Talk:Daisaku Ikeda
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
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. Please participate by editing the article Daisaku Ikeda, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
Japan To-do:
|
|
 Archives |
|
Contents |
[edit] Removed comment about Gandhi, King, Ikeda
Article was saying that "Gandhi, King, Ikeda" exhibition is "an example of how Ikeda is portrayed to his followers". But as this implies that the exhibition is made by SGI, it makes no sense. Idea and execution is by Morehouse College, SGI is only cosponsoring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.221.65 (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Is this article still in dispute?
How/when is an article decided to be no longer POV? It looks good to me as is, and I know it has been through several revisions. Can I move to have it taken off the list? Any seconds? Can we vote on it? - R--71.250.88.213 03:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- As it stands, I don't see any dispute either. Pretty much every conflict seems to rise from the concept that you are guilty until proven innocent, which is absurd in my view. I second the motion to removing the dispute claim. On a different note, the lack of formatting is a nightmare here. Everybody please start your reply with colons (as many as there are replies) and sign off your comment with four tildas. That will add appropriate indentions and names and date stamps automatically. Otherwise readers can't figure out who's replying to who. Jgrey 03:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Its good - I would take it of the disputed list - anyone else? - KenV
Whaddya know! A few months later, and we have - through peaceful dialogue! -- all agree to disagree, and still respect each other in the morning. Well done. = Ruby --71.250.122.11 02:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a whitewash. Not one single paragraph of criticism of one of the most controversial men in Japan. In Japan his face is on the front page of his own 'newspaper' nearly every day... Andycjp 04:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually it is quite conservative in its praise of one of the most remarkable men in history. I believe it is important to seek the best in everybody, rather than meaningless criticism. Just because he is featured in the Seikyo Shimbun, does not mean he deserves criticism. What about his article on the editorial page of Japan Times every Thursday? Please learn to appreciate before criticising.134.36.200.114 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Conservative my foot. “One of the most remarkable men in history,” perhaps; but the question is: For what? I doubt that we would agree on the answer. As far as Seikyo Shimbun is concerned, the way Ikeda features in it reveals more about how Soka Gakkai (SG) members (are inculcated to) unconditionally adore Ikeda than it reveals about him; the way other people (such as former SG and Komeito leaders who have parted ways with SG) feature in Seikyo Shimbun is what reveals much about Ikeda and the true nature of SG, its mentality, and its commitment to peace and the betterment of society. All of these things are deserving of rigorous critical scrutiny, if not criticism itself. Jim_Lockhart 02:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I must say I have no particular bearing on this debate, but theoretically your comment is a very generalized one which can be applied in both directions - 1st observer perceives the 2nd, while 2nd perceives the 1st. So from where I'm standing it seems like an irony, and it's a pointless debate from the standpoint of a biography.
-
-
-
- I think the problem here is that down at the boilerplate, a lot of this degenerates into who said this, who said that. You can pile on with accusations on anybody to turn that person controversial, but that should not colour the article. Critical scrutiny of "ideology" is one thing, scrutinizing a stereotype through critical writing is something else entirely. Both tend to come across similar, and they do sure FEEL the same. But the latter usually leads to a character assassination. If we are planning to do that in a encyclopedic reference of a living person, we better ensure that the facts surrounding the criticism is watertight at every corner. Otherwise an article like this would turn into a gossip column in a long run, with a character assassination being the bizarre side effect. We must strive to avoid such a move, whichever side you are on. Jgrey (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Can you tell the issue(s) of Seikyo Shimbun with unfair comments about former Komei leaders or SG members? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.221.65 (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Unsourced paragraph
I removed the follwing paragraph from the article since it's unsourced. I have no idea if it's true or not but if it's included in the article, it must be sourced. Garion96 (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I removed it per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Which also counts for talk pages Garion96 (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- The content of that section sure represents an picture of Ikeda that most non-SGI Japanese people would characterize as "common sense" (e.g., almost everyone would recognize it as accurate, despite SGI members' best efforts to negate it), which may account for the lack of sourcing. But the view of Ikeda described there can be verified by checking any number of Japanese sources, such as but not limited to the following:
- Sokagakkai kaibai (創価学会解剖: "Dissecting Sokagakkai"), by the editors of AERA, a weekly investigative new magazine published by Asahi Shimbun-sha, one of Japan's leading news organizations; October 1995 (Generally considered to present a dry, fair assessment of Sokagakkai and Ikeda)
- Sokagakkai towa nanika (創価学会とは何か: "Explaining Sokagakkai"), by Yamada Naoki. Shinchosha, April 2004.
