Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:32, 19 September 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Soka Gakkai article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Buddhism Top‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Soka Gakkai article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Brainwashing cult and James R. Lewis

On the question of whether to take this to the WP:RS/N notice board, I don’t think that’s the right place for it. Lewis uses the word "stereotyped", so I think it's pretty clear that he doesn't agree with this idea. But the dispute here is about whether reliable sources are being used responsibly, and that's not what WP:RS/N is about. Personally I don't think "brainwashing cult" belongs in the article at all, much less the lead. Following are some reasons.

1. Improper use of the source Suppose a climate scientist wrote a paper that begins "Many climate scientists have been accused of manipulating their data." And then he devotes the rest of the paper to showing why those accusations are false. The paper is about the falsity of the accusations, not the fact that accusations have been made. If we quote only the first sentence and ignore the rest of the paper, the result would be to sow doubt in the reader's mind about the integrity of climate science. Unfortunately this is more or less what we are doing here. We are planting the word "brainwashing" in the reader's mind, despite the fact that the author doesn't believe it.
2. Doesn't say what we say it does We cite Lewis as evidence that SG "grapples with a stereotype of being a 'brainwashing cult'". In Japan, today. But the quote doesn't say that.
3. Dubiousness of the concept itself According to the relevant section in our article on Anti-cult movement, a long list of scientists "have argued and established to the satisfaction of courts, of relevant professional associations and of scientific communities that there exists no scientific theory, generally accepted and based upon methodologically sound research, that supports the brainwashing theories as advanced by the anti-cult movement." Who are making these accusations? Is it just fundamentalist Christians who are horrified that their daughter has become a Buddhist? Given that the idea itself is dubious, it needs extraordinary evidence. We offer no evidence.
4. Offensiveness People have repeatedly asked that this word be removed. If this was a cooperative endeavor, like it's supposed to be, those requests should at least be considered and some attempt made to compromise.
5. Influence of Misplaced Pages Many of the references on the net that connect SG and "brainwashing" can be traced back to this article. The word is incendiary, and we should make very sure that it is being used responsibly.
6. Doesn't belong in the lead This word was inserted on 04:54 2 December 2013 by Kiruning, who apparently wanted to get it into the lead. But it doesn't appear in the rest of the article. If you ask me, the entire paragraph starting "The organization has been the subject of substantial criticism" should be moved down to the "Public perception and criticism" section. We should have at least one sentence for each cite, and each topic should be critically examined. Then we can consider putting it in the lead.
7. Isn't true Basically, the idea that SG is regarded by the general public as a cult, much less a "brainwashing" cult, just isn't true. Aum, yes. SG, no. As I said above, they are no more regarded as a dangerous cult than the Mormons are in the US.

This is just one example. The same goes for the cite to The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions, which BTW is by Lewis, not Zonta. We seem to be implying that a respected scholar describes SG as a cult. Is that true? If not, then all of the same objections apply. --Margin1522 (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I could not agree with Margin1522 more. Thank you for taking the time to post this. Following your suggestion, I will refrain from posting this on the WP:RS/N notice board with the hope that those of us who are working hard on contributing to this page can reach a consensus on the talk page. Here is the letter I had planned on posting that is on hold:

I would like to request additional opinions about the use of James R. Lewis’ book, “Legitimizing New Religions” (found at http://books.google.com/books?id=hdYSdts1udcC&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=james+r+lewis+anti-anti+cult+soka+gakkai&source=bl&ots=FtDzO9wMy-&sig=bBJaAvGLEW1dS_8YZtM7xCEK4xA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5yD7U82UDJShyASjuoDIBA&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=soka%20gakkai&f=false) in the Soka Gakkai article. A quote from this work is being cited to support a sentence in the lede,

is still widely viewed with suspicion in Japan and grapples with a stereotype of being a ‘brainwashing cult’ as well as a centered around Ikeda.

To substantiate this statement an editor selects this paragraph in the Lewis book (p. 218):

Soka Gakkai also spread to the United States and Europe, where it aroused controversy as a result of its intensive proselytizing activities. Although never as controversial as groups like the Hare Krishna Movement or the Unification Church, Soka Gakkai which in the United States went under the name Nichiren Shoshu of America until after Soka Gakkai broke with Nichiren Shoshu was not infrequently stereotyped as a brainwashing cult, particularly by anticult authors.

To the eyes of WP readers, the charge of a “stereotype of being a ‘brainwashing’ cult” is serious and damning—especially when appearing in a lede--and thus should require a high bar to validate. The Lewis source does not pass this muster.

First of all, James R. Lewis is specifically referring in this quote to the Soka Gakkai in the United States and Europe. The Soka Gakkai article, however, by consensus of all the editors, is about the organization in Japan. The quote uses past tense verbs (“it aroused,” “went under,” “was not”) whereas the statement in the article is examining current—not—past perceptions (is still widely viewed with suspicion). These two points alone should disqualify its use.

It is essential to note that Lewis uses this quote as a mere literary foil. As such he feels no need to support it by providing citations. He claims no field trip to research Japanese public perception about the Soka Gakkai nor any link to Japanese sources. This is simply his perception about public perception of the Soka Gakkai and thus needs no research from any sociologist, political scientist, or anthropologist. He doesn’t care because his goal is not to examine public perception but to drop a casual statement that makes his larger case for legitimizing new religions as can be seen from the book’s title, “Legitimating New Religions.”

In fact, he spends the rest of the book pushing back, undoing the statement he dropped, explaining that the contention is false. For example on the prior page (217) he states,

For over half a century, one of the most controversial new religions in Japan has been Soka Gakkai. Although this group has matured into a responsible member of society…

Lewis goes on to explain why—in the past—public perception was negative, fanned by negative publicity.

Until relatively recently, it also had a high profile as the result of sensationalist and often irresponsible media coverage. Apparently as a direct consequence of the social consensus against this religion, some scholars have felt free to pen harsh critiques of Soka Gakkai—critiques in which the goal of promoting understanding has been eclipsed by efforts to delegitimate Soka Gakkai by portraying it as deluded, wrong, and/or socially dangerous. This body of ‘scholarship’ presents a useful case study for the paradigmatic manner in which it exemplifies inappropriate approaches to the study of religious bodies.

Anyone familiar with Lewis’ work knows that he is one of the foremost scholars of the 'anti-anti-cult' movement. Over and over again in this book he makes statements such as,

It is thus important to note that almost all mainstream academic researchers reject the popular stereotype of new religions deceptively recruiting and brainwashing their members, and that almost all of the studies supporting the notion of cultic mind control are so obviously biased that mainstream social scientific journals routinely do not publish them

(p. 159). It is cruel from this perspective to use the casually-dropped foil sentence of Lewis to support the designation of a “stereotype of being a ‘brainwashing cult’” being applied to the Soka Gakkai.

In conclusion, the claim of “brainwashing cult” is so serious and emotionally-charged that it merits the highest level of scholarship to substantiate. It alarms readers who may not be aware that the concept has lost scientific legitimacy. It certainly is misrepresentative to use the Lewis quote to support this statement. As an increasing number of people rely on Misplaced Pages for neutral and accurate reporting, irresponsible editing should be called into question. We have to go further than to search Google Books with a term such as "brainwash Soka Gakkai" and dump into an article anything that pops up.

FetullahFan (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources say on a given topic, and Lewis is reliable for those statements.

You can't say that Aum is a brainwashing cult, on the one hand, and then dismiss the concept on the other in an attempt to reject a source. This article does not judge the concept, only reports that it has been applied to SG. The comments are attributed to people in the "anti-cult movement".--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 04:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

My dear @Ubikwit, you do not address the specific points that Margin1522 and I make. Margin1522's point about the Aum v SG is clear. What authors are you claiming place Aum and SG at the same level of brainwashing cult? When you say, "This article does not judge the concept, only reports that it has been applied to SG" I think you must concede that "it has been applied to" is a pretty low bar for a lede. Maybe somewhere else for WP readers who want to explore nuances, but not the lede which forms the primary take-away for most readers. "Has been applied to" includes casual mentions, word droppings, rumors, trolling. A lede should require more than that. "We report what reliable sources say on a given topic, and Lewis is reliable for those statements"--Both Margin1522 and I point out that he uses the statement in question as a foiSl--and then spends the rest of the book debunking it. I would like you to respond to Margin1522's analogy about the environmental scientists who use a statement such as "some scientists deny climate change" and then spend the rest of the article debunking this. They shouldn't then be described as supporters of climate change denial.

Since you and Shii are the Japanese-fluent editors of this page, can you provide translations of the relevant passages of the Yanatori and Furukawa books?

FetullahFan (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Since we are on the topic of James R. Lewis, I would like to address this detestable statement in the lede: "Some anticult authors have included the Soka Gakkai on their lists of cults." Lewis book The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects and New Religions is the only source being used to substantiate this statement. First of all, Lewis is not a representative of "some anticult authors"--in fact he belongs to the school of anti-anti-cult authors and most of his career has been devoted to questioning the anti-cult movement. Secondly, what sentence in this article is being used to substantiate that the SG is a cult? This is a book, as its title shows, that describes cults, sects, and new religions. In which of these three categories does Lewis place the SG? FetullahFan (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your position regarding the use of Lewis as a source. It doesn't matter if he is an "anti-anti-cult" NRM sympathizer or not: the statement in his book is purely factual. Whether he "debunks" whatever you claim he debunks or not is irrelevant, and amounts to something like using WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to dismiss a source. I suggested that you take it to RS/N, you agreed and then reversed that decision for some reason. Furthermore, I suggest that you read the Misplaced Pages article on James R. Lewis (scholar)--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Lewis is a reliable source for the fact that "obviously biased" accusations have been made. Except that we leave out the part about "obviously biased" and simply repeat the accusations. Fetullah and I are calling that irresponsible.

Look, this is not that hard. Ask if Lewis would approve of the way we quote him. If the answer is no, then we can try to do better. One example of how to do this is our article on Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That article relies heavily on the work of the Ostlings and the Tanners. We explain who they are -- they even have their own articles. Do the same thing with the people making these brainwashing allegations. I doubt they have their own articles, but we can check what other books they have to their credit, their publishers, reviews, etc. Call those people as witnesses for the prosecution. As witness for the defense, call Lewis. Let the reader know who is saying what. Yes, we should insist on reliable sources, so I don't see how anyone can object to this. --Margin1522 (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

And no, I didn't say Aum was a brainwashing cult. I said it was a cult. First things first. When I just said that I'm dubious of the whole idea of brainwashing, can't you assume that I meant what I said? --Margin1522 (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The assertions about "bias" are irrelevant, because they rely on your analsysis. The statements used from Lewis are simple representation of fact. It doesn't matter whether Lewis agrees with "anti-cult movement" critics of G or not. ::::Moreover, I suggested above that the Misplaced Pages article on Lewis be read, where there are statements such as this

A prolific author, Lewis won a Choice Outstanding Academic Title award for Cults in America in 1999. The Choice review described it as a "very readable book" that offered a "balanced overview of controversies centering on cults in America", containing basic information on several dozen groups, as well as the more general conflict between "anti-cultists" seeking government assistance to eliminate cults, and religious "libertarians" defending religious liberty even for disliked groups. The review stated that while Lewis differed with the anti-cult view, he presented "arguments and references from both sides – respectfully and in language free from insinuation or invective.

