Misplaced Pages

Talk:Daisaku Ikeda

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hijiri88 (talk | contribs) at 14:17, 11 March 2015 (→Get dates and facts right). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:17, 11 March 2015 by Hijiri88 (talk | contribs) (→Get dates and facts right)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Daisaku Ikeda article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

Template:BLP noticeboard

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBuddhism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-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.
WikiProject iconJapan: Biography / Religion Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 01:19, December 25, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Biography task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Religion task force.
WikiProject Japan to do list:
  • Featured content candidates – 

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Daisaku Ikeda article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

Remarkable deletions

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

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

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

I am also a new editor to this page. I appreciate your excellent admonishment to "pay close attention to the waves of edits." I have read over several pages in the Talk Page and the history, but the sheer quantity is daunting. I'm sure I will miss important threads, but I hope that will not mean I -- or anyone else -- cannot still contribute.
FWIW, I appreciate TokyoSunrise's deletions: Concerning this edit, I did what research I could (I love research). It will surprise no one that the only sources are either pro-SGI or pro-Nichiren Shoshu. I found the following sources: The Human Revolution, Book 1, starting on p. 677 (approx. 40 pages); Jisai Watanabe interview: http://www.sokaspirit.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Senior_Priest.pdf; http://en.wikipedia.org/Jōsei_Toda (then search for "Ogasawara"); https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.religion.buddhism.nichiren/lZY3eYfCaVo; plus an abundance of blogs and obscure YouTube videos and websites.
No source seems to argue with these points: 1) During WWII, the priest Jimon Ogasawara, in line with government and military authorities, promoted the belief that Buddhism was subordinate to Shinto. 2) For this reason, he was expelled as a priest and excommunicated in 1942. 3) Toda believed Ogasawara's actions led to Makiguchi's death in prison, and he conveyed this to other Soka Gakkai members. 4) On April 27, 1952, a group of young men, including Ikeda, confronted Ogasawara and demanded that he recant and apologize. Here's where stories diverge, but the bottom line is that no one was charged, ever, with anything. No one required medical treatment, and eventually Ogasawara and the Soka Gakkai mended their relationship.
IMO, this event, which happened more than 60 years ago, is not reflective of Ikeda’s life. The deleted text blows the story out of proportion, and the wording is not neutral; in fact, I would call it inflammatory. Findemnow (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the allegations of a "violent" assault, which is a felony in Japan, the sources that were referenced in fact do not say anything about Ikeda assaulting anyone. There was an allegation made, long after Josei Toda's passing, that Toda struck the priest after the priest kicked Toda, and that was mentioned in the source given. That claim is denied by the Soka Gakkai members that were present at the event including Ikeda (they say the priest didn't kick anyone and Toda didn't strike anyone). The writer who claimed there was a physical altercation Murata, who later (after Toda's death) said that Toda described to him that the priest and he hit each other. I believe Murata is an unreliable source, as he's written unverifiable anti-Gakkai allegations, but in any case Murata never claimed that it was Ikeda who assaulted anyone. Since it is libelous to claim someone committed a felony with no source for the claim, I deleted this from the article.
Next, regarding 週間新潮 (Shūkan Shinchō), clearly this tabloid is an unreliable source, and negatively biased, since on the same page you referenced regarding shukanshi it states that Shūkan Shinchō was convicted in Japanese court of libel against the Gakkai. I believe a tabloid paper like Shūkan Shinchō is not a reliable source for encyclopedic data, let alone one that has been convicted of libel against the subject. In any case, I do not believe speculation about an individual's personal health (unverified by any source) is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic entry, so I deleted it. TokyoSunrise (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Murata's book in hand: Ikeda wrote the foreword. Pgs 61-68 include bad blood between Toda/Ogasawara who exchanged blows. Ogasawara filed complaint on Toda naming no other individuals. Dropped it after Toda/Oga made up. Ikeda's name is mentioned once that he was in Taisekiji with 4,000 others when Toda/Oga fought. Murata says Ikeda wasn't a leader but became one in 1953. The info on Ikeda page is not what Murata wrote and is in no other source.Elemential1 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Having the book in hand or not is no good reason to delete a whole section that also includes other references and make it appear as if the incident never took place. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08: As I wrote, no other source contains the info on this page. All sources agree Toda/Ogasawara got into it. None of the references has Ikeda personally involved in an altercation, but state he was present with between 47 and 4000 others depending on the source. The incident is appropriately listed on the Josei Toda page since it was Toda's fight. If you cannot provide a reliable source that contradicts the above then please undo your reversion of my edit. Thanks.Elemential1 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Elemential1 Daniel B. Montgommery, Fire in the Lotos, Page 186 --Catflap08 (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

