Talk:Soka Gakkai International/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Rude awakening: where to go from here

Forgive me for being rude... but pretty much everything surrounding this article, this discussion page, and so forth has gotten almost completely out of control. It's insane, folks. You're using the discussion page not for discussion about the content and editing of the article in question, but to chit-chat, discuss, and argue about narrow points of doctrine regarding Nichiren Buddhism.

I mean, I'm an SGI member, I've done Soka Spirit stuff, and even *my* eyes glazed over wading through all that. Yikes! And the main article is getting so big and so wordy that it's losing all meaning.

So don't take this as a threat; take it as a promise. When I get time, I'm going to dump vast portions of the article and re-do it, almost from the ground up. You can prepare for this by editing and CUTTING all the useless material, not adding in lots of stuff to make it so the article encompasses every single little viewpoint that you want while also being all nice and cute without offending anyone.

I urge again that the article be made to do only a few things- describe what SGI is, where it is, its basic philosophy (NOT someone's discussion of its philosophy, not points of theological doctrine, none of that stuff- you wanna do that, don't do it on what's supposed to be a factually-based encyclopedia). A simple link to a page with controversies over SGI, perhaps, but that's it. I don't want to read arguments of whether the excommunication was good, bad, or indifferent; neither do I want to read arguments of whether President Ikeda is a brilliant dude or if he's just a scam artist.

I'm also thinking it's time to clean house on this discussion page and start it over; only this time I urge people to identify themselves and their axes they're grinding. For example...

Paul- SGI member for 1 year- Seattle, WA --Enumclaw 09:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, Paul, I'll buy into your suggestion here. I agree that the whole article needs to be restructured, something I've already mentioned several times. I wanted to start from the top—i.e., from the introduction—and do it gradually, but this is probably futile: I offered the above as something to cover lots of ground, but to be pared down; instead, it got longer and more detailed! I was hoping it would come out to no more than three paragraphs of 150-200 words each.

I've written already what I think the article should contain, and I thought you pretty much confirmed that with one of your own comments. (Under "Who needs a love poem?" above.) Correct me if I'm wrong.

Further, the article currently confuses SG and SGI too much. Mixing the two as much as it does—for example, saying that "SGI has been guided by Daisaku Ikeda since the death of Second President Josei Toda in 1958"—makes for some strange reading, especially when the next sentence clarifies that Ikeda "became president of the larger Soka Gakkai International upon its creation in 1975"! In addition to things like this, the temporal sequence of the presentation is also a bit dodgy.

I am willing to collaborate with you (and others) on this as long as you agree to keep the article factual and balanced. The only "axe to grind" I have is against obfuscation and the rewriting of history—not something I'm accusing you of, or expecting you to do consciously, but if you draw largely on SGI sources, some skewering of the past is inevitable. It's not that SGI lies, it's that SGI doesn't tell the whole truth, or how SGI frames the truth. I would also appreciate it if people would stop picking nits with every factoid they don't like—we can't just pepper the article with separate citations for every little thing when we've already supplied sources and references at the end of the article that are supposed to cover that ground.

For my part, when you write about what SGI is and what it aspires to be, I won't touch those parts because, to be frank, I don't know enough about them anymore. I will be happy as long as the tone is neutral and information is presented so readers will know that SGI and the situation around it are being described, not opined about, wishfully thought upon, actively defended, or gratuiously criticized. I hope that others will likewise be respectful when I or others write about criticisms of SGI. I will keep my contributions cool and dry and cite sources—though not every other phrase. Further, I hope others will resist the urge to engage in circuitous strings of aggressive points and counterpoints or a revert war seeking to stay one step ahead of material—whether favorable or critical—that they don't like.

If we can stick to ground rules like these, the article has a chance of being quite informative. (And I'll bet the history section will turn out to be the hardest to tackle. <g>)

So now the big question: when do you think you would have time to do your promised full rewrite? I'd like to see you do your stuff. I'm coming off a busy work period and expect my workload to be low for the next month or so. I'm willing to dedicate a few hours a week to this article, but I'd rather not do anything that's just going to get zapped. (There are some other articles I'd like to work on too.)

You wrote that "[t]he problem here is that anyone who cares enough to bother writing the article probably IS emotionally involved." True. So let's see what we can do to overcome that emotional involvement and make the article one that will be of use to readers. In other words, take off our SGI or NS or whatever caps and put on our Wikipedian ones instead while we're here.