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not my analysis, it's a direct quote from Lewis. That's what he thinks. The problem here is that you aren't responding to any of my points. I gave a number or reasons why I think "brainwashing" doesn't belong in the article -- Lewis wouldn't like the way we quote him, the word is offensive, other editors want it out, the idea itself is dubious, etc. But you keep saying none of that matters. The only thing that matters is that I want it in the article and I have a source, so it stays. But why do you want it? There are a million things we could put in. Why this? I'm not even saying that we absolutely can't have it. Let's find one of these anti-cult authors and let him make his case. Then we can discuss it. --Margin1522 (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, I see that someone has been bold and deleted the whole thing. That was pretty drastic. But before we descend into a full-scale edit war, let me remind everybody that the 3R rule applies to all reverts and deletions. Let's not do that 3 times within 24 hours. We seem to have a couple of people who are on the verge or over it already. --Margin1522 (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The word is offensive, and that is why he brings up the fact that it has been used to described SG, and addresses those in the anti-cult movement that do. Lewis has been criticized for being something of an apologist for NRMs, and whether or not he would like how his source is used is irrelevant--he wouldn't deny the facticity of his statement, at any rate. The idea in its full-blown version has been rightfully criticized, but the term is a common parlance for criticizing forms of indoctrination and the like, which are not entirely dissimilar to "shakubuku".

I'm not convinced by the other arguments you made. The correct route to get opinions of uninvolved editors is the RS/N.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 12:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, then, maybe FetullaFan should go ahead with his plan. Ever since joining this discussion I've focused on the most inflammatory content and asked whether the sources making those statements are reliable sources themselves. In many cases it turns out they aren't. If we have to have it in the article, I think a journalist would approach it by saying something like this:

SG is controversial. It has been called a "force for good in the world" by Amnesty International and a "brainwashing cult" by anti-cult activists.

That's in the lead, with material to back it up in the article. I think there should be plenty of material about SG to keep everybody happy, as long as we attribute everything, explain who the sources are, and make it clear that Misplaced Pages isn't passing judgment. --Margin1522 (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

" It doresn't matter if he is an "anti-anti-cult" NRM sympathizer or not: the statement in his book is purely factual." Ubikwit, you seem to be using a source that says "this is wrong" to endorse "this is right." I think the same can be said of the Watanabe LA Times article, a direct quote from which is: "'He has read every book I teach, and he knows them better than most educators,' he said. 'He is not a cult leader. Cult leaders don't read Plato.' “ Perhaps, instead of "sources" that say "Someone else says...", if you had a source that actually says, we could see if thatv one passes muster? --Daveler16 (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Margin1522: That sounds like a reasonable approach, but there is also the "cult of personality" characterization as well. No one has time to track down the sources making some of these characterizations and build the main body of the article.

@Daveler16: I think that this issue has been raised before, but it would be helpful if you could read WP:SECONDARY.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, this is a very troubling paragraph for a lede. IMHO a lede should be impeccable and accommodating. It should be based on impeccable sources.

I, too, am extremely uncomfortable with the use of the Lewis source. Frankly speaking, it churns my stomach to see authors' words being used against their intent. Fishing for quotes is not suitable scholarship for a lede. I would approve of the Yanatori source somewhere else, in a section that delves into the public perceptions of the SG back in the 60s and 70s, but not to describe current perceptions which is what this paragraph purports to describe. I dislike the use of encyclopedias, tertiary sources, simply because they are not transparent; the authors and editors, although respected scholars, do not provide a track record on the data they use to justify their conclusions. Furthermore, I agree with FetullahFan that the Furukawa citation should be translated or removed.

I very much like Margin1522's suggestion, "SG is controversial. It has been called a "force for good in the world" by Amnesty International and a "brainwashing cult" by anti-cult activists" and think we should immediately implement it. I think it would be unquestioned--until we get to a new generations of editors.

BrandenburgG (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's another thing I don't understand. The lede now says, "The organization has been the subject of substantial criticism over the years, especially in the first few decades following World War II.". What is "few decades"? Two, three, four, five? This is imprecise language and our readers deserve better. All four sources quoted here were printed in the 1960's and 1970's (the 1990 Kitagawa book was just a paperback edition of his work from the 1960's and without modification). Therefore these citations can be used to substantiate "the first three decades" after the war, not the "few decades.". I suggest an immediate change. BrandenburgG (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Before we put my suggestion in the lead, I just made that up. It's an example sentence. But SG has worked with Amnesty International for decades and I think it's likely that we can find somebody from AI praising their good work. (A good place to look might be the SGI website:) But the point is that we should do the article first. Describe the work with AI and the lead will take care of itself. The same for "brainwashing cult". Lewis might mention exactly who said that. Otherwise we have to find them ourselves. If no one is willing to do the work and find out who they are and what they said, then maybe we're not ready to include it in the article.--Margin1522 (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I volunteer to take your suggestion on, Margin1522. I won't be able to work on it until tomorrow. @BrandenburgG, I think you make a strong point about "few" and "three." We should not be doing OR here; the citations point to "three" and not "few."FetullahFan (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Margin1522: I'm not going to say this again, so don't pretend that you didn't hear it. Lewis is a reliably published secondary source. His statements are usable in the article to support statements of fact as well as his own opinions. "We" don't have to find the primary sources ourselves. If you want to, then you're more than welcome to do that. That will have no bearing on the applicability of the Lewis statement.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: I'd like to suggest reading "Attributing and specifying biased statements" at WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, which says that "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution." That's all I'm asking. The biased statement here is that SG is a brainwashing cult. Lewis attributes it to "anti-cult authors". Note that prior to our quote he has spent an entire chapter demonstrating that these authors are extremely unreliable sources. Don't our readers deserve to know that? How are they going to know if we don't tell them? That's why we should discuss it in the article instead of just dropping it into the lead.

Anyway, our brainwashing quote had an ellipsis. I was wondering what Kiruning left out when he posted this quote. So I looked it up, and quoted the entire paragraph where it appears. From the paragraph, it is clear that these statements were made decades ago, in the US, about SG activities in the US and Europe. However, we are using the quote as evidence for the assertion that SG in Japan, today, still "grapples with a stereotype of being a 'brainwashing cult'". Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch? This is a repetition of my point #2, above, which you still haven't responded to. --Margin1522 (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the entire quote being there, and if the material were eventually integrated into the article, a wikilink to the anti-cult movement would be in order.

It does seem that Ikeda tried to mend the errant ways of Toda, but the impressions linger, and the perceived cult of personality around Ikeda doesn't help assuage the mistrust of the movement.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)""

Based on the above discussion I have a problem with this sentence, "Some anticult authors have included the Soka Gakkai on their lists of cults.". Who are the anticult authors? Lewis is certainly not one of them, he is an "anti-anti cult" author. And what exactly are their lists of cults? Lewis' Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions is NOT a list of cults. The Lewis book should not be cited as such because, as its title denotes, it is a listing of "cults, sects, and new religions.". It does not say this group is a cult, that group is a sect. Specifically it does not label SG as a cult. BTW, also included on the list is Jainism--a religion that predates Buddhism, Seventh Day Adventists, Islam (yes, all of it), Quakers, and the anti-cult movement itself.

Proof of SGI brainwashing: "I love it when I've just thought to myself, 'I need to get guidance' because of the obstacles I'm experiencing right now." -- SGI member There is no way this member independently came to the conclusion that she thought to herself that getting guidance from an SGI leader was a way to overcome the obstacles in her life. May you edit out this comment hopefully after our SGI spinmeisters have a chance to read it. Thanks 2602:306:CD27:DC29:68E6:A29A:1983:F2E9 (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Mark R. Rogow 09/01/2014

@Ubikwit: Well, OK then, I will copy that entire paragraph into the article and try to provide at least one sentence for each cite. I'm not going to buy the Furukawa book, but maybe the local library will borrow it for me. This may take some time, as I'm really busy this week. --Margin1522 (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

FetullahFan You should stop trying to overload the lead with fluffy promotional statements in an attempt to promote a pov. Why don't you integrate material into the article and then think about the lead. The lead is supposed to be written in a summary style, but you have been trying add somewhat inane statements to counter critical claims in the lede. The critical claims are concise and to the point, and any verbose sources statements aimed at countering them should be in the text. In particular, the sentence, "The fact that Ikeda is deeply regarded by SG members is dismissed by some critics as a cult of personality" is a biased POV misrepresentation of the sources, and the long quote in the reficite is something that belongs in the main body under the public perceptions section. There are numerous sources that refer to the personality cult, and only one in the exaggeratedly descriptive text you have inserted into the lead That is 100% ]. The key statement in the Watanabe source is, "Yet the prevailing view portrays him as a tyrant and his followers as brainwashed zombies, poised to undermine Japan's democratic process.".--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, Ubikwit, you are wrong on the Watanabe article. That is YOUR point of view that the quote you cite is the key statement. The Watanabe article is very balanced, almost every sentence is a quid pro quo to an alternative view in the previous sentence. Have you actually read the article? I, too, could take a sentence from this article out of context such as "But at least some of the criticism against the Soka Gakkai appears to be deliberate fear-mongering" or "Understanding Ikeda is a daunting task. Japan is home to a frenzied anti-Ikeda industry, where tabloid coverage has affected his public image and blurred the lines between suspicion and fact, imagination and reality."

This is an example of OR: because you state that this is the key point, it therefore is the key point. This is high-handed and dictatorial editing and contrary to the philosophy of WP.

"Fluffy promotional statements in an attempt to promote a pov"? No, that is not me. I just want a neutral article here and elsewhere on WP. I was drawn to this article because I observed the way one narrative is shut down here. My concern is that in the same way a narrative can be shut down on another article. For example, Ikeda is loved by his members apparently. I cited the Macioti source on this. It is a narrative that needs to be told because it represents an important part of the story. It is not a fluffy promotional statement but a fact cited by an expert. In my edit "cult of personality" is included as Macioti did. Why do you want one side to be reflected in the lede and not the other?

Yes, a lede should be clear and concise--and represent the findings of all experts. There are two narratives running here and both should be reflected in the lede. You insist on including sources from the 1960's and 1970's and keeping Japanese language sources that have never been translated. OK, but please do not shut down or choose disregard findings that are emerging in the more recent decades from highly regarded religionists and sociologists such as Seager, Strand, Wilson, Dobbelaire, Machacek, Macioti--unless you cherry pick a quote from those sources that supports your POV.