@ Elemential1 In the Montgomery book there is no Murata mentioned !? Violently harassing as the sections states does not say he (ikeda) was beating him himself, having said that he is also not known for having stopped anyone beating him either. Toda did indeed leave the room leaving the priest to the SG mob and actually saying so before leaving. You disagree with one source – and then you even try to portray it as if Ikeda and Toda had nothing to do with it? You are not serious are you? You deleted the complete section on the Osagawa incident not one sentence. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08Please re-read what I wrote and then you may see how nonsensical your reply is. You still provide no references to support what is on this page regarding the incident and Ikeda. Reviewing all sources- worst case scenario is Ikeda at age 24 witnessed Toda/Ogasawara hit or kick each other once or twice. Statements that Ikeda led a violent harassment and admit hitting someone are on this Ikeda page but neither of those scenarios are in any of the sources cited. So then how is any of the paragraph relevant? Most of the other info isn't supported in the references either, instead showing Toda headed a pilgrimage of 4,000 men and women to celebrate the 700th anniversary of the temple. Despite Murata's account that Toda struck Ogasawara, in the Human Revolution Ikeda describes the incident as more civil and when some young men later start to harass Ogasawara he told them to leave him alone. Whatever version you want to believe none of the sources support what is on this page.Elemential1 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The human revolution is a novel. Again you deleted a complete section/paragraph because ONE source does not fit your view of the world. A novel does not really count as a reference. I think you should be reading some Misplaced Pages guidelines … in case this is your first time round here. --Catflap08 (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08 As I've stated repeatedly- ALL sources refute the text regarding Ikeda. ZERO SOURCES state the text about Ikeda. You continue to attack me and ignore what I say but it doesn't change these facts. Why would you want to keep text that is refuted by every reference cited in the text? If this is a game you play to vent your hate, then your game is up.Elemential1 (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

So far you have referred to one source mentioned in one sentence – so far so good. You, however have deleted the complete paragraph about the incident, referenced by not only one source. Do you get the difference?? Again, a novel does not count as a reference. --Catflap08 (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

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

References are usually stated at the end of a sentence or section. When one cites the footnote is usually made immediately afterwards. The paragraph is about the incident were a priest was beaten and harassed … who ever authored it used his/her own word an afterwards included the references. That’s how those things are normally done. You want a reference after each sentence??? It becomes evident that it is not the Muarta reference that bugs you but the whole paragraph. Please note WP:CS The paragraph cites following sources:

  • Shimada, Hiromi (2008). Sōkagakkai (Kindle) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Shinchōsha. ISBN 978-4106100727.
  • Murata, Kiyoaki (1969). Japan's new Buddhism: an objective account of Soka Gakkai (. ed.). New York: Weatherhill. pp. 96–97. ISBN 978-0834800403.
  • Montgomery, Daniel B. (1991). Fire in the lotus: the dynamic Buddhism of Nichiren. London: Mandala. ISBN 978-1852740917.

When reading Montgomery it becomes evident Toda and Ikeda were in the mob that harassed the priest. Montgomery does not state Ikeda was beating the priest but he was in that crowd- not in defence of the priest. --Catflap08 (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You say "whoever authored it used his/her own words", but the problem is those words don't appear in the references. Yesterday you referred to Montgomery page 186, but on page 186 Montgomery doesn't even state Ikeda was in the same room as Toda when Toda and the priest struck each other, as I noted above. Montgomery simply states Ikeda was among 47 youth who went out looking for Ogasawara and on page 187 Montgomery says "Murata claims Toda told him that Toda struck Ogasawara twice." Shimada and Montgomery simply quote Murata, and none of the three state Ikeda was violent. If you cannot offer supporting reference (not your own opinion or interpretation) about the text, then it should be deleted.Elemential1 (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Reliable source Yanatori (pp. 309-313, in Japanese) on incident and Ikeda's role, etc.

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

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

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

君も立て我も立つ
広布の天地に一人立て
正義と勇気の旗高く
創価桜の道開け

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

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

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

Well if no one is saying that the confrontation did not happen why was the complete paragraph on the confrontation being deleted?? Just because of one source?? Odd behaviour that is. The complete incident was deleted. Here we go, the Montgomery citation. Page 186 - 187.