Meanwhile, I'm getting ready to archive this talk page—it's far too big. If anyone has any ideas for how they'd like to see it done, or any objections, speak up. I'll go to it sometime after 0:00 GMT Thursday 12/8 unless somebody says to wait longer.

Finally: Paul, you suggested people here be above the board and identify themselves. The best way to do that is to register as a Wikipedian and create a user page. If you want to find out who I am, you can go to my mine—and probably the info you seek—has been there all along. All you have to do is double-click on Jersey_Jim 15:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

All sounds good to me. Just let's get it right this time, and please, I agree - let's leave the opinions out. But remember, once one seeps in, it's got to be responded to -- otherwise, it will end up being deleted entirely, or entirely rewritten from someone elses's perspective, neither of which is effective in the end.

On the other hand, whether we like to admit it or not, it seems that the long winded back and forth served the purpose of airing out all POVs, and,if nothing else, has provied a good basis for editing. After all, you can't edit what hasn't been written.

As for parenthetical citations (as opposed to footnotes), I see no problem with that. Its a standard in any type of review, survey, research report or paper. It serves the purposes of identifying specific points and linking them directly to their sources. In some cases, ther are points (that might otherwise be regarded as simply opinion) which are actually well worth presenting. This is completely acceptable, provided the author is able to present and cite them appropriately. All these followed up with a bibliography at the end, with complete citation information for those who would like to read the orignial sources is also standard (See MLA or APA Style Manuals for examples). That said, they may not always be necessary at all times; but for specific points of fact, or for comments rephrased or quoted from an author's work, they are necessary, if only to avoid the accusation of plagiarism. Have fun! - Ruby --71.250.88.213 05:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

PS to Paul: Perhaps what you have seen here is an example of dialog in action, and how dialog can lead to greater understanding, and, ultimately, to consensus. I wouldn't be so concerned about it. Afterall, as I indicated above, it is out of all of this dialog that we will end up with exactly what you 9and everyone elses) seeks. If you want a one time fixed article, check out Brittanica - trust me, they do all of this same back and forth, "nit-picking" as you call it, (I call it dialog) behind the scenes. What is presented to you is the final result. Which is why you will still find inaccuracies, discrepencies, misunderstandings, and biasses in them from time to time. A limited host of voices, leads to a limited perspective on the topic at hand. But this, Wikipedia, is a cmpletely different animal - a living, breathing, growing, intellectual being - an "encyclopedia" - but much different from what we typically consider that to be. In this particular case, this particular article, (and there are others out there like it, for sure) I don't think you could avoid it. In fact, I think, overall, the dialog (minus the little put downs, subtle attacks, and even outright verbal abuse) has been pretty healthy. And I'd prefer too much back and forth civil discourse to too little pseudo-intellectual domination and verbal violence anyday.

And in case you don't know what I mean, I am talking about the use of such phrases:

So don't take this as a threat; take it as a promise. When I get time, I'm going to dump vast portions of the article and re-do it, almost from the ground up. You can prepare for this by editing and CUTTING all the useless material, not adding in lots of stuff to make it so the article encompasses every single little viewpoint that you want while also being all nice and cute without offending anyone.

I mean, who are you to make such a statement? This is a collaborative effort - anyone is free to edit. No one is an authority.

In addition, please remember, the article is not just there to serve your interests -and "what you want to read" etc. There may be many other people who would benefit from some stuff that you aren't interested in. Just say no! Don't read it. Now, that doesn't mean it couldn't use editing; but to simply use your own desires and expectations as the yardstick for what is acceptable and not is really not -- acceptable.

In addition, I am afraid you may be confusing civil discourse with "being all nice and cute" and respecting others views with not "offending anyone." Check your hat at the door, like Jim says. And leave your baggage there, too. - R (Human Being concerned about the state of our world, first; about the state of the public's intellectual development, second; Librarian and Infrmation Specialist a close third, 5 years practicing fourth -- and no "axes to grind" except for a disrespect for emotionalism and bias in what is supposed to be an "encyclopedic" source, an intolerance for poor research, poor sourcing and citations, and poor research and media literacy skills in general. Otherwise, I'm pretty happy! Welcome, and keep chanting!) Peace - Ruby --71.250.88.213 05:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

hi. regarding information, i will gladly volunteer my services. anyway, information is always skrewd whether what source it comes from. so though SGI may not say everything, NS also may not say everything. so whatever we post here, it must be objective, and not just out to rebutt the other side of the information. best regards, lesterlam84