Yes, on occasion I have included long quotations from citations in the lede reference. That was only because, as very evident in the case of Lewis, those sources were cruelly misapplied. On many occasions I mentioned my concerns about the use of those citations and in almost every occasion you shut me down by a peremptory comment on a talk page or a revert. I can remember only one time you proactively supported WP:DUE. This is not becoming of a senior editor. And please review the guidelines of the talk page: "Be polite, and welcoming to new users. Assume good faith."

I won't be present much in the near future. But I heartily recommend that you enthusiastically work with other editors to build a consensus that everyone can, at least, live with.

FetullahFan (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful about taking that too literally. Watanabe was the Tokyo bureau chief for the LA Times, and she's a good journalist, so it's not like she doesn't know what she's talking about. But the "generally viewed" part comes from the narrative of the story, partly due to SG's view of itself as an embattled group fighting the forces of oppression. Also remember that in the late 1990s the Komeito was in the opposition and that was the height of the politically motivated smear campaign in the Shukanshi. As for "brainwashed zombies", that rhetoric ultimately comes from fundamentalist Christians in the US, who in my view are as responsible as anyone for the coarsening and degradation of political and religious discourse in the US. The Japanese don't talk about themselves that way. As an experiment, I did a little test yesterday, searching for the Japanese words for "zombi" and "brainwashed" at 4 major newspaper sites. There were thousands of hits, and I can tell you from experience that almost all of them are ironic exaggeration. There were zero hits for either of those words in an article that also mentioned "Soka Gakkai". If you stopped ordinary people on the street and asked them in all seriousness whether they thought that Gakkai members were "brainwashed zombies", they would say "What?" and look at you like you were crazy. --Margin1522 (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree: the "brainwashing cult" sentence should go for the above mentioned reasons and for several others: 1) If its a "summary" of other views, please provide me with more sources where SG is specifically called a "brainwashing cult"? This phrase is so charged and heavy, it should be backed up by many sources calling SG a "brainwashing cult" specifically 2) If the underlying claim is that SG is heavily criticized in Japan or is controversial, then this sentence is redundant. Wasn't that the point of the previous sentence? Is the real purpose of this sentence then just to throw around the "brainwashing cult" label? 3) taken entirely out of context, as Lewis himself does not see SG as a "brainwashing cult"(why is this such a familiar theme with the citations on this page?)

Lets take out this sentence right away since the sentence before it presents the same information/concern. I think FetullahFan and Margin have listed several serious problems with this statement that have yet to be substantially countered.

Lionpride82 (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

FetullahFan I would suggest that you read WP:OR again.

Watanabe's statement regarding the "prevailing view" is irrefutable and made in the context of the other content to which you refer. The "prevailing view" is what gets the most WP:WEIGHT on Misplaced Pages.

Margin1522 None of your statements are based on anything other than personal speculation. Here is a link to a google search returning 576,000 for a search of Soka Gakka brainwashing in Japanese (創価学会 洗脳). The Doshisha survey results also serve to rebut your claims. Watanabe is RS, your opinions are not.

Lionpride82Watanabe is writing in English for an American audience, so this is obviously not strictly a Japan issue.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 05:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's the difference between a search of major newspapers and a search of anonymous Internet forums. I've said before that the haters are hyperactive. Note that every single hit on that list was either a blog, or YouTube, or an anonymous forum. I only looked at the first 3 pages, but if there was anything there we could use I didn't see it. As for the Doshisha survey, although I haven't mentioned this, this is hardly rigorous. You can get people to say almost anything in a survey, depending on how the question is worded. Can we see the question? Were there any controls? Did he ask about other religions, at other universities? As you know, Doshisha is a traditionally Christian school. That might not be the best place to ask for an unbiased opinion about Buddhism. --Margin1522 (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like add an opposing view to the "brainwashing" accusation. Renowned Buddhologist, Clark Strand, states: The reason mentor-disciple in the Soka Gakkai “hasn’t degenerated into mere guru-worship… is because the relationship is fundamentally empowering and life-enhancing for the disciple. (Clark Strand, 2014, Waking the Buddha, Middle Way Press, p. 129) Ltdan43 (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You have just cited a book published by SGI to defend SGI. I'd refer you to some relevant policy page about this but I feel it unnecessary. Shii (tock) 01:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked up the book on Amazon. It's about SGI's use of small meetings to help members deal with their life problems and find happiness in this world. That comes up a lot. It seems to be the reason that members cite most often for being members. We have nothing about that now, but I think we should. The dissertation mentioned by Ubikwit discusses it at length. Also, what policy was that? I'd like to look at that and see if it really justifies systematically excluding SGI's published views of itself. Surely it doesn't prohibit mentioning an SGI-published book on a Talk page. --Margin1522 (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That's an excellent policy. Could someone copy and paste here the part that flatly excludes use of Waking the Buddha of anything else published by Middleway? Thanks. --Daveler16 (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The actual relevant page is Misplaced Pages:Independent sources. Middleway would be rejected as RS if you brought it up at WP:RSN due to our desire for independence. Shii (tock) 23:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I see. That opens up a new topic, though: "An interest in a topic may be either positive or negative...an example of a negative interest is owning a competing company." In this case, wouldn't that mean sources connected to competing sects or other religions? For instance, would a Christian missionary have a vested interest in portraying a Buddhist organization negatively? Or someone from another sect of Nichiren Buddhism? --Daveler16 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Last two paragraphs of the lede

My crazy work semester starts this afternoon and I will have to pull away from this article for a good spell but I will remain active on the Gulen articles. Thank you for being good partners. Special thanks to Ubikwit who taught me a lot about editing and WP protocols.

The final contribution I would like to make is reworking the last two paragraphs of the lede. Right now they lack a coherent organization. There's a bit of controversy in one, then controversy in the other. Likewise cult here and cult there.

My suggestion is to organize one paragraph around the SG's growth, moderation, and controversy. The second paragraph will be specifically about public perception ("brainwashing cult" and "cult of personality"). I will aim for WP:DUE in both paragraphs. FetullahFan (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit, @Margin1522, @Catflap08, @LionPride82, and @Shii. I would like to ask you to review my edits for the last two paragraphs which is on my Sandbox, https://en.wikipedia.org/User:FetullahFan/sandbox. Today is the last day that I would like to volunteer on this article. Rather than playing cat-and-mouse, I worked hard to create a balanced WP:DUE which also reflects the feedback of WP:RSN (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Inappropriate_use_of_an_author.27s_quote_to_substantiate_a_charge_of_.22brainwashing_cult.22).

As written in my Sandbox, I don't think that any SG member would not accept the article even though the poignant criticisms are present. On the other hand, critics of the SG should feel their positions are reflected; statements that support the SG are fully documented with quotes from citations.

I hope that others will review my suggestions and please feel free to incorporate them in the SG article as I do not have the time to work on this anymore.

I really hope that all editors in the future will agree to let WP:DUE guide your work. As I stated in my very first post (back in April?), we need to find a way that WP:DUE can transcend point-scoring and personal POVs.

FetullahFan (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The ideal lead section we should be looking for is one with no citations at all. It should only summarize what is in the article and not make new claims such as the "gnostic-manipulationist" one. Shii (tock) 04:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Shii, you are absolutely right. There is such bad faith among editors right now. It seems like everyone is intent on scoring points rather than finding WP:DUE. I inserted "gnostic-manipulationist" only because other editors insisted on using the Wallis and Glock sources in disparaging ways and using "manipulationist" as a dirty word; no one gave an inch when I brought this up. As a sociologist I can inform you that Wilson's work has withstood the test of time.

If editors can redetermine to work together to create a neutral and balanced article, all the citations could be stripped away and the text left to stand on its own.

I am really hoping you could look at my suggestions for the final two paragraphs. It is on my sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/User:FetullahFan/sandbox).

I have an extremely heavy teaching load this summer and will not be editing the page but will respond to comments to me.

FetullahFan (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I was responding to. Your proposal may be better than what we have now, but it's not what we should be working towards. I would prefer a proposal that simply accurately summarizes the article, and an article that lends itself to being summarized. Shii (tock) 13:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Shi: changes to the body of the article are being met with un-discussed reverts. I too feel (after you and others mentioned it) that improving the article allows for an improved introduction. But those improvements have to be allowed to happen.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm back for a 5-minuter. @Ubikwit, on Sept 3rd, 16:44 you edited my post that added the Macioti resource to the lede. What was your reason for doing that? I had paraphrased the Macioti statement quite closely. She is a well-respected Italian sociologist and brings two points to this discussion: (1) she mentions the "love" SG members feel for Ikeda (her words, not mine) and then (2) she questions whether this leads to a cult of personality. @Ubikwit, you cleaved the first part (love) and left the second part (cult). Why did you perform such a one-sided edit? Don't you think that readers have a right to see both aspects? Don't you want to keep Macioti's research and finding intact?FetullahFan (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that doesn't belong in the lede in light of NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. I already mentioned that you should incorporate that into the body of the article, but apparently you didn't hear me. There are many sources that describe SG as a cult, and we don't make value judgments regarding that, especially in the lede, which is a summary. All of the reliable published statements addressing the "personality cult" issue, for example, should be included in the main body of the according to DUE WEIGHT. Macioti says "love", others say "brainwashed". This is not complicated.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@FetullahFan, I went into your sandbox and I liked your proposed two paragraphs. I know there will be inevitable tweaking to set the balance to achieve WP:DUE. However, what I like is the organization. You got the growth sentences in one paragraph and the cult/public perception stuff in the second. Reads very smoothly.BrandenburgG (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I take FetullahFan's idea and jiggle around a few sentences between the two paragraphs. I won't change any content like s/he did, just incorporate his/her sentence order ideas and add some transition words. Just want some assurances that I won't be reverted as a matter of course.BrandenburgG (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

We have a source with a footnoted quote that reads, "the near godlike reverence that members have for President Ikeda have tended to perpetuate public distrust". There is no debate here, there are only statements made by reliable sources.

The proposed text obfuscates the issue in a manner such as to present SG in a more favorable light than what the sourced statements say.

There is also more cohesion to the narratives in the present form, where the issues about Ikeda are discussed in one paragraph, and more general issues in the other.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, Ubikwit, my interest is just organizational here. I want to take up your idea and keep one paragraph around the cult theme and the other around the Ikeda theme. I will hold off until I can get a thumbs up from you. I hope you will then let this go---no reversions, please.

BrandenburgG (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit, I took your lack of response as a tacit agreement. I shifted three sentences in three separate edits. Paragraph 3, following your point on Sept. 10th, is focused on expansion, Ikeda, and controversy. I think the paragraph works. Paragraph 4 has all the cult references. I believe this works, too. The Wilson sentence fits better here; before it was an orphan sentence.

Please note that I had made a prior edit--shifting the order of clauses--not related to the paragraph discussion above. I supplied additional quotation from Lewis which had been removed by someone. It is clear now that the wording reflects Lewis' conclusion.