Only a year after Toda’s inauguration, however, the society’s zeal amost brought it to an ignominious end. In Aprol 1952 Taiseki-ji and other Nichiren temples throughout the land were celebrating the 700th anniversary of the founder’s first proclamation of the Daimoku, Namu Myoho Renge Kyo. Believers from around the country came to their head temples for special festivities. At Taiseki-ji four gala days were planned. The first two were to be managed by the sect’s official laymen’s association, called Hokkeko. The last two days were for Sokagakkai. Toda planned a show of force. The Hokkeko was bringing 2,500 members, and he would muster 4,000 from his one-year-old society. He also saw an opportunity to avenge his two years of imprisonment during the war: he had learned that the leader of the compromising party, the priest Jimon Ogasawara, was going to be present. (footnote 72: In his historical novel The Human Revolution , Daisaku Ikeda gives Jimon Ogasawara the name, ‘Jiko Kasahara’.) There could be no better time for a showdown.

Before leaving for the head temple Toda organized his younger members like shock troops. He instructed them to search directly for the offending priest, and then be ready for action once they found him. They were to challenge him to debate the views right then and there. Forty-seven leaders of the Youth Division, one of whom was Daisaku Ikeda, worked out a systematic plan to locate Ogasawara and bring him to judgement. On arriving at Taiseki-ji, they fanned and carefully combed the temple grounds. Nevertheless, they might have missed him entirely had not a young lady from Hokkeko inadvertently tipped them off by innocently remarking that she seen the famous Reverend Ogasawara at one of the priests’ lodging houses. Instantly, the Youth Division members sent one of their number to advise Toda while the rest of them converged on the house. They barged straight in, and found the 69-year old theologian clad in his priestly garments and talking cheerfully to several other clergymen. The young men immediately challenged him to debate his views. The old priest tried to put them off, saying the hour was late, and the he was tired after the long journey to the temple, but Sokagakkai members kept pouring into the room and demanding that Ogasawara retract his views and take the blame for the imprisonment and death of Makiguchi. The old man, now thoroughly annoyed, told them to go away and leave him alone. The lady from Hokkeko, embarrassed by the results of her innocent introduction, slipped away without a word. Three other priests, who had been chatting with Osagawara , sat in shocked silence, unable to believe they were hearing such abuse heaped on so venerable a devine. ‘Take off his robe!’ someone shouted. ‘Take off his robe a and take him to the grave of Makiguchi’ Four men picked up the squirming priest. They were just about to carry him out when Toda appeared in the doorway. ‘Stop!’ What happened next is not clear. According to Ikeda, Toda reasoned calmly with Ogasawara, demanding an apology, while the old man ‘drolled out of the mouth’ and ‘howled like a rabid dog’. But Murata claims that Toda told him in an interview that he struck the priest ‘twice’ (96). In any case, Ogasawara would not be intimidated, and would admit to nothing. Seeing that he was getting nowhere, Toda finally strode out, leaving the old priest to the mercies of his tormentors. ‘If you so stubbornly refuse to apologisem, whatever may happen to you is no longer of my concern. Whatever the Youth Divison members may do to you, I will not take the responsibility. ‘'' As soon as their leader had left, the young men once more hoisted the priest up onto their shoulders. By then they had torn off his priestly robe and stripped him down his underclothes. They carried him out into the temple grounds, shouting through megaphones, ‘This is Jimon Ogasawara, a parasite in the lion’s body, gnawing at Nichiren Shoshu … This is a villanous monk, the actual murderer of Mr. Mkiguchi!’. They tagged him with a placard reading. ‘Racoon Monk’, and bore him to the grave of Makiguchi. There the thoroughly shaken old man was forced to sign a prepared apology and repudiation of his theological opinions. By then a large crowd had gathered at the scene. Chief Director Izumida of Sokagakkai took charge. The scene in the cemetery was lit eerily by light from the exploding fireworks celebrating the festival. Ogasawara tried to joke about the incongruity of it all, but this only enraged his captors all the more.

Some local firemen serving as temple guards, thinking that the priest was about to be lynched, finally managed to break through the mob. However, when it turned out that the firechief was Izumida’s brither-in-law, the matter was settled amicably. Ogasawara was released, and the crowd disappeared.