Hi Lesterlam84. I sure agree with your sentiments and would like to pursue the aritcle according to them. Let's see how it goes... :) Meanwhile, I'm excited to see what kind of magic Enumclaw can work with the promised rewrite. Best regards for a nice weekend all around, from clear, sunny, and cold Tokyo. Jersey_Jim 03:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi guys, I agree. Nothing will satisfy the extremes - the goal is too find a good middle ground, with acknowledgement given to extremes at either end, and all presented in an objective manner. Hope to be of help. Looking forward to revisions. - R--71.250.88.213 05:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still here, and feeling guilty about the re-write as I've been up to other stuff. I'm horribly bad when it comes to setting priorities and procrastinating; right now, for example, I should be putting together these stupid bookshelves I got from IKEA, but this seems more interesting.  :)

My thinking is heading in this direction. I've already stated what I think the main SGI article should be about; a description of what SGI is, where it is, who makes it up, the basic history, and a very basic description of their beliefs.

I also think we should have several more pages. We need a separate page for Soka Gakkai itself, and in both articles there should be a description of how SG grew and morphed and changed into SGI, and the basics of what the relationship between the two is.

It seems that it'd also be fair to have a page for "SGI controversies" (and, for that matter, probably a page for SG-Japan controversies as well). These pages, IMO, should be written in a fair manner, with each particular controversy and then the SG/SGI side and the "opponent" side taking a turn at explaining each group's position on the particular controversy. (They could alternate who gets to "go first" on each particular point.) Perhaps a short rebuttal by each side would also be appropriate to answer main things in the initial discussion.

This kind of a setup would, I think, give each "side" a chance to offer up their interpretation of a particular controversy. It would keep these controversies (many of which, after all, are merely arguments about religious doctrine) off of the main pages that describe what SG and/or SGI actually are, and what they are not.

The problem with this setup is obvious; the way Wikipedia is set up, there's nothing to stop endless, ongoing, repetitive discussions on arcane and minutely detailed points of what Nikken Abe or Daisaku Ikeda said on the 18th of March in 1992, blah blah blah. (I have no idea if anything worth noting was said on those days- this is just an example.) Still, I think that this sort of structure- if adhered to by anyone with an axe to grind- would give a lot of help to the overall flow of the articles.

The advantage to this setup is that hopefully, by moving the arguments to their own page, is that hopefully we can keep the main part of Wikipedia free of the seemingly endless back-and-forth crap that goes on between the radical/orthodox people in BOTH groups. I'm an SGI member, and I've taken part in Soka Spirit activities, but I can tell you that after a certain point (which comes relatively early for me) I just say "well, look, that's what I think and that's what you think and it'd be a waste of our time to sit here and keep bitching at each other about it.)

Personally, I would really like to see Wikipedia manage to stay above that. I'm confident and happy with my membership and my faith, and I figure it can withstand attacks levied against it from the outside. If I didn't have that kind of belief, well, what good would that faith be? Likewise, I believe that other people can and should and probably DO feel the same about theirs, and at some point everyone's got to just look at what there is to look at and make a decision.

Soooo... that's my proposal. I'd rework the SGI article and make it as factually-based as possible; same thing with the SG article; and then the SG/SGI controversies page can develop over time.

Whaddya think? --Enumclaw 21:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think 98.8% agreement on all points, and I'm ready to jettison the other 1.2% at any time! I especially like the idea of branched-off articles (separate articles that are only linked to from this one, with their subject matter getting only passing reference) for complicated topics.

On the disorganization and procrastination: you're not alone! In the meantime, I'm looking forward to your contribution. Could you put a notice on the main page (I think the template is {{reorganizing}}) while you're working on it, so others don't edit the page at the same time? Jersey_Jim 23:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits of December 16, 2005

I went today just to fix some gratuitously removed links and wound up spending more time on the article than intended (albeit less than is needed). I reworked the whole introduction in a manner I hope will meet with everyone's approval. Please note that the intro isn't supposed to include a lot of detail—which I did leave in the body text.

In the body text, I tried to limit myself to spelling changes and mechanical adjustments, but in some places I couldn't resist rewording things in a manner that I hope makes the content a bit clearer. I avoided making changes that would change meaning, though I may not have been completely successful in that department. I also attempted to give the in-line source citations consistency, but I'm not sure whether they conform to one of the recommended Wikipedia conventions; likewise with the list of sources at the end of the article.