- Sokagakkai (創価学会: "The Sokagakkai"), by Shimada Hiromi. Shinchosha, April 2004. (Written by a professor who studies the relationship between religions and society, generally considered a neutral description)
- Cult toshite no Sokagakkai=Ikeda Daisaku (カルトとしての創価学会=池田大作: "Sokagakkai, the Daisaku Ikeda cult"), by Furukawa Toshiaki. Daisan Shokan, November 2000)
- Sokagakkai Zaimubu no uchimaku (創価学会財務部の内幕: "Inside Sokagakkai's finance & accounting department"), by Gakkai Money Kenkyukai (an association dedicated to uncovering Sokagakkai's shady money-collecting, accounting practices and financial dealings, and tax evasion). Shogakukan, June 2000. (Unabashedly anti-Sokagakkai in tone and presentation)
- Unfortunately, I am currently away from my usual workspace for a few months and don't have any of these books with me, so won't be able to provide page–line references for a few months. But a quick scan of these publications—particularly their contents pages—could quickly substantiate many of the assertions made in the two deleted paragraphs. In any case, another part of the Wikipedia policies presented on "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" needs to be observed in this article, which is still far too partial to its subject matter:
-
The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view. (Emphasis mine)
- Fwiw, Jim_Lockhart 20:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- The content of that section sure represents an picture of Ikeda that most non-SGI Japanese people would characterize as "common sense" (e.g., almost everyone would recognize it as accurate, despite SGI members' best efforts to negate it), which may account for the lack of sourcing. But the view of Ikeda described there can be verified by checking any number of Japanese sources, such as but not limited to the following:
[edit] New kid needs time
Apologies to those who have been ruffled by my recent additions to this page on Ikeda. This is my first effort and I'm still learning the ropes.
Regarding the information recently added, I beleived that it does name sources, but if anyone is unsatisfied I invite them to be more specific. However, I note that the existing material on Ikeda is full of unreferenced claims.
There does appear to be a lack of balance.
brahilly
[edit] Lives in Tokyo with two sons?
Odd, given that at least one of his two sons lives in Osaka, and that both are married and have their own families. Also, it should be noted that his two living sons are his surviving sons, since one son is dead. —Jim_Lockhart 15:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Protest against use of certain sources
There is no evidence to suggest that Daisaku Ikeda is funding the Komeito party. The party website clearly outlines its sources of funding.[1] Therefore the reference citing the New York Times article as a criticism of Daisaku Ikeda is slanderous and non-neutral. I also contend that the Time magazine reference, which interestingly enough is not to be found on the Time archives anymore, is not about Daisaku Ikeda per se. It starts with a false case lodged against the Soka Gakkai by Daito and Naoko Asaki on September 23, 1995. On December 22, 1995 the Higashi Murayama police officially announce that 'there was no evidence of criminality' in the case and that it was 'suicide caused by remorse over a shopliftng charge'. On May 15, 2001,The Tokyo High Court upheld Lower Court rulings that Daito and Naoko Asaki defamed the Soka Gakkai. On May 18, 2001 The Tokyo High Court upholds Lower Court rulings that the publishing company, Kodanasha, defamed the Soka Gakkai. On October 29, 2002, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision and ordered defendants to publish a retraction and apology in Shukan Gendai and pay 2 million yen in damages to the Soka Gakkai. Shukan Gendai published a notice of retraction and apology to the Soka Gakkai on the March 8, 2003, issue, which reached the newsstands on February 24. Considering this, it is clear that using an outdated and incorrect article will cause prejudice and not reflect the truth. Therefore, both these criticisms lack substance and must be removed to preserve any modicum of neutrality. (Comment added to article body by User:Sri v123 at 10:11 on 15 September 2007; moved here by Jim_Lockhart 14:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC).)