BrandenburgG (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, that t not true at all. There are sourced statements that support both sides, and this new edit includes them all. Not everything that sheds a little positive light is self-serving or subjective, any more than things that shed a negative light. What is the argument against balance? --Daveler16 (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No, you people are making this "debate" story up, and that is WP:OR.

Since WP:DUE and WP:SECONDARY have been pointed out to you and others numerous times, I'm getting tired of repeating them.

Balance is not something that you determine arbitrarily, and secondary sources carry far more weight than primary sources, the use of which is discussed under WP:PRIMARY, but that has been pointed out numerous times as well. The only way you could balance those statements is with a refcite to a DUE secondary source specifically rebutting the claims. But the claims come first, and any response to them is only that, so the details belong in the body of the article. You could counter the negative impact in the lede by a short statement to the effect that, "Other scholars disagree with the characterization". You can't use Middleway press publications to support that, though. But that has been mentioned already, too.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Which sources are you objecting to? It seems to me there were plenty of secondary sources. And I know there has been an ongoing discussion of Middleway, but I did not know it had been resolved - even if it's labelled as being affiliated with the SGI. Has it? Or is that a unilateral decision? And I'm aware of undue weight - specifically, giving equal or more weight to 30 and 40 year old books over more recent studies of the same subject. And why is the Watanabe LA Times story used substantiate "cult of personality" when it gives equal space to describing Ikeda as "a crusader for common folk who unflinchingly fights the oppressive establishment", and describes anti-Ikedaism as an "industry" that has "blurred the lines between suspicion and fact, imagination and reality"? Does the use of that article constitute "undue weight"? --Daveler16 (talk) 23: 45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that my edit was perceived in any way other than helpful. I don't see how anyone could say that it changed the tone of the article. The old version, now back up due to a reversion, is disjointed. For example, the discussion about cults spills over two paragraphs--Lewis in one, the Wilson group in another.

BTW, the "near godlike" reference comes from a tertiary source, an encyclopedia. We should be careful about lending it too much weight.

BrandenburgG (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Move "Relationship with Noriega" to Daisaku Ikeda

I have now investigated this more fully and I find it dubious to put this in the Gakkai article. Certainly it is a scandal in Ikeda's life, but to pin the blame on the Gakkai seems to me guilt by association. Furthermore the article has a lot to cover and this is not a major event in its history. Shii (tock) 17:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. This is kind of a fascinating episode. I was reading about it somewhere. Noriega was only one of the many leaders Ikeda has met, but the two of them did seem to hit it off unusually well. Both self-educated with intellectual ambitions. Noriega was even a self-proclaimed believer, though now the Gakkai denies he was ever a formal member. It has provided endless fodder for critics like Furukawa. I wonder what happened to the "Noriega Garden". Is it still there? If I run across that cite again I'll see if I can use it to expand that section. --Margin1522 (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly a controversial relationship, however, and should be in Ikeda's bio.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. I don't know why it has to be anywhere at all -- he met with tons of people, one turned out to be a criminal -- but if it does have to be somewhere, that place is not the SG page. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, looking at the text, the repeated visits to the Taiseki-ji and naming of garden after Noriega at Soka Gakkai facility make this WP:DUE for this article. Accordingly, I've re-added a cleaned up version of the text.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Daveler16 Noriega was a head of state, not just anyone.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he was a head of state. Thatcher was, too, and Mandela, and Chou was all but. There is no reference for the alleged visits to Taisekiji, and the sentence "they praised each other in public statements" is meaningless - if Ikeda had praised Noriega's criminal activities, then you'd have a point. But he didn't. Shi is right, and this has nothing to do with the SG (folks on the Ikeda page can argue it's relevance there). --Daveler16 (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There are refs on Noriega. Someone should get the later from a library.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As long as I'm here, the basic problem with the Noriega business is that it's an argument from guilt by association, which is naturally prone to bias and exaggeration. There is a pattern here. In the book about the celebration of the French Revolution, the author was attacking a French politician. He did so by pointing out the association with Ikeda. So he had an incentive to make Ikeda look as unsavory as possible, which he did by associating him with Noriega. Kempe takes it further. His main target is Noriega, so he has an incentive to make Ikeda look even worse (a tall order). He does this by reaching all the way back to 1963 and a Look magazine article that compared SG to the Hitler Youth. Was that his best source of information about SG, in 1990? I thought there was a rule somewhere that anyone who mentions Hitler is disqualified as a reliable source.

BTW, here is a newspaper article with the author, date, and title of the Look article. That might be interesting, historically. It also contains an interesting piece of spin from an SGI PR person. He blames the shakubuku excesses on the priests. Once SG was free of these fantatic, fundamentalist priests, they could become the gentle, peace-loving organization that they are today. Is that true? It seems like there should be a number of ways to test that. --Margin1522 (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

For anyone interested, here is the Look article. It never says "Hitler Youth", so Kempe must have been quoting from memory there. Lots about shakubuku. The author seems shocked by a religion that considers itself to be the only true one. I thought that was a core belief of Nichiren Buddhism, but I will defer to Ubikwit on that. --Margin1522 (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This source from this site claims Noriega was a "disciple of Soka Gakkai".--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I had to read that whole page for this one sentence? "- Ikeda was found 'comforting' Manuel Noriega (at this time a disciple of Soka Gakkai) when America sanctioned Panama." What exactly is that supposed to mean? Notably lacking here is any evidence that Ikeda himself did anything wrong. The canonical form of this story is that (a) Ikeda was on good terms with Noriega, and (b) therefore SG was deeply involved in the drug business, and (c) it used its illegal profits to bribe Japanese politicians, and (d) that's why Japan has gone to the dogs. I can point you to any number of wingnut sites that go all the way to (d), even though there is not a shred of evidence for anything beyond (a). Is (a) alone reason to have this in the article? If not, how far are we supposed to go? --Margin1522 (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Margin1522: Only the major points are mentioned in the article now, nothing about speculation of funds used for drug smuggling, etc. In the case of Noriega, he is said to have been a disciple of SG that visit Taisekiji many times. Moreover,Ikeda presented him with a "humanitarian award" (not in the article) and Noriega named a small island after Ikeda, an act to which SG reciprocated by naming a garden at their Fujinomiya training center after himphotos. Aside from that anti-SG site (no others have the photos), this PhD thesis (p. 119) mentioned one of the sources I cited above, and another online source which is no longer available and apparently not archived--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 02:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC).

The online site was , at WBM? Apparently it's the page of User jqpublic, from the Cult Watcher Network, at an Internet provider in Indiana. It has pictures of Ikeda with figures like Nicolae Ceausescu, Noriega, and Fidel Castro. I guess sometimes you get your photos where you can find them. My link to the text of the Look magazine article was to a user page at a Jehovah's Witnesses site. But, unlike us, the dissertation provides some context and an analysis of what these photos mean. She offers a list of admirable or influential figures that Ikeda has met, and then says that this penchant for jetting around the globe to meet world leaders has also led to some embarassing moments. The word she uses is faux pas. This is certainly true. You give a "humanitarian" award to Ceausescu and he turns out to be one of the greatest monsters of the 20th century. That's embarassing. So, since she has provided this context and interpretation, why don't we use it? Just cite the dissertation. In the Ikeda article, since it's about him. I will volunteer to do that, and then delete Noriega from this article, per the consensus among editors. Unless we can see a better argument as to why it belongs here (better than "He visited Taisekiji."). --Margin1522 (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. A lot of articles there... According to that link, the head of SGI, George M. Williams, was made a colonel in the Panamanian army.

The difference with Noriega is that he was a member of SG, and SG named a garden at an SG facility after him, after he named an island after Ikeda, etc. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, but I wouldn't trust any "fact" on that site without checking. The first one I checked was the statement "four months after Castro had ordered the destruction of 2 unarmed civilian planes that were on a humanitarian mission. " According to our article on this incident, Brothers to the Rescue, the mission was to drop anti-Castro leaflets over Havanna. But sure, I can see going into detail on Noriega in the Ikeda article. I even think it's worth a picture of the garden if we could find one that isn't copyrighted. Probably hopeless. Perhaps a picture of the island where the Ikeda lookout point used to be. --Margin1522 (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, fine, go ahead and move it there.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As promised, I expanded the Noriega section in the Ikeda article a bit, and added a picture of the islands where the lookout point used to be. Then deleted the section from this article. --Margin1522 (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Another stab at Beliefs and Practices

Here in my Sandbox is a draft for the opening of Beliefs and Practices, to replace the currenty opening. --Daveler16 (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I recommend that you stop trying to assert that secular activities are religious practices. And base any statements you have directly on reliably sources statements, not WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

The religious beliefs and practices of the Soka Gakkai are almost entirely derived from those of Nichiren Shoshu. There's not more more to add.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit, I'm afraid you are the one who is conducting original research. "I recommend that you stop trying to assert that secular activities are religious practices." This is your OR. You do not cite any one to document your personal opinion. Boo! "The religious beliefs and practices of the Soka Gakkai are almost entirely derived from those of Nichiren Shoshu. There's not more more to add." Again, your OR. You do not provide any documentation to support your contention besides "because Ubikwit says so it is true." Boo, boo! "Base any statements you have directly on reliably sourced statements" I read Daveler16's sandbox and it has many sources.

The Soka Gakkai is not alone in claiming that practice goes beyond ritual. The entire Engaged Buddhist Movement (EBM) is based on complementing "spiritual" practice with socially engaged actions toward creating new cultural forms (Hunt-Perry & Fine, 2000).

Needless to say, this approach of combining ritual with social engagement was modeled by Nichiren who hurled himself into the fray. This point gradually faded in the Fuji School and was forcefully revived by Makiguchi and Toda and is woven into the organization's conception of "faith, practice, and study." (see Macioti, xvii, 72-73). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandenburgG (talk • contribs) 21:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that you have been studying, and that is commendable. I would recommend that you extend the scope, gradually, to encompass Japanese Buddhism other than Nichirenshu.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I always study and expand the scope of what I read, Ubikwit. The problem at my age is not studying, but remembering what I have studied.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree (and I think say) that the rituals are the same as all Nichiren sects. But the idea that a discussion meeting is a religious ritual does not come from Nichiren Shoshu. The belief that religion should be actively engaged in changing social institutions does not come from Nichren Shoshu. Anyone who has studied the SG -- and the paragraphs I have posted are backed by respected secondary sources, some of which are already in use on this paqe - would take issue with your statement that secular activities are not religious practice. In the SG they are (For instance, McLaughlin writes: "However, the Ongakutai maintains a highly charged atmosphere in which members are encouraged to develop singular life ambitions, often formed around musical objectives, which are to be achieved through tireless effort and practice of their faith.” "). Isn't that the reason there's a "Split with priesthood" section? Isn't that the point of the "new religion-sect-derived from etc" debate?