One could actually say that the early Soka Gakkai had a strange affiliation with vigilantism. Said to have resurfaced in later years. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Findemnow Mr. Ikeda was clearly involved in the incident. If not why should he even mention it in his novel? The section on the talk page is about major changes to the article. Since active only since December 2014 it might be worthwhile to seek a tutor on Misplaced Pages. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Both the Japanese text pasted above and English text pasted above state Toda (allegedly) struck Ogasawara. Murata states Toda "admitted" to striking Ogasawara. The Japanese text is not a court record but claims to be from a civil complaint Ogasawara filed then later withdrew and the only individual he named was Toda. No source has been presented here that states Ikeda was violent, yet this Misplaced Pages page still states he was violent. Certain editors who have admitted a negative bias block the correction of these falsehoods. I suggest everyone read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Elemential1 (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Evidence, please

From not far above:

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

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

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

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

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

Please note

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

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

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

Peacock

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

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

  • Peacock example:
  • Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter.
  • Just the facts:
  • Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, where he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation". By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists.
  1. Cocks, Jay (June 14, 1999). "The Time 100: Bob Dylan". Time. Retrieved October 5, 2008. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. Grossman, Loyd. A Social History of Rock Music: From the Greasers to Glitter Rock (McKay: 1976), p. 66.

Notice how the (acceptable) "facts" include the unadulterated reproduction of the words of others. Now, within those words, if anyone were interested, I, personally would describe as "peacocky" or unearned or both all of:

  • master poet (According to which authorities on poetry? )
  • social critic (Please name one cogent piece of social criticism.)
  • intrepid (If this means anything other than "Didn't give up very quickly", then I can't think what it might be.)
  • guiding spirit (Well, they bought his records. Anything else? Evidence, please.)
  • Most Important People of the Century (Oh, pull the other one.)
  • artists (No need to aggrandize; try "musicians", or indeed "singers".)

But if I supposed that anybody would be interested in these opinions, I'd write up them up in a blog or somewhere; I wouldn't inflict them on Misplaced Pages articles. -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Murata reference

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

Here's what the article now says:
  1. Ikeda, who admitted to hitting the priest "once or twice" later referred to the incident as an "act of kindness" because "the old priest, made to realize his apostasy, was grateful to Toda and Soka Gakkai and died a happy man." (attributed to an unspecified page of Murata, Japan's New Buddhism)
  2. Via a reference: Recalling this incident in an interview with the author in July 1956, Toda admitted hitting the priest 'twice' and said that this was the cause of the extremely unfavorable press his organization then received. . . .] (visible on a page I can't identify of Murata, Japan's New Buddhism)
Of course it's possible that Ikeda admitted to Murata that he'd hit the priest once or twice, and Toda also admitted to Murata that he (Toda) had hit him twice. But somehow there seems something screwy about this. ¶ Incidentally, I've marked as a dead link a relevant link that, when I attempt to view it, is dead. I'm not sure that it really is dead; perhaps Google limits the number of snippets of a book that any one IP number can access within a certain time. Anyway, it would be a big help if people adding references did so informatively: not bare URLs, please; instead, "" (and more detail if appropriate, and it usually is). -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can remember the quote originally said that Toda admitted to hitting the Priest twice. That was before it was attempted to delete the complete paragraph on the incident, to which I was opposed. Then it was claimed that the Murata quote does not exist – seemingly it does though. --Catflap08 (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
As the article is about Ikeda, the question is of what is said about Ikeda. (Stuff about Toda can go into the article about Toda.)
This edit, by you, either adds or restores -- I can't be bothered to check which -- a lot of material to the article. Very possibly it is on balance a good edit (I can't be bothered to check). But whatever its virtues, it adds or readds the following sentence:
Ikeda, who admitted to hitting the priest "once or twice" later referred to the incident as an "act of kindness" because "the old priest, made to realize his apostasy, was grateful to Toda and Soka Gakkai and died a happy man."<ref name=murata />
Now, does Murata say that Ikeda (not Toda) either did this or admitted doing it? If so, which page? If Murata doesn't say it, then who says it, and where? If no source can be found for this immediately, then let's get rid of it immediately. -- Hoary (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Murata writes (p. 96): "Recalling this incident in an interview with the author in July 1956, Toda admitted hitting the priest 'twice'"

