Talk:Soka Gakkai International

New article

There's more than enough about SGI to have its own stand-alone article. AbuRuud (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree, and like the inclusion in the History section of the recent events in Oslo. Washington and Italy. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge

I propose the merge of Soka Gakkai and Soka Gakkai International the two are basically the same thing as SGI could not, and likely would not, exist without SG. This merge was done previously. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The SGI was established 40 years ago in 1975 to serve a different function (international) than Japan's Soka Gakkai. While the two organizations overlap, they are clearly not the same, and merging the articles only lends to confusion. For example, the leaders of the Japanese organization are not the leaders of the international organization. The SGI has been around long enough to merit telling its own story. Findemnow (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with AbuRuud and Findemnow, SGI is a separate, but related entity from Soka Gakkai. I suggest we add a hat top to both pages to help readers understand they are related but different. Right now I agree with Catflap08 that that is unclear. MasterChief1986 (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The two articles should not be merged, as they are separate organizations. Other religious organizations that are related but have separate articles on Wikipedia include various entities of the LDS church, The Church of Scientology in the USA and its international organization, Jehova's Witness global and domestic, among others.TokyoSunrise (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The tag has been removed. No consensus has emerged and there seems to be a lack of interest in the suggestion. Lmkei22 (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

List

The list of “famous” adherents seems to be an advisement and unless there is an official directory there is a burden of proof unless the individuals say so. This list could also be counted as being potentially derogatory if individuals are no longer adherents.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

If someone has not stated they belong to a particular religious group, then they would not likely want to be identified as such. But from the references for each person in that list, it appears all of them self-identify as SGI members. Similarly, there are lists in Wikipedia of notable LDS Church members, Methodist Church members, notable Jewish people, etc, and entire articles that are simply lists of names of a religious group's members.TokyoSunrise (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I've often thought it's odd to see lists of people by religious affiliation on Wikipedia like notable Scientologists or Seventh Day Adventists or whatever, but these lists exist for most religious denominations and organisations so it's fine to have the same for SGI.-Elemential1 (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Listing can be done via category and just because others decide to jump of a cliff does not make it wise to do the same. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TokyoSunrise and Elemential1. I checked several (though not all) names, and all say for themselves that they are members. I believe we should keep the list. Findemnow (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Catflap; it's kind of weird to publish a list of "famous" people. Also it's not really clear when you're famous enough to make it to this list. I say scrap the list; it doesn't add anything of value to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.12.34 (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please don't remove the whole list without discussing it this talk page. Kelvintjy (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This list is too long and looks promotionnal. why do you stick to having it published in this page ? Raoul mishima (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

the list lacks encyclopedic legitimacy, and it looks promotionnal, which makes the page less neutral. I will remove it. Raoul mishima (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Criticism

Why is the "Criticism" section even here? The only item in it can basically be summed up as "Nothing happened." --Daveler16 (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Since it appears there are no objections or comments, I'm going to remove the sub section.--Daveler16 (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Did it.--Daveler16 (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

This section is full of falsehoods associated with the early days of the Soka Gakkai in Japan. These falsehoods have been dealt with and no one considers the organization to be a cult, associated with Yakuza, praying for a plane to crash, etc. Notable scholars have dismissed these claims, and today the SG and SGI are respected around the world. Using Redit as a source is not acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines.Ltdan43 (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

We really ought to have a properly cited criticism section that addresses the very real criticisms that current and former members have regarding the organization. While the organization maybe "respected' this doesn't change that reputable newspapers of record have published and confirmed this criticisms. Editorguy222 (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to add the link. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/14/world/a-sect-s-political-rise-creates-uneasiness-in-japan.html there are plenty of legitimate sources that have this info. Editorguy222 (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

And yes many people consider SGI a cult and or have issues with its conduct and current leader. Dismissing these out of hand does not do the credibility of the underlying article justice. Editorguy222 (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The NYT article you listed as an example here is 30 years old, and it is about the Soka Gakkai organization in Japan, which is not the subject of this article. This article is about the Soka Gakkai International. Elemential1 (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