As this section is pretty long, I'm trying to take a cue from the guidelines for the Lede, and start the section with a summary - which in this case I think stands on its own. The first paragraph of the current B&P section could be moved to the previous section about the split - it seems to make more sense there, as it's all about how the SG differs from NS. Later there should be sections about discussion meetings and social activities, with citations supporting the idea of religious imperative to improve lives, and take action to do so.

Finally, I'm going to remove a few things. I mention this because of the content removal policy, which has been largely ignored here, but which says: "When removing a section of an article, it is necessary that it at least be explained, and in some cases, discussed. Unexplained content removal when the reason for the removal is not obvious is open to being promptly reverted.”

For one: "Criticisms of the Soka Gakkai's promotion of pacifism". The first sentence (citation Kisala)is that people believe the SG is working for world peace - hardly a criticism. The 2nd citation is bogus - it's to a collection of essays, only one of which, by Metraux, has anything to do with the SG, and that one contains no mention of the quoted "survey" and in fact says of Japanese public perception: "I doubt very much, however, that many ordinary Japanese who are not members of the Soka Gakkai know or care very much about the Soka Gakkai or its activities."

Another one that should go is "variable beliefs". The first citation says there is flexibility - as if that's a bad thing. The second is misconstrued in the article: it does not say Makiguchi "denounced the Greek ideals of truth, beauty, and goodness", but that he "attacks one of the three Greek values...Truth, he argues at great length, is not a value. Man cannot create truth, it can only be recognized." Beyond the misrepresentation, this source hardly argues that SG's beliefs change - if Makiguchi had said man can create truth, then maybe there would be a point. But it quotes him as saying exactly the opposite.

I also intend to add a "Humanism" section, as has been suggested that will, I hope, clear up why the rituals associated with Nichiren Buddhism are not considered the whole of Nichiren Buddhist practice by the SG. Sorry for the long entry here. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"The first citation says there is flexibility - as if that's a bad thing. " It's a statement, not an accusation. It comes from a neutral source that Daisaku Ikeda approved himself.

W/r/t the criticisms section, the Doshisha University study appears in the book on p. 272 just as the citation says it does. Can you provide a photocopy showing that the words are missing? Shii (tock) 19:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, see that's why we should discuss before deleting. I have a download of the Metraux essay, which you can find by googling - it's the Virginia Review link. It does not mention a survey. Of course Goofgle Books doesn't preview that page, but a search for "Doshishi" there turned up only Metraux's position as a teacher.

But even assuming he revised his essay for publication in the Wellman book, t5he point remains: why would a survey of students who don't know about SG activities be given the same weight as those activities? It should go without saying that anyone's "peace efforts" will be criticized by someone - so what's the point of including it if not to influence readers to not believe the preceding sections? same for "Variable Beliefs" - the only "practice" changed "to improve the SG's image" anyone has ever mentioned is the method of proselytizing, which has been covered in detail elsewhere. And I would say that, in context, this little section most certainly is a judgement. --Daveler16 (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The judgment is not ours to make. Dr. Métraux not only felt the characterization was necessary, but actually backed up his own statement using a broad survey of college students, because he believed this reflected a broad spectrum of popular opinion and not just "someone". The purpose of including this in our article would be to reflect concerns about SGI's peace movement that are documented in an Oxford University Press publication. It has nothing to do with "influencing the reader". Shii (tock) 01:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Kisala: He points out that "some Soka Gakkai members were outraged" by the Komeito supporting the various American-led UN activities. I'm sure they were. And of course it's easy to criticize them for voting for the Komeito anyway. All pacifists face that dilemma. If we want to convey the spirit of Kisala's book, all we have to do is quote the final sentence of that section, where he says "This situation illustrates poignantly the difficulty of maintaining the pacifist position without abandoning all political engagement with society."

As for for the Doshisha survey, I think we are reading way too much into that. From the looks of it, it was an informal poll of his own students, which is a far cry from a "broad survey of college students". If the author has a sense of general public opinion, and says what he thinks about it, that's what we should quote.

I do get the sense that we not treating these authors fairly. Lewis, Kisala, Malreaux, they all seem to be sympathetic with certain aspects of SG, but we are treating them as data mines for anti-SG talking points. The very points that they are arguing against. The publisher's summary of the Kisala book says that "The author cites evidence pointing to the prevalence of a mistaken notion of the implications of the pacifist position, a situation that both reflects and contributes to the confusion surrounding popular debates on pacifism in Japan." Is that how we are using it? --Margin1522 (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Shi: I think Margin1522 hits the nail on the head. In order to argue against something, an author has to say what that something is - and that statement, not the argument against it (which is the point of the writing). And we certainly are making judgements: we choose what to include. Metraux may have his survey, but Metraux also says - as I quoted above - the Japanese people largely have no opinion of SG peace activities. Someone chose to include one over the other - a judgement. Of course I could add it - but wouldn't that render the whole thing meaningless? "The Jaoanese people care, and the Japanese people don't care, says the same author". What to do about that? --Daveler16 (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

We can include both statements without having to boil it down to "they care and they don't" in such a way that we contradict ourselves. Shii (tock) 17:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We seem to be stuck in a standoff between pro- and anti- viewpoints. The way out of that is a more nuanced view that sees the truth in both sides. I don't think we have be afraid of complexity and contradictions. --Margin1522 (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is no direct relationship between the survey and the "peace activities" statement, which is fairly inane, simply because most Japanese don't know about any "SG peace activities". What are they again?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I made an attempt. I still think the section is unnecessary, but at least it's balanced. I don't know if I succeeded in in not making Metraux look strange, though.--Daveler16 (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I am removing "Variable Beliefs". I have already pointed out that the source for "denouncing the Greek ideals" etc. is misleading and, in fact, not true. The other source - Murata - includes a quote that does not specify what teachings Ikeda may have "altered...in order to improve the organization's public image". Since the book was written in 1969, clearly any teachings that could have been "altered" were those of Nichiren Shoshu, and we have no evidence that Nichiren Shoshu altered its beliefs between 1960 and 1969. The only documented "public image" change in that era was not a change in "beliefs", but a change in the method of propagation - which is covered elsewhere in the entry. So this section, based ion its sources, is misleading, gratuitous and hardly neutral. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

How can the section be "hardly neutral"? The source being cited is quite literally entitled An Objective Account of Soka Gakkai. Shii (tock) 06:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think any statement that a religion changes it's doctrine to improve its public image is not a neutral statement, especially when the cited sources are not exactly clear in what this eans - it implies (strongly) that it has no firm beliefs, and is more interested in image than in its own doctrine. The source may be objective, but the problem is with its use here - which I explained above. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the first paragraph in the Beliefs and Practices section. Honestly, I've been trying for a few days to figure how to incorporate it into thhe "Split with Priesthood" section, but everything it has to say is already in that section - it would be redundant. But the overarching reason is, as I pointed out earlier, it is not about SG beliefs and practices, but about a comparison to NS - which, again, is dome thoroughly in the immediately preceding section. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the relationship with NS accounts for almost the entirety of SG's religious beliefs and practices. It doesn't matter if there is overlapping material in another section that is necessary to explicate whatever relationship there is.

Why don't you try to work on the "Buddhist Humanism" section you've been talking about instead of trying to remove material you don't like because it doesn't suit you?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the relationship with Nichiren - period - defines the SG's religious beliefs. Be that as it may, I wish you could see this issue as less dogmatic and more from the POV of a casual reader. You just read through an entire section of differences between NS and SG, and you come to "What SG believes" - and you're hit with "what NS believes". Or, you click the link in the TOC to see what SG believes - and you are hit with "what NS believes". Either way, it's confusing. I'm not trying to deprive anyone of infoprmatio0n, but I think the information can be organized so it more accurately reflects its subject as it exists today, and is consistent with WP policy, while retaining what needs to be known about it's relation ship with the priesthood - in the priesthood section. --Daveler16 (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"I think the relationship with Nichiren - period - defines the SG's religious beliefs. " Woah, slow down there. Nichiren-shu and Nichiren Sho-shu are totally different interpretations of Nichiren -- as is Tendai-shu, for that matter. Nichiren Shoshu believes that there is a specific gohonzon, housed at Taiseki-ji, which has special powers and is different from all other gohonzon. This was something that SG subscribed to until 1991, which was a major part of why they were so eager to stay together with Taiseki-ji in the first place. You can't simply remove that from the article as if it never happened.

Furthermore, you have not explained to my satisfaction what the An Objective Account of Soka Gakkai quote actually means and why it is either not objective or not relevant to SGI practices. Apologies if I missed this somewhere. Shii (tock) 22:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because a book has "objective" in its title.... Is it generally regarded as objective? I once knew an Internet user who called himself RationalThinker. That should set off a warning bell that this guy's pronouncements are going to be provocative.

Anyway, we don't have to decide that. Just look at the quote. Murata says "flexibility in the interpretation and application of doctrine" and modifying "policies and programs". The text says Ikeda altered "beliefs" and "teachings". These are obviously two different things. The current Pope hasn't changed a single thing about Catholic doctrine, but he has emphasized different aspects of it. This has been very popular and has done wonders for the Church's image. Can't SG do the same without being labeled as heretics?

So, if the text is wrong, we could either rewrite it or throw it out. Personally I tend to favor rewriting, but if it's wrong you can't really object if someone throws it out. And if we throw it out, then we don't need a quote to support it anymore, so the quote goes too. --Margin1522 (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Shi, I explained that any beliefs Ikeda would have altered before 1969 - when Murata published - would have had to have been been the beliefs of Nichiren Shoshu - and that never happened. As Margin1522 points out, there is a difference between what Murata says and what the editor chose to say. What "beliefs and teachings" could it possibly be referring to - in 1969> And I said Murata may have been objective, but what he said is not being used here objectively (and I think Margin is making that same point). Anyway - did you see that and don't think it;s an acceptable explanation? If not, could I ask why? As far as beliefs coming from Nichiren - yes, every sect claims their beliefs are genuinely Nichiren's. My statement above is not something I would put in the article, btw; I said it because I think the statement "the relationship with NS accounts for almost the entirety of SG's religious beliefs and practices" belongs there either - at least not in the "B&P of the Soka Gakkai" section. --Daveler16 (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand now, the language being used to summarize the source was wrong. I think Margin1522 explained it well. Do you think the current first paragraph of B&P section is acceptable? Shii (tock) 05:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, and the whole B&P section. About Murata, maybe a good place for that quote would be where we talk about the transition from Toda to Ikeda. Currently we have a "citation needed" there. The period is right too. We could say that this began as early as 1969. Then if there have been any doctrinal changes we should cover that in B&P. I don't know enough about it to comment.

One thing I thing I think we could cover in B&P is the emphasis on material success, which has bothered many Western observers. To a certain extent that's true of all Japanese religions. Try Googling "Japanese temples" and "prayer boards". If you don't like that you're not going to like any of them. --Margin1522 (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Margin1522 You are generalizing about a topic about which it is obvious that you have little knowledge, so please stick to the sources, per WP:NOTFORUM.