The article's midsection—on criticisms—is very dense and repetitive, so I didn't try to do too much with it today. Much of the material is rebutting rather than describing the criticisms. If the rebuttals are to remain, the must be reformulated and presented elsewhere in the article where they will not look like defenses. Maybe this is something for Enumclaw to deal with when s/he does the promised major rewrite.

I've added some sources as well. They are intended to document some of the material describing criticisms and the like; I hope no one will just pop in are remove them.

In any case, I tried to edit in the spirit of the discussions we've have here over the past few weeks. Best regards to all, Jersey_Jim 15:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

December 21, 2005

Hello, I am new here to this page and to Wiki in general but hopefully my observations will still be considered. As a little back ground I am not a SGI member but my wife is. I have been to the meetings before but just as an observer so I could understand my wife's beliefs better. At no time have I been recruited by SGI and I have never received pressure to join even though my wife is a member. Here is just a quick observation gathered from my first reading.

In the criticism section it refers to the Japanese word sensei as "master". This implies that he is considered the master of the people when if fact it is a reference to Teacher. Sensei can refer to someone as master in the context of a Doctor would (hopefully) be a master of medicine or a professional artist as a master of his or her form of art. Taken from an American point of view "master" can have a lot of negative meaning due to our own historical mistakes and I think that it should be removed and replaced with teacher.

If anyone would like to have a Japanese observation of this article I can have my wife (A SGI member) and her parents (very anti SGI) take a look at it. Thanks Knowbase 05:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Knowbase, welcome to the discussion, and thanks for dropping by to share your observations.

Actually, I think your input, without that of your wife and in-laws, could be quite useful. All of us involved in the discussion at this point are, so to speak, interested parties; so the opinions and observations of a disinterested party like you ought to be quite valuable. My thoughts on the use of sensei in SGI are here if you're interested. Best regards, Jersey_Jim 00:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Knowbase, welcome! I say the more the merrier, as far as I'm concerned. So far, it seems like there are only about 5 or 6 regular voices in this article/discussion, mostly anti-SGI, and/or skeptics, and a couple of fairly neutral voices; I believe we are all American, though I am not certain of that, and the majority are living in the states, with at least one living in Japan. So, I for one, would love to hear from you and anyone else interested in participating.

I (relatively new SGI member, U.S., 5 years) agree with your description of the meaning of master or mentor. Teacher and mentor seem much closer to the English translation of what I understand Jim to be saying about the Japanese meaning, and it is also definately reflective of my experience. I, for one, don't "idolize," "adore," or "follow" Ikeda, nor have I ever been made to feel that I should, or "must" do so. I do have a tremendous respect for him, though -- he is one of the few voices that I know of, who has stood for peace and worked for peace, and accomplished so much for peace, for such a long time, and in such a consistent and practical way. He is insightful, wise, and quite practical, and I appreciate the other voices he always brings to the table - great philosphers, as well as the regular voices of not so famous ones. It is really strange to me how some people percieve him as anything more or less than that...

My current question is, as others have expressed above -- exactly who IS the proponent of the whole "master" ideation anyway? When I read some of the NST stuff, it soundes like the priesthood are really the ones who are demanding absolute and unquestioning obeisance -- they are quite plain in stating this position -- yet, the temple members don't seem to see this - which is fine, really - to each his own....but I am trying to understand why...I would relish the opportunity to find out, but I haven't yet really heard anyone, aside from Jim, who could just share their experience, without also lashing out, or with it getting all convoluted with doctrinal arguments, and such...

Lately, I am wondering, are the temple folk, so accustomed to this kind of heirarchical relationship, simply misinterpreting Ikeda and SGI? They seem to think there is a competition between the two leaders -- which would make sense if one was accustomed to thinking that there had to BE such A leader - A "High Priest." Ikeda seems to be developing a somewhat different kind of "master or mentor disciple relationship," a much more egalitarian one. But I suppose if you used to believing in only one kind of relaitonship, a heirarchical one, as acceptable -- the direct lineage, etc., etc,. the "supreme teacher" etc., etc., then it makes sense that they would have a difficult time appreciating this approach.

At any rate, I would be interested to hear from other people, SGI, supporters of, SG in Japan, as well as some of the anti-SG perspective there. If you can help bring any and/or all of these voices to the forum, I think it could only be a good thing. If you have time, I'd suggest you go through and review some of the former points of discussion (many of them were archived in one of these articles). I've been invited to take the discussion out of the open forum that this section provides, but frankly, I think an open forum is where it belongs...anyway, just my two cents (ok, well maybe it was four!) In short, Welcome! - Ruby--68.45.57.193 04:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)