As for "many people's" personal opinions about the subject of this article or any other topic on Wikipedia, personal opinions are for social media not for Wikipedia. Please limit contributions to Wikipedia articles to those of encyclopedic quality with NPOV sources to support them objectively. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in that regard. Elemential1 (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedians interested in Soka Gakkai International category

I just created the Category:Wikipedians interested in Soka Gakkai International page and userbox in case anyone is interested. SportsFan007 (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sanshokuki2.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Conflict with Nichiren Shōshū

Why is there not a section on the organization's criticisms of its former parent group, Nichiren Shōshū, leading to their schism in 1991? 131.226.32.69 (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC):See Soka Gakkai

Lack of any criticism at all

I have first hand accounts here in the US of abuses of power and financial problems. Why are none mentioned here? 64.58.183.200 (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Number of adherents / NGO status

Hello,

I introduced a question about SGI's count of the faithful, a figure that SGI says hasn't changed between 1990 and today. On the other hand, it is not accurate to say that it is an NGO, as the Japanese government does not recognize it as such. Raoul mishima (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm removing the "However, the number is controversial and impossible to verify." This is true of any religious organization, and not unique to SGI. Without public records, we rely on the self-reporting of organizations to report their numbers, and what counts as "membership" is to the discretion of the organization. Dispute language should be left to the talk page, not the article. Lhlauren (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. In Japan there are public records, and religious organizations usually let the administration establish statistics (Shūkyō nenkan) but SGI doesn't. Raoul mishima (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Number of countries

Hello,

this page indicates that Soka Gakkai has members in 192 countries and territories, but this number needs to be clarified.

There are 193 United Nations member states, but SG is not implanted in a lot of them (Afghanistan, Algeria, Haiti, Kuwait...).

Can anyone provide with a list of countries with official SG offices ?

Raoul mishima (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Irresponsible Editing Without Prior Discussion

I've studied religion and philosophy focusing on comparative religion and Eastern traditions for over 30 years, and I've watched many Wikipedia articles related to Buddhist traditions (particularly from Japan and Korea) for over a decade. I haven't looked at this article or related ones to it in a long time, and I was shocked to see recent "editing" that borders on vandalism by some new editors who have unilaterally slashed away huge amounts of material from this article before they even participated in one discussion on the Talk page. This behaviour is irresponsible, disrespectful, and unacceptable in the Wikipedia community.

This article has been stable for nearly a decade. It has been contributed to by many diverse editors. Then, this year, one new editor in particular during a period of just a couple months has unilaterally made major edits without any discussion on the Talk page. I could easily report this as vandalism to administrators and request the editor(s) who did this be suspended, and this article be locked.

It is also unacceptable to unilaterally add content back into an article that has already been thoroughly discussed and researched by other editors, who came to a consensus to remove such material. If you wish to add something you think is significant, the likelihood that it has already been discussed is high, so please read the Talk page archives. Among the many different editors over the past two decades who have worked on this subject you will find multiple discussions about some content the "new" editors/vandals this year have been adding to this article.

I will begin working to correct the above mentioned issues with restorative edits. JimminyOzland7 (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello

same remarks as for another page : this page has not been stable for nearly a decade and there is no consensus about it, just get a look at the "talk" section please. Raoul mishima (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

NPOV ?

Dear Augmented Seventh

Would you please state your reasons for returning, without argument, to an earlier version of the page? The version you are republishing has several problems: NPOV, primary sources... In fact, it resembles an advertising page, which is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Raoul mishima (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

For instance :

According to Yoichi Kawada, director of the Tokyo-based Institute of Oriental Philosophy, the SGI defines itself as a "movement for contributing to peace, culture and education" based on its "interpretation and practical application of the ideas in the Lotus Sutra." SGI engagement as a religious NGO affiliated with the United Nations in policy discussions on issues including human rights, sustainable development and peace building is similarly described, in the phrasing of its Charter, as contributing to peace, culture and education.

-> that is NOT encyclopedic. The source is biased since it comes from the Soka Gakkai + the second sentence is not sourced. Raoul mishima (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)