Buddhism is castigated by some--Shintoists--in Japan for being other worldly. Frankly, though there are popular movements promoting the goal of material success in this world, that is decidedly not a part of Buddhism proper.

That is SG, however, and should be explicated with respect to Makiguchi theory and the denigration of the Greek value of "truth", with regard to which Shii inserted a statement that someone deleted--without good reason--instead of editing.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should write that section myself and then we can talk about it. But look at the prayer boards at any Buddhist temple, asking for 商売繁盛 (thriving business), success in college entrance exams, safe birth, etc. is a photo of the Chiba Lotte Marines at Narita-san praying for success in the upcoming professional baseball season.

About Truth, I haven't checked the source. But the fact that Makiguchi had a position on the Platonic question of whether Truth exists independently of the observer doesn't tell us a lot. Philosophers have been arguing about that ever since. It certainly doesn't making him a militant nihilist who rejects Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. If the source said that, then he must have gotten carried away by his own rhetoric. If SG rejected the idea of Beauty then they wouldn't be building art museums. --Margin1522 (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a waste of time if you don't read the source and pay closer attention to what other editors write.

Makiguchi replaced "truth" with "personal gain", according to some sources, at any rate. Obviously that aspect of the SG has nothing to do with religious practice, as the "creation of value" theory purportedly predates Makiguchi's 1928 conversion to NS.

The photo in the link you provided shows a religious implement (with the white paper strips) that is associated with Shinto purification rituals. Many temples also have shrines on their grounds, and visa-versa. Japanese religion is generally deemed to be syncretic.

Prayer for success in exams and the like are generally made to Tenjin, the deified spirit of scholar Sugawara no Michizane.

I don't mind a little discussion, but I'm very busy. If you lack expertise in a field, you have to read the sources before speculating based on personal experience and mass media articles.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 13:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

First, Shi: I don't think the first paragraph belongs on the B&P section at all. The first sentence - the first thing someone reads when looking up the religious doctrine of the SG - is how SG was organized within Nichiren Shoshu when they were affiliated. The next sentence says SG and NS disagree, a subject covered in the immediately preceding section - and still not the least emlightening about what SG does believe and practice. The last sentence tuches on a belief, but, again, only in relation to what NS believes. I made an attempt at an opening in my Sandbox ]; I see it's been edited, but still looks okay to me. What do you think?

Second, concerning the Greek ideals: as noted above, it does not say Makiguchi "denounced the Greek ideals of truth, beauty, and goodness", but that he "attacks one of the three Greek values...Truth, he argues at great length, is not a value. Man cannot create truth, it can only be recognized." Beyond the misrepresentation, this source hardly argues that SG's beliefs changed. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

"The first sentence ...is how SG was organized within Nichiren Shoshu when they were affiliated. " -- Correct -- and this is quite relevant to the current beliefs and practices of SG.

"The next sentence says SG and NS disagree, " -- Also relevant -- it explains how SG was once a hokkeko but now has some disagreements.

" The last sentence tuches on a belief, but, again, only in relation to what NS believes." -- This is an introductory paragraph, not a "lead paragraph" like the lead of the article, and is not meant to summarize all of SG's beliefs at once. Shii (tock) 16:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph is fine and necessary, not to mention well-sourced. There is no source that describes this New Buddhist Humanism in the manner you are trying to portray it, and it does not belong in that section as far as I can tell. Frankly speaking, your so-called "opening" sounds like a marketing attempt aimed at recruiting new members, while obfuscating the encyclopedic import of the subject matter that belongs in the section. If you think there is any content in the "novelized histories of the movement" that have "canonical status", I suggest you quote from the primary source and then find secondary sources that support what it is you want to say about the primary sources.

There are more "beliefs and practices" to SG than those falling under the category of religion. As far as religion is concerned, SG's beliefs and practices are almost entirely based on Nichiren Shoshu, as far as I can tell.

The source on Makiguchi's doctrine is clear regarding the discarding of "truth" and replacement with "personal advantage".--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Daveler16: I took the liberty of fixing the link to your Sandbox at the top of this section. I also left a comment on the Talk page of the Sandbox, to the effect that it looks good to me but maybe we want to think about where to put it.--Margin1522 (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Yes, but that was a monk in the picture. I know a monk when I see one :) About Michizane, yes again, I've spent years studying Heian-period poetry, in the original, so I know who he is too. Hang on. I'll do this and cite religious scholars. Then maybe you and Catflap can help as to how orthodox all of this is. --Margin1522 (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Margin1522: Your point is what???

I' tired of people causing me and others to waste time dealing with general comments here on the Talk page.

This is not an article about Heiean period poetry, and frankly, you do not appear to have the competence to be editing this article. Either make comments here based on sources with the aim of improving the article, or do your homework elsewhere.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 06:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This is getting confusing, and it might be time for a new section just to discuss this section. First, Ubikwit, I did not say that the novelized history has canonical status - that was already there, as was the source (Conille). I added a sentence from the same page of the same source. These are both taken from p.285: "It is not surprising, then, that his book Human Revolution has asquired a canonical status within the movement. It discusses the history of the Soka Gakkai and its basic ideas, and it functions as a source of inspiration and guidance for members." There - I left nothing out of the quote. So I said nothing about canon that the source - already being used - did not say directly.

I'm starting to see the wall we are banging our heads against. Wasn't the whole point of the separation that the SG was developing beliefs and practices that were not Nichiren Shoshu's? You are defining religion as "what an established sect does", and I'm defining it as "how a new religion has viewed what religion means". My statements in my new opening are well sourced -- I didn't make up the ideas that one chants to improve one's life. I found that in a number of books. I think it is correct that Makiguchi learned about daimoku from NS. However, the belief that one chants daimoku to "win" in one's daily life is a SG belief. NS may believe it now, but the marriage of daimoku and creating value was Makiguchi's.--Daveler16 (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not sure if you get the whole hokkeko thing. Shii (tock) 00:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: Excuse me, Ubi, the caption in the photo said that the 貫首 (head priest) of 成田山新勝寺 (Narita-san) was presenting the manager of the baseball team with a 護摩札 (goma-fuda), which is a type of 護符 (protective charm) associated with Tendai and Shingon Buddhism. I understand all of those things, and understand that they have nothing to do with Shinto. I don't need a lecture about the syncretic nature of Japanese religion or Michizane. I don't need your permission to edit the article, nor does anyone else.

What I've been trying to do here is open up some space for other editors who don't share your POV. This is proving to be quite difficult. As far as I can see, your contributions to this article over the past few months have been reverting contributions by other editors, immediately rewriting them to conform to your POV, or questioning of their qualifications on the Talk page. Let me remind you that statements like "Are you qualified to edit this article?" are discouraged by Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles.

@Margin1522: Well, Tendai and Shingon Buddhism are both syncretic forms of Buddhism. Why don't you try reading those articles to which you post Wikilinks. You just said that those schools of Buddhism have nothing to do with Shinto, but read this. I'm not here to school you, and WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED for editing Misplaced Pages. The posts that you and others are making on this Talk page and to the article are a serious detraction from actually editing the article because it takes an inordinate amount of time and effort to respond to the disruption.

Almost every comment you've made in this thread is fife with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH along with forumlike commentary of a general nature that does not belong on this Talk page. Any further forumlike commentary will simply be deleted, as per WP:NOTFORUM. The photo of the Buddhist priest presenting the baseball team with a talisman at a temple is not something that supports your original research claims. Either find a serious source or cease and desist with the pov pushing.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually most of my comments on this page have been rather closely tied to sources. I've been trying to demonstrate that most of the extreme and offensive language in this article is ultimately derived from flaky sources that don't belong here. I've also had quite a bit to say about the abuse of secondary sources, which are being used as data mines for "facts", while ignoring the analysis and interpretation that makes them secondary in the first place. You've been on the other side of most of those debates, and it doesn't help that you and others don't seem to understand why anyone would object to this. --Margin1522 (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"Abuse of secondary sources" is probably not going to go over well as a complaint here on Misplaced Pages.

You can't dismiss sources by calling them "flaky".

You don't know what I understand.

I have recently aquired two of the Japanese sources, and once I've had the time to "data mine" them, I'll be posting more "extreme and offensive language".--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was rather rude reply. Defiance? I guess there’s no point in continuing.

By the way, here’s a source for you, via Seager, page 78. After pointing out that the Gakkai’s main constituency in the Toda years was working class men and women, small business owners (this is still true, BTW), shopkeepers, and housewives, Seager remarks that:

This emphasis on benefits has been viewed with great suspicion by some Gakkai critics in the West. But Ian Reader and George J. Tanabe argue that "the promise of this-worldly benefits is an intrinsic element within Japanese religion in general," is in fact "typical" of Japanese religions, whether traditional or innovative.

24 Ian Reader and George J. Tanabe, Jr. Practically Religious: Worldly Benefits and the Common Religion of Japan (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1998), p.8.

The publisher's blurb says: "Basing their work on a fusion of textual, ethnographic, historical, and contemporary studies, the authors of this volume demonstrate the fallacy of such views, showing that, far from being marginal, the concepts and practices surrounding genze riyaku lie at the very heart of the Japanese religious world." --Margin1522 (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, this is something worth addressing. What do you suppose they mean by entitling the book "...the Common Religion of Japan"?

With regard to Buddhism proper, this-worldly benefits are not "an intrinsic element". "Craving" for this-worldly benefits is seen as a cause of delusion and suffering, which practice is intended to dissipate.

So that brings the discussion back to the relationship of the discarding of the Greek ideal of "truth" in the "Creation of value" theory propounded by Makiguchi and its relationship to Nichiren Buddhism, which Soka Gakkai claims to belong/represent.

It becomes immediately apparent why Nichiren Buddhist priests would be critical of the doctrine, so then the question arises of how to characterize the thing called Soka Gakkai. It does not claim to be a syncretic religion, like Shingon Buddhism. In fact, Ikedaism basically holds that Ikeda is the new Nichiren himself, who Nichirenshoshu claimed was the living Buddha, relegating Shakyamuni to the other-worldy dustbin of history, apparently.

That is to say, by extension, the Soka Gakkai's Ikeda "Sensei" becomes the default "Buddha-in-this-world", or something like that, and he is going to lead you to "personal advantage" in this world, not "truth". That should clarify why it is characterized as "gnostic manipulationist", a "cult of personality", etc.

But that's my original research, and I'm not trying to include it in the article, just provide a schema outlining part of the problematic.