- Yes but shouldn`t the fact that his organization has been frequently involved in court cases be in the article?Andycjp 04:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sure as long as the verdict is displayed too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.200.114 (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- With Soka Gakkai, you have to go beyond mere verdicts. I’ve seen Soka Gakkai quote verdicts in a way that made it look like “guilty” or “not guilt” was all there was to it, when in fact Soka Gakkai “won” (actually, it’s been more like their opponent lost on a technicality) the case technically but lost (and their opponent, won) it substantially. Jim_Lockhart 01:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- The sources are nothing more than sources. An article from the NYT saying the New Komeito party is influenced by the Soka Gakkai is pretty good evidence. If you have other sources which refute this, please provide them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.208.34 (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rick Ross
I have just deleted a mention of a critical article on the Rick Ross website. I believe I was correct to do this, but not for the reason I gave at the time. I said that Rick Ross was not a reliable source. However I had overlooked the fact that the article in question seems to have been one that originally appeared in the Tokyo Journal. By the sound of it, the Tokyo Journal is a moderately respectable publication. However the article in question is extremely poorly researched and full of easily demonstrable factual inaccuracies. For instance it says that Soka Gakkai members regard Ikeda as the earthly reincarnation of Nichiren. Nowhere will you find the slightest bit of evidence for this. In fact Ikeda has himself said that the very notion of a special "living Buddha" is absurd in Buddhism. As far as sources go, the article cites the Shukan Shincho. one of Japan'd disgraceful weekly scandal sheets.[1] The Tokyo Journal article is neither useful nor trustworthy. Ireneshusband (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- You not only deleted the Rick Ross article which was based on the Tokyo Journal, but you also deleted the entire section, including information on his questionable relationships to people such as Manuel Noriega. As you also gave no reason for deleting the entire section including other well sourced items unrelated to the Rick Ross section, I have undone your change. No blanket deletes please. This is a criticism section, and it is very criticism is key to dialouge. I will examine the Rick Ross article. Historyhelper (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- And very importantly, you mention the Tsurumi(霍見芳浩) book does not exist. It's just that it has never been published in English. It was published in Japan under the name: アメリカ殺しの超発想, which was translated to French in the page http://www.prevensectes.com/chambre/noriega-francais.html and then to English in a few place as "An unusual way of Killing America," in the . So it exists, but only in Japanese. Please check out http://www.ashisuto.co.jp/corporate/totten/column/1176390_629.html to learn more about this issue, there is a link at the top to use google to translate this page. The truth is that this could be an interesting point in understanding political relations between the U.S. and Japan during the time period, and helps explain why Noriega and Ikeda were friends. Historyhelper (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Also as mentioned above "The sources are nothing more than sources." Rick Ross has collected articles from the BBC, the Associated Press, Japan Times, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, The Orange County Register, Los Angeles Times, Sydney Morning Herald, United States House of Rerpresentatives Committee on Government Reform, Asahi Evening News, New York Times, and many many more. We are not talking about a Japanese tabloid here, we are talking about some of the most respected media sources avalailable. If those aren't sources... what are? Historyhelper (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for deleting my text. This has shown me that al text must be well referenced to be included. Shall I filter the entire article and remove all of the text that is not referenced? We are talking about a rspected Professor who taught George Bush! and major publications, not about tabloids. Historyhelper (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict):I reverted. Please find better sources. The Rick Ross section is original research. The link only lists articles, it doesn't source what the section which was removed stated. The articles itself could be used as sources. Regarding the Noriega link. Is there any collaborating source besides that one book? Otherwise it does look like your standard conspiracy theory. ps: feel free to remove any unsourced info from this article, whether it is negative or positive. Garion96 (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Let's discuss before deleting please? I'm all for discussion, but it's frustrationg just having my changes deleted.Historyhelper (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Please take a moment to read about what is original research in the help section. For it to be original research it would need to be MY research. Rick Ross is a TERTIARY SOURCE not original research. I think professors, especially one of Tsurumi's level are great sources and places this much higher than a conspiracy theory. Historyhelper (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- So, do you object to Rick Ross being used as a Tertiary Source? Historyhelper (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Ok, next Sunday I will have a chance to work some more on this. If you can think of a reason Rick Ross should not be used as a Tertiary Source, please let me know by then. Also, I will gather additional sources for the Noriega / Ikeda relationship Historyhelper (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Ok, that makes more sense then. I will propose a revision here and send you a talk message to review it Historyhelper (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