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

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

Let me be clear here. This whole issue becomes growingly bizarre. The discussion about this incident dates years back. First of all it was disputed that the incident took place. When sources were included the sources were doubted. Then the credibility of authors was doubted. Then it was disputed who was involved. Finally, back to square one, a quote within the quote was doubted. In the end though even if there was an article on the Jimon Osagawara himself the incident will not go away. @ Starrynuit The human revolution is a novel. --Catflap08 (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Please, Catflap08, you're not clear at all. You seem to be trying hard to slither away from my simple question. It won't work, and it doesn't become you. Maybe almost anything happened. Misplaced Pages doesn't fill its articles with stuff that this or that editor thinks may be true. Now, can you or can you not present evidence from reliable sources for any of the following:
  1. Murata says Ikeda said Ikeda hit the priest.
  2. Murata says Ikeda hit the priest.
  3. Somebody other than Murata says Ikeda said Ikeda hit the priest.
  4. Somebody other than Murata says Ikeda hit the priest.
? If so, then add the evidence. If not, then no, you can't have the article continue to include factoids such as this merely because you, personally, happen to think that they have a certain aura of truthiness. So remove the assertion. By which I mean that you, Catflap08, shouldn't simply see how long it can remain until somebody else removes it, but instead that you, personally, should remove it, as one small demonstration of your neutrality and dedication to factual correctness. If on the other hand you continue to show reluctance to remove unsourced stuff such as this (in remarkable contrast to your eagerness to remove more or less hagiographic content), I'll no longer find it possible to think that you value neutrality or factual correctness.
Imaginably there's no evidence that Ikeda hit the old fellow, but there is evidence that he played an unsavory role in an unsavory event. (I don't know. This is a mere thought experiment.) If this is so, then let's see the evidence. But if there is evidence that he did X, and if X is compatible with Y, this is not evidence that he did Y -- but your user page says that you have a higher degree, so surely you know all this. -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

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

You readded the assertion (as part of something larger), and now you seem reluctant to remove it. Well, remove it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ikeda was involved in the incident. An incident in which apparently 47 people were involved. An incident which turned violent. An incident in which Toda hit the priest twice. To be honest I could not care less if Ikeda hit the priest or not or if he was waving with pom-poms. Since the articles on Ikeda and SG/SGI were reshuffled considerably within the past few weeks and since the incident is mentioned in both articles I included the Murata source in both articles as the Murata quote was questioned BEFORE the reshuffling too place. --Catflap08 (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm delighted to read that you couldn't care less. I infer from this that, like me, you would be equally happy for the article to reflect the fact that he didn't hit the priest (if this were indeed factual) as for it to reflect the fact that he did hit the priest (if this were indeed factual). My understanding of Occam and of Russell's teapot suggests that if there's no evidence either that he did or that he didn't, then we should assume that he didn't. On 22 January, with whatever good intentions, you (re)added the assertion that Ikeda hit the priest. This is what the article still says. Are you happy with the way that it still says this? If you are happy with it, is this because you have some other evidence for it, because you disagree with Occam and Russell, because you don't care whether articles are factual, or for some other reason? -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Who got the Murata quote checked? Me or you? I included the reference into the section that deals with the incident. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Who got the citation checked? You got the Murata citation checked. We can see the question and answer here. And very interesting it is too. Here's your question.
I would like to know if this quote can be found in the above mentioned work or in an interview by Murata: “Ikeda, who admitted to hitting the priest "once or twice" later referred to the incident as an "act of kindness" because "the old priest, made to realize his apostasy, was grateful to Toda and Soka Gakkai and died a happy man."
(Here and below, olive-bolding is mine.) Good question. Well done so far. Here (after markup stripping) is the answer:
Hi Catflap08, here is the relevant text: -
Recalling this incident in an interview with this author in July 1956,Toda admitted hitting the priest "twice" and said that this was the cause of the extremely unfavorable press his organization then received-which labeled Soka Gakkai as a "violent religion".............In a pamphlet issued in May 1955, Ogasawara similarly "repented" his "indiscretion in having had the unfortunate conflict with Soka gakkai." Ikeda, who led the four thousand young men to mob Ogasawara, says now that the incident was an act of kindness because the old priest, made to realize his apostasy, was grateful to Toda and Soka gakkai and died a happy man.
(The ellipsis is not mine; presumably it's NQ's.)
No mention in that of Ikeda hitting the priest. Oh, sure, Murata says that Ikeda "led the four thousand young men to mob Ogasawara", which is eminently worth reproduction in the article, but there's a difference between (A) leading a mob and (B) hitting.
And here is what you're happy to leave in the article after this checking:
Ikeda, who admitted to hitting the priest "once or twice" later referred to the incident as an "act of kindness" because "the old priest, made to realize his apostasy, was grateful to Toda and Soka Gakkai and died a happy man."<ref name=murata />
So you'll get the veracity of a citation checked, be shown that it's wrong, leave it just as it is, and refuse to change it even when the difference is brought to your attention. Well, I've given up waiting, and have deleted the sentence myself. -- Hoary (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Get dates and facts right