The "Creation of Value" theory did not have its origins in religion, but educational pedagogy. How does that become distorted when it is incorporated into a new religious movement? --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 00:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to take a look at the book to see what they say about that. But right now I have a day job that's demanding attention. Maybe we can come back to this later. --Margin1522 (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"The daimoku can apparently also be used for destructive purposes." I think this is too general a conclusion to reach based on the evidence presented by McLaughlin which is specifically referring to members' reactions to the traumatic split. Such reactions may have been emotional and awkwardly expressed, but did they sustain themselves or were they self-corrected? If this major claim that makes it seem that there is a "voodoo" element to chanting the daimoku were true, newspapers would be churning out shocking examples in the form of the movement's literature or in photographs, artifacts, etc. We should note that McLaughlin qualifies his statement in the footnote 34, p. 302: "Today, dakko undo mostly takes the form of seeking the erasure of Soka Gakkai's enemy not by direct confrontation but an inward-looking process of regular chanting to the object of worship in the hopes of effecting change in others through cultivating one's own religious practice. It is unclear as to how dakko undo is supposed to eradicate Nichiren Shoshu. However, the practice cultivates Gakkai adherents in the ethos of the organization."

I suggest that the paragraph be moved to the subsection on the split with the first sentence omitted. BrandenburgG (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

One more time I would like to request feedback before I take the action I suggested above. "The daimoku can apparently also be used for destructive purposes" needs repeated citation to substantiate a generalization. One source, based on one report, does not support such a conclusion.

BrandenburgG (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

We should say what the source says. This is a high quality source that has a lot of good information. Shii (tock) 00:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Shii, the source is good but the source does not say or indicate "the daimoku can apparently also be used for destructive purposes." The source on page 302 is specific to prayers that McLaughlin reports directed to the "self-degradation" of Nikken and the Nikken sect. Period. McLaughlin does not report that members chant to place hexes on their neighbors' barns.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I approve of the rewording you just used. Shii (tock) 13:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Changes

I expanded a little in 2 sections: "Separation from the Shoshu priesthood:, and "Chanting of the Daimoku". Everything I did, I believe, is backed by solid secondary sources.--Daveler16 (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Generally good. Thanks for giving notice here. Shii (tock) 16:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed the word "modernization", as it casts judgment on what is modern vs. outdated, but you might replace it with "members believed that Ikeda was modernizing Buddhism" or something like that. Shii (tock) 18:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Shi. I changed it to "most however, stayed with the Soka Gakkai and what they perceived as Ikeda's modernization of Buddhist ideas." That okay? I also added the quote from Seagar to the reference. Speaking of which, there is no reference for the preceding statement, "Some Japanese members of the Gakkai left at this time, believing that a cult of personality was developing around Ikeda which departed from Nichiren's teachings;". I'm sure that it's accurate, but we don't know where it comes from. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone (I looked at History and can't tell who) deleted my observations by Carter and Cooper in the "Criticisms of the promotion of pacifism" section. I can find no explanation on this Talk page either. Since the policy states that unexplained deletions can be instantly reverted, (here) I'm putting them back. I understand the sentiment among some editors that anything that doesn't denigrate the subject is "self-promotion", but I can't find that stated as policy wither. These statements are from a good source, and must carry at least as much weight as the statements of an academic whose scholarship has been seriously questioned (though my source is also an academic). So even if the deletions policy hadn't been violated, I think there is still justification for putting them back.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I noted in my edit earlier today: "move praise out of criticism section". I'm not sure if you couldn't tell that you were quoting praise, or what. Shii (tock) 02:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no, didn't see that. Technically, criticism can indeed be praise. Beyond that, if there is a chance the negative criticism is unwarranted, shouldn't that be included? After all, the "Criticism" section is a sub section of "Peace Activities" - but it is not a peace activity. So what's the difference? If we are going to remove things that do not exactly fit the literal meaning of the headline, this whole entry could be much shorter. For example, the Life Force section. By this logic, how is the second paragraph included in that section, as it is not about the SG idea of life force but a theological argument that it's wrong--Daveler16 (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Once again, moved a book about Nichiren Shoshu out of the Book section. This time I placed it in the Nichiren Shoshu entry, as it evidently concerns the beliefs of Nichiren Shoshu.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Now you've tried to remove that book twice and been reverted twice by different editors.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a rational reason that a book about Nichiren Shoshu beliefs belongs in the Soka Gakkai section? I have at least stated my reasons for moving it. No one else has stated ANY reason for putting it back. I started editing with the impression that changes could be discussed, explained, maybe argued. I have tried, for the most part, to approach editing that way (a few exceptions, I know). This is not my full time job, nor do I have access to an academic library. I work for a long time finding sources, traveling to the library, writing and re-writing, and then explaining what I'm doing on the Talk page. Do you have any idea how aggravating it is, after all that work, when someone just clicks a button deleting all that work, and there is no explanation, no warning, no discussion about it? It gives the distinct impression that there is an agenda at work by some editors to absolutely keep the overall tone of this entry negative. Your comment above, Ubikwit, reads like a "nyah nyah nnyah", has nothing to do with the content of the article, and everything to do with "I'm getting my way and no one will change anything without mmy permission". I've asked more than once for the consideration of a discussion - which I believe is WP policy. I'm wondering why you don't want to discuss things before you do them?--Daveler16 (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, this bibliography entry is not a matter of research, but you have a point. We wouldn't put an SGI publication in the Shoshu bibliography. Putting a Shoshu publication in the SGI bibliography is asserting the dominance of the sect over the former hokkeko-- which is exactly the sort of hierarchical thinking that SGI rejects. Let's limit the bibliography to SGI's self-presentation (put all the Middleway books in there, there's an idea) and respectable outsider accounts from people who are not invested in the argument. This will do a service to readers.

I was recently picking through Japanese books critical of SGI at the Harvard library and I was surprised to find so many smears and guilt by association arguments. The best Japanese books on the subject are not by freelance journalists but by scholars of religion like Shimazono. Of course, the Japanese public has some distrust in religion scholars after the whole Aum Shinrikyo affair, but alas, that distrust is not something Misplaced Pages can integrate neutrally into articles. Shii (tock) 16:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Only list SGI primary sources? That sounds rather unusual for a bibliography.

The description reads, "presents details of Sōka Gakkai's gradual distortion of the school's teachings and reasons for its severing of ties", and considering that there is a whole section on the split as well as a discussion of the relationship in the "Beliefs and practices" section, the book seems relevant and something that should be presented to Misplaced Pages readers as a source for further research. I don't see it as an "asserting the dominance of the sect over the former hokkeko".

There are also differences between scholars of religion and people that research new religions, which are generally very different from traditional religions and highly derivative thereof. In the case of SG, which is engaged in operating a network of private schools and is closely connected to a political party, free-lance investigative journalists are going to be the best sources in some cases. Scholars of religion aren't generally examining those phenomena.

@Daveler16: You seem to be mischaracterizing the book to some extent. Part of it addresses the split with SG in terms of doctrine, etc, which is a central issue.

I've mentioned competency issues before, and there is also WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. It seems fairly obvious that you are an adherent to the SG belief system or whatever and are trying to present that in a positive light, but that is not the goal of Misplaced Pages, which is an encyclopedia. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, perhaps a compromise could be made -- we could make separate subheadings for "Outsider accounts" and "Shoshu account"/"Primary source on schism" to show that the Shoshu source has a conflict of interest and is not an objective look at Soka Gakkai. I agree that there could be useful information in it regardless.

Also, let's appreciate Daveler's work for what it is. There is currently a team of SPAs here, mostly likely concerned SGI members and friends, all of whom are (1) adding additional research to the article, (2) correcting errors based on the use of outdated or untrustworthy sources, and (3) interacting civilly with other editors. This is far superior to the situation in 2012-2013, where Safwan was extremely incivil and wrecked the article multiple times. Now, some of the SPAs have been relying on untrustworthy sources themselves, but if we can continue with this type of collaboration the article might be able to achieve WP:GA. I don't think there are decent enough English sources for it to ever reach FA but GA would be a great accomplishment. Shii (tock) 17:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Shii, I think that the suggestion to create categories in the bibliography is fine. I guess there should be three, in that case, one for Middleway, one for Shoshu and another for third party sources.

I don't have any problem with the SPA's and agree that there has been some poorly composed and poorly sourced text removed, but the soapboxing posts on the Talk page and disruptive edits to the article are a significant time sink.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, I assume it is also not the goal of WP tp present the SG in a negative light. which is the only outcome of including a book from a sect with open antipathy toward the SG, specifically about ways in which the SG is deviant -- i.e., heretical -- from Nichiren Shoshu. I am not saying that the previous ties not be examined; I'm saying it's been over 20 years, and an encyclopedia entry on the SG does not need to define the SG so relentlessly in terms of its former association. Would you want to work together on a new bibliography? Frankly, I'm not familiar with all the books Middleway published, so it would take a little time to compile a list.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Daveler16: Sourcing is a somewhat complicated and multifacted issue on Misplaced Pages. Shii and I discussed the bibliography briefly and agreed that on this topic it might be advisable to have a few categories, namely those for primary (pro and con) and another for third-party sources. Primary sources are, by definition, not independent. That doesn't mean they aren't reliable for certain purposes, but their scope is limited.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Secondary does not mean independent.

• Primary does not mean "not independent"
• Secondary does not mean "independent"

What you are saying is that "non-independent sources are by definition not independent". That is true. I think that these sources should be handled according to the rules for "third party" vs. "non-independent sources". Along with Middleway. I'd add that Shōshū is not an independent source. It is directly involved in a bitter doctrinal dispute with SG, so it shouldn't be treated as a third party. And I would add the so-called "third-party" novelists and journalists who write about SG. Most of them are employed in the SG-bashing industry. Their employers (notably 週刊新潮) and audience are extremely biased, for political and ideological reasons. They shouldn't be treated like neutral scholars because they aren't. Ideological and financial interests are at stake, and they are every bit as biased as Middleway.

Let me say too that I don't think much of this idea of dividing reference sections up into "pro-" and "anti-" sections. Everybody should be treated according to the same rules. If they are biased, say so at the point where the source is used. That's what's normally done with biased sources. --Margin1522 (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

If I could add one more thing, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a division into separate sections for journalistic and scholarly studies. And about reliability, we list a couple of sources associated with the Asahi. Asahi is generally considered to be left-leaning, and the sources tend to be neutral. But leaning which way doesn't matter. What matters is whether the source has fact checking and control according to accepted journalistic standards. Asahi does. 週刊新潮 and the tabloids in general don't. --Margin1522 (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

How about Akahata? I have a positive opinion of both Akahata and Shukanshincho. Shii (tock) 05:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've never read Akahata. Whenever I glance through it, it seems pretty boring. About Shincho, they lost my respect when they jumped on the 嫌韓憎中 bandwagon. If there is one thing I cannot stand in politics, it's flag waving and appeals to nationalist animosity. But getting back to them as a source, most of their attacks on SG are over 10 years old. They've toned it down considerably ever since the Komeito allied itself with the LDP. --Margin1522 (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok - added one book from Middleway to the list. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Public Perception and Criticism

An ongoing theme in the talk page on the lede is that more work needs to be done in the body of the article and the lede should follow this work. I am going to take some of the content in the lede and place it into the section "Public Perception and Criticism." Once this settles in I suggest we simplify the lede by removing references that will be found here.

I am also going to be adding additional content about the role of media and research in public perception of the SG. I am more familiar with the literature that supports the SG's claims. I am hoping that editors who are familiar with other points of view will chime in and add appropriate content. I think this is the best way to create DUE.

I am 90% finished with the rest of the content I hope to add. Interested editors can look at my sandbox, https://en.wikipedia.org/User:BrandenburgG/sandbox. Feel free to make suggestions right there. BrandenburgG (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Good. This is a good place to relegate the "gnostic-manipulationist typology" to. Shii (tock) 16:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree partially, Shii. "Gnostic-manipulationist" should be relegated to "Public Perception" but only after editors agree that there is DUE in the lede between assertions and denials of "cult" status. Otherwise one can argue that the entire mentions about "cult" and "cult of personality" should be relegated to "Public Perception."

BrandenburgG (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the "gnostic-manipulationist typology" is maybe the most informative and objective characterization in the article. So I think it belongs in the lead, but there should be material, probably drawn from Ikeda's writings, that dmonstrates what that characterization is derived from.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I completed the transfer from my Sandbox. I look forward to other editors adding relevant material. The more people participate, the more balanced and neutral this subsection will become. BrandenburgG (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Brainwashing related quotes and passages from Yanatori and Furukawa

Sorry, but this is only in Japanese at present.

Yanatori (pp. 52-54)

条件反射的心理の利用法
さて、そこでいよいよ創価学会と、むかしの日本軍隊が、どう違いどう似ているか、その辺を考えてみたい。総評が、労働者のために、あの大軍団を手足のように動かしたのは、まだ記憶に新しいが、日本軍隊は、すでに三十余年の過去になる。しかし、その軍隊が、忠君愛国一本で、一時は全世界を席捲しかねない勢力を維持したのは事実である。
創価学会が、めきめきと頭角を現わし、国立戒壇広宣流布の大号令をもって、七百万世帯とも八百万世帯ともいう大折伏を展開して大集団にのしあがったのは戦後である。そこにはなんの関係もないかに見えるのに、その底流にあるものは、むかしの軍隊のように、一般社会と一線を画して社会の風潮に染まらない別の世界を造りあげようとするところにあった。そこにはやはり一種の共通点がある。
軍隊は忠君愛国を中心とする、天皇の軍隊であった。創価学会は、日達上人を中心に、その念顕であった国立戒壇と広宜流布の実現を目標とする集団であった。その源は、日蓮であることは日蓮没後、六人の弟子で、後継争いがおこったとき、他の五人と離れて、ひとり現在の富士宮市に大石寺を聞いて、我こそは日蓮の正統を継ぐものだ、と名告りをあげたのが、当時の日興上人である。自ら、日蓮正宗と称した所以である。
もちろんであるが、現在、富士宮市の大石寺に、六十六代日達上人があり、正宗を継ぐ中心となっている。創価学会は、その正宗の信者の一団体であって、いうなれば、他の何々講という講中と同じ性質のものであるはずだが、それを、他の講中と違って創価学会と名告り、権威をもたせたところに、創価学会の他講と違う秘密があるのである。 もともと創価学会は、牧口常三郎という、学校の教師をしていた信者が、昭和五年、創価教育日蓮の教義を教育の場に導入しようとしてはじめたものである。
その中心教義が真・善・美を、利・善・美におきかえ現世利益と密着させたところに、財閥創学会として、価学会の基礎があるという。 その上、日蓮流の戦闘的攻撃的な行動で大集団になったのは、二代目会長、戸田城聖が、戦後新しい折伏作戦を編み出してからである。
創価学会の折伏大作戦は図にあたり、またたく聞に大集団になってしまった。その方法はもちろん日蓮大聖人さまが中心で、世界にあてていえば、法王にも相当しようか、その背後で仏祖釈迦はかすんでしまった。すでに、その仏法は末法の世には死んでいるという。日蓮の予言だけが生きていると諭した。その本源は、本仏、もしくは本尊と称んでいる。教えに背けば、仏罰があたり、教えを護れば、現世の利益がひしめき、人間の幸せが、独占できるというものである。
一度入信すれば、毎日の勤業、座談会に出席して、話を聞き、折々は自己の体験を語ることも許される。聖教新聞をはじめ、さまざまな出版物を買わされる。買えば買うほどご利益がある。
とわもてと幹部は、あるいはさとし、あるいは強面で迫ってくる。また、入信しても余り活動しないものを眠っているという。その目を醒まさせるためには、リンチまがいのいやがらせを敢えてする。
信者同士はその動勢をさぐり合い、スパイそこのけの活動をして歩く。
学会屋さんなどと呼び合ったり、あるいは罰論をくりかえしたり、普通の人との交際はほとんど出来ないようにして、誇り高き信者を造りあげて行く、従って、世間で学会の批判をしても、それは信者の耳には入らないように仕向けられてきた。
一種の洗脳方式である。外部と交際させずに創価学会一色に塗りつぶし、少しぐらいの刺激にはびくともしない体質を造りあげようというところは、もとの軍隊のとった「洗脳方式」とよく似ている。

Furukawa p. 36-7
例えば、現在、創価学園の理事長を務める小林道夫は、創価高校の校長時代の一九八八年五月二十二日の学会本部の本部幹部会で副会長の就任が発表されている(東北大学出身の小林は一九六八年の創価学園の開校以来、ずっと体育科の教員として勤めてきた)が、その直後の五月二十六日には次のように語っている(引用は「現代』九O年四月号「池田創価大学・学園『池田洗脳教育』叩時間のテiプ」より)。
「学園としては待ちに待った先生のご来校であります。いちばん心配しておりました天気もどうやら晴れ上がってまいりまして、晴天でよかった。先生は非常にお忙しい中を、時間をかきわけるようにして学園へお出でくださる。特に高校一年生は、学園に入ってきたほとんどの理由が、先生との出会いにあります。その最良の日を今日迎える。彼らにとって生涯忘れられない日となる:::(教職員は)休み時間、昼休みに、もう一度、学校中の掃除のチェックを願います。先生を気持ちよくお迎えしようという真心は、形に現れなければ真心とはいえない」

p. 44 is the start of an entire chapter on the topic
「池田先生」を刷り込み、再凍結させる巧妙な洗脳システムアカデミズムの世界では、「洗脳」は苦痛を伴うのに対し、「マインドコントロール」の方は語感として、柔らかい響きを持っているため、知らず知らずのうちに心が操られる場合に用いられるケlスが多い。このように両者の聞には微妙なニュアンスの違いがあるが、最近では物理的な強制力を伴うやり方はほとんど見られなくなっていることから、ここでは心を操作する行為を総称して、基本的に「洗脳」という言葉で統一する。
一般にカルト集団では、グル(教祖)に対する忠誠心を刷り込むために、「洗脳」が行われている。
そして、この洗脳というテクニックは、いまやカルトだけでなく、ビジネスでは社員教育にも応用され、最近では「自己啓発セミナー」といった形で浸透してきでいる。オウム真理教のテロ事件を契機に、日本ではもちろん、世界的にも関心が高まってきているのは、既に知られている通りである。
「唯脳論」の立場から見ると、洗脳とは、神経レベルでの情報処理、信号処理のプロセスにおいて、何らかの操作を加えることで、その人の思考や行動、感情を思いのままにコントロールすることである。
具体的には、わかりやすい言葉で何度も何度も繰り返して、教義なり、グルの絶対性を信者に刷り込んでいくのである。そして、信者は精神的にも肉体的にもグルに依存させられることで、批判精神を削ぎ落とされるとともに、最終的にはグルに対して絶対的な忠誠を誓うようになるわけである(※ヒットラーはその著書『わが闘争』の中で、「大衆の心を煽動させるには、わかりやすい一言葉で何度も繰り返すことだ」と述べているのは、大変、興味深い)。
「洗脳」という言葉の由来は、一九五O年に起こった朝鮮戦争で、中国が捕虜米兵に自国の共産主義を植えつけるために行った思想教育を、エドワード・ハンターというアメリカ人ジャーナリストが、「ブレインン・ウオッシング」と呼んだのが、捕虜となって中国に送られた米兵は、虐待を覚悟していたのに、食べ物や衣服は十分に与えられるという思いがけない厚遇を受けることになる。「何だ。思ったこととはだいぶ違うじゃないか:::」実はこれが毛沢東の狙いで、こうやって捕虜の警戒心を解いたところで、中国共産党の洗脳はスタートする。

P. 131
こうした池田の、相手の深層心理にピタリとハマるように波長を合わせてくる「他心通」(※仏法の言葉で「相手の心を即座に見抜く」の音中)の力によって、アルノルド・トインビーをはじめ、周恩来、松下幸之助といった内外の著名人がキリキリ舞いにされてきたというのが、実情なのである。
例えば、日中国交回復後、池田は北京で周思来首相と会見している(一九七四年十二月五日)が、その際に、池田は事前に周に関するデlタを徹底的に頭の中にインプットしたうえで、臨んでいる。
周恩来は国民党との内戦で負傷し、右手が曲がっている。そこで、池田は最初に握手するとき、左手をそっと周の右手に添え、「革命では大変でしたね」と切り出したのである(※この光景はちゃんと同行の取材陣に撮影させ、「私の左手が周思来の心をつかんだ」というナレーションを入れたビデオを学会系列のシナノ企画に作らせているほか、「民族解放と人間解放のために、身体を投げ打ってきた日中両巨頭の対話が、今後、アジアと世界の平和の実現にいっそう貢献するであろう」などといった仰々しいキャプションで飾り立て、聖教新聞など学会系の媒体で繰り返し流すことで、会員のH洗脳々にも有効活用している)。
これをやられたら、周恩来ならずとも、コロッと参るだろう。おそらく、スリニパスも池田のお得意の「他心通」でやられたうちの一人である。
--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I read the quotes. Yanatori was entertaining and well written, as you might expect from a novelist with over 50 books to his credit. It's rather like reading Mark Twain on the Mormons. I enjoyed it. But there is nothing about where he got any of this information, or whether he, as a novelist, is just making it up because it's a good story.

Furukawa uses "brainwashing" in the sense that advertising and corporate education programs are brainwashing -- if you repeat something, people will remember it. He goes so far as to suggest that Ikeda brainwashed Zhou Enlai by being considerate enough to shake hands with Zhou's good hand. So you can brainwash people by being polite to them. Here again no evidence that Gakkai members are or were actually subjected to techniques that would normally be called brainwashing. Looks to me like this is simply a case of hyperbolic language on the part of Furukawa. Do we have any instances of Furukawa being quoted by reputable scholars on the topic of brainwashing? --Margin1522 (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Buddhism articles
• Top-importance Buddhism articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• C-Class New religious movements articles
• Top-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles
• C-Class social movements task force articles
• Social movements task force articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics