondary sources. Raoul mishima (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The footnotes were already there as sources for your paragraph, and I quoted them direcctly. And Goulah was not the only one. As I understand the word "controversial", it does not mean merely "bad reputation", but that there are two views. Daveler16 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"Books" sub section

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

Hello,

This particular point only concerns the Ikeda/Toynbee book, which means it is relevant on this page. Maybe you could ad it to the Toynbee page if you wish too ? Thanks. Raoul mishima (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

This page has several problems and needs to be improved to better suit Wikipedia's rules. If you're interested, I'd advise you to try and include secondary sources, rather than censoring certain passages.

1) The quote does not say Toynbee was greedy for money, but highlights a criticism that has sometimes been raised concerning D. Ikeda: the use of his influence and money to obtain honors. This is not criminally reprehensible, but even great men have their faults and deserve criticism, don't they?

2/ You're pretending not to see what Toynbee's granddaughter is mainly saying: that D. Ikeda was a man of influence and power. Everyone who met him says so. This testimony therefore belongs on the page dedicated to D. Ikeda, and I'd be grateful if you'd stop trying to censor it.

You could, instead, add new passages, which would be more enriching, don't you think so ?

I would remind you that Wikipedia's rules include objectivity and contradictory discourse. They also require editors to indicate whether they are members of the organizations whose pages they are editing: is this your case ? Raoul mishima (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Typo

Small edit. "Philosophy and Belief" section said Ikeda said gratitude is crUcual to "violent communication". "NON violent" - right? Daveler16 (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)