SGI adherents as a whole were not expelled until 1997. Ikeda and SGI’s leadership were expelled prior to that in 1991/92. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Source? And you're apparently conflating Soka Gakkai with SGI. AbuRuud (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Adherents of SG/SGI were expelled in 1997, its leadership in 1991/92.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
From Métraux, Daniel A., "The Dispute Between the Soka Gakkai and the Nichiren Shoshu Priesthood: A Lay Revolution Against a Conservative Clergy", Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 1992, 19/4.

The crisis continued to escalate until 8 November 1991, when Soka Gakkai received a letter from Taiseki-ji ordering the dissolution of Soka Gakkai. The Gakkai rejected the request and attacked the priesthood, denouncing its "appalling lack of respect for the faithful"... At the end of November 1991, Taiseki-ji formally excommunicated the Soka Gakkai and its affiliated international chapters.

Don't delete sourced material.AbuRuud (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The guys should know when they expelled who ]--Catflap08 (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Even if a biased, primary source could refute an article from a peer-reviewed journal (PRO TIP:It can't), did you even bother to read your own source?

After excommunicating the Soka Gakkai organization, Nichiren Shoshu made continuous efforts to guide compassionately the Gakkai members back to the correct path of faith and practice. For a period of six years after the excommunication, individual Gakkai members who had received Gojukai from Nichiren Shoshu in the past were still recognized as Nichiren Shoshu lay believers. Nichiren Shoshu, however, could not continue with this situation, where a Gakkai member who follows Daisaku Ikeda qualifies as a Nichiren Shoshu lay believer. Nichiren Shoshu doctrine strictly prohibits its laity to hold membership in other religious organizations. On September 30, 1997, Nichiren Shoshu officially decided to terminate the membership of the Gakkai followers. After Nichiren Shoshu extensively notified the Gakkai members of this decision through its in-house publication and other means, the provision that all Gakkai members would lose their standing as Nichiren Shoshu lay believers went into effect on December 1, 1997. Emphasis added.

Count back six years from 1997. What do you get...? Soka Gakkai was excommunited in 1991, but individual members were still recognized as lay believers. Six years later, in 1997, the recognition was revoked.AbuRuud (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The LEADERSHIP of SGI/SG was expelled in 1991 … the adherents of SG/SGI in 1997. Good grief I was there at the time !!! --Catflap08 (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Don’t you dare deleting references btw. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Cool story about the excommunication. Sounds like a nice wp:COI. But I've gone ahead and put this on wp:BLPN rather than edit war. For the last time, your source doesn't say what you think it says.AbuRuud (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Do as you wish but facts are as they are. Ikeda & Co were kicked out first in 1991. The rest were expelled in 1997 – sorry I was there in the then faithful flock. It beats me on why one would disptute that. NST should know when they expelled who. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@AbuRuud I am no adherent of SG/SGI nor NST any more, but this is truly ridiculous. SG/SGI was NOT expelled along with Daisaku.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
You're talking about expelled on the talk page but deleting sourced information about excommunication on the article. They are two different things which you're conflating to POV push. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbuRuud (talk • contribs) 20:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Catflap08 apparently has a history of writing what he wants on Misplaced Pages and pretending to cite sources, even when the sources don't actually say what he claims them to. All material added by Catflap08, even if it appears to be sourced, should therefore be taken as suspect, and unless material has actually been verified by independent users checking the sources it should not be included in the article. I'm saying this having interacted with his POV-pushing on a bio of a poet who's been dead for over eighty years -- it only applies about 8,000,000 times more for this article.

(And yes, I did "follow" him here, but only after he and his friend effectively forced me to. I was not involved until Catflap08 and company wrongly equated this article with the Miyazawa Kenji article. (Catflap08 didn't directly support the linkage but he deliberately avoided correcting his friend when the link was made.) Since Catflap08 appears to be showing the same disruptive pattern here as he has on those other articles, and I've already admitted to believing that this is a recurrent CIR issue with Catflap08, my coming here is also policy-based.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Categories: