Talk:Sukyo Mahikari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has been placed in the Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit and needs attention in the following areas:
{{{1}}}
Please note any edits that you make in "treating this patient" on this talk page below.
If you would like to help with articles under similar circumstances, consider joining the ICU staff.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sukyo Mahikari article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Problems

Hello,

From what I understand of this group they take a 3 day course, not a 3 month training. I am not sure where to reference this from though?

Thanks. S.F

I want to be respectful as I know little of this group, but the article I think has some problems.

For one I don't think you are supposed to say you wrote an article when you write an article. This clearly has "Terry Q" in it. Granted print encyclopedias aren't anonymous, but for this format I think doing that is a no no as your work will likely be edited.

Also the article makes some remarkable claims without many references to support them. I hope no one is offended. Thank you for your time. --T. Anthony 13:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Thank you. I've only skimmed it, but it looks improved and I guess enough so the NPOV was removed. Joy and Peace to all--T. Anthony 02:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] controversial

The article is OK when looking from outside and is exactly what the brochure says about Sukyo Mahikari. But the sect is controversial, especially its history of birth as well as its nationalistic teachings. Shouldnt this also be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter73 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 October 2005

[edit] Serious Concerns

POV POV POV this article is so biased that a monkey's uncle could realise it is merely propaganda designed to present a completely favourable portrayal of this "Sukyo Mahikari" 'religion'. The controversial nature of it has been intentionally ignored (as a previous person has noted), and prevalent assertions such as "The Light purifies the spirit, mind and body. This practice can be done anywhere and at any time and is the main activity at Sukyo Mahikari Centres throughout the world." should surely be preceded with 'according to...' and 'supposedly...' in order to give this article a sense of encyclopeadic objectivity and NPOV, and to distance the writer from the subject at hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.170.43 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 8 October 2005

First I am obviously not a member. When I said it was okay I had only skimmed it and was also comparing it to the original. The original was essentially just saying all their claims are valid and they are the one true faith, or in least almost went that far. Also when I said it was okay I didn't mean to indicate that no further improvement was necessary. I just wasn't in the mood to fight much about it at that juncture. I imagine it still needs improvement. I just didn't know enough to edit it much. Although it seems to have been edited some sense you came.--T. Anthony 11:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the addition made, it certainly augments and serves to further demystify this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.168.76 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 October 2005

[edit] Shining Light on a Possible solution

The NPOV of this possible article could be improved with adequate references. It may help this self proclaimed decendant from a monkey tosee that 'suppose...' and 'according to...' are clearly indicated and understood in the text if there is indexing and referencing of the material. This possible post-simian seems to be confusing Verifiability by reference and 'Truth'. It seems that this article appears to be accused of violating someones particular version of the truth. My intention in editing is to provide referencing that will allow readers to verify statements independently. Evolution documents the single origin of all life and this is a fundamental tenet of the founder of the Mahikari organisation. In editing I have attempted to provide a referenced pocket history of the development and use of the term Mahikari as presented in the literature.

[edit] Additional source

An external organisation based in Belgium has done a report on Sukyo Mahikari, which clearly explains and answers questions concerning alledged financial impropriety and follows up on investigations on the organisation in Belgium. The person/s editing this entry may be interested in the report. Human Rights Without Frontiers[[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.21.162 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 20 October 2005

[edit] Concern

"The Sukyo Mahikari organisation questions the accuracy and validity of most of the following statements".

Is it allowed to use this statement?. I dont think so since then it is akin to being an advocate for the org! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.161.41.211 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 21 October 2005

[edit] Issue of the writing quality

Pro or negative issues aside this is just not very well done. I think it'd take more work than I want to do, but I'll try for some superficial improvements.--T. Anthony 06:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good work

Good editing work. We should try to make subheadings rendering it easier to read. I will try to include indepth analysis of the organization and its teachings, with its implications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.161.41.211 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 October 2005

[edit] Included subheadings

Shld work on 2nd level subheadings for better readability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter73 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 25 October 2005

[edit] Garry Greenwood

Would it be appropriate to discuss some of Gary Greenwood's claims about the organization?

That they claim Jesus Christ went to Japan after escaping the crucifixion, for example, and that when there, he married and died at the ripe old age of one hundred and six. That the Ark of the Covenant and the original tablets bearing the Ten Commandments are apparently under the groups's control in Japan as well. That some of what is taught at the group's special training school in Japan was taken directly from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc. Uucp 12:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where do these figures come from??

Just a few days ago the figure posted for the cost of the world shrine was Y300 million and this was later changed into 45 billion yen. There are no real references for a lot of the things written in this article about the 'viewpoints and misc materials'. A lot of what is written seem to be just assumptions - possibily errorneous - on this organisation.

Quotes from books purpotedly published by the organisation cannot be verified in any way and should be excluded from entry. e.g. the Japanese explanation of the Kami Muki Sanji.

Personal opinions based on assumptions such as this should be excluded as well:

(Curiously, the sect does not address the pollution problems related to the hundreds of acres of forest land cleared for consructing the mega structure, and the pollution due to such constructions itself, including the large amount of gold used. Gold mining is one of the most important man-made environmental pollutor).

There was little or no gold used in the construction of the world shrine (the roof is a generic nickel-copper alloy which is golden in colour, very common material just like how Australia's Bluescope steel can provide roofing of different colours according to client requirements). The shrine was not built on 'hundred of acres of forest land'. Anyone with an iota of knowledge about Japan would know how strict their Evironment Protection acts are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.39.220 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 3 February 2006

The construction cost the shrine of 45,000,000,000 yen is found in an independant publication called ' Sekai no Shūkyō to Keiten' by Jiyǖ Kokumin Sha - 1996 page 331.
The person making comments about assumptions is doing the very thing they are complaining about. "A lot of what is written seem to be just assumptions - possibily errorneous - on this organisation." The other side of the coin - the information in the 'viewpoints and misc materials' could possibily be accurate. The heading of the section does give latitude, although a good point is raised. Perhaps a scanned image of the source material published by the organisation would be appropriate and provide the verification. Although, if the publication is mentioned then surely it can be verified because it exists.
Again if there is substance to the claim... 'there was little or no gold used in the construction'..... then please provide proof of the material used, verified by a copy of the bill of materials used in the contruction.
Also another opportunity to provide substantive information - rather than say ' The shrine was not built on a hundred acres of forest land'.... how large was the block of land? - provide block and section details of where it was built.
Once again, to make the statment "Anyone with an iota of knowledge about Japan would know how strict their Evironment Protection acts are." indicates the writer has knowledge about the Japanese Evironment Protection Acts. Please provide details of the Acts where thay are found and what they say. In other words, if the writer wants to be taken seriously, then they are required to provide substance to their claims.
One of the problems I see with the subject of this Wikipaedia is that much of information seems to be a claim or counter claim. Surely, somewhere amongst the growing information is enough to distill a dry and objective article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.4.52 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 3 March 2006

[edit] Merge Notice

I suggest the Mahikari article not be merged with Sukyo Mahikari. Sukyo Mahikari is one of the breakaway groups from the original Okada sect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeptomai (talk • contribs) 10:41, 4 November 2006

[edit] Vandalism

72.223.42.104 is trying to delete referenced quotes. Instead of deleting them (unless you have evidence that the quotes are wrong) it is suggested to add your material than deleting the original. Dexter73 10:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If something is referenced it doesnt mean it is a valuable and important material, let alone factually correct. I believe it's OK to delete not very relevant or important material, especially if it is copied from third-tier sources. For example, newspaper articles are not reliable first-grade source of information on religious groups. I think that is self-evident.

Does that mean that Sunkyo and Gosigen(Shu)quotes (which were removed) are irrelevant to "modern" Sukyo Mahikari??..What defines modern and transmorphed SM in comparison to the SM that we "seasoned" SM members used to beleive in for decades? Dexter73 18:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

211.26.148.109 - Please try and build the article. There is a great deal of information contained in the article and it does need cleaning up, there are already wiki tags indicating that need.

Removed the comment - ' Much of this article is not accurate or relevant for an encyclopedic entry.' 22:50, 29 June 2007 203.173.3.186

[edit] Still a Mess

As of late July 2007, the Sukyo Mahikari article is still a mess, and seems to have gotten even more confused over the past year. This is hardly a surprise given two sets of authors -- skeptics on the one side, SM enthusiasts (cadres?) on the other -- whose perspectives are diametrically opposed. I'd like to coin a word for this all-too-common-in-Wikipedia schizoid form of exposition: "wikiphrenia."

I agree that this article still needs a ton of work. There are sections, references and links that have been cut and paste that no longer can even be read. It is hard to decide where to start to fix those problems. I started to check sources (e.g.Cornille article) against the quotes and I can't find a match for the quote. In checking the Cornille reference, I notices that there are sections that have been lifted without attribution and included in in the Mahikari and Okada articles.Vontrotta 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Solution to POV

After looking at this and related articles (e.g. [Mahikari], [Yoshikazu Okada]) that have disputes between supporters and attackers (which will never be reconciled), why not reorganize this entire article and references to show clearly which is which. I would like to hear other views on this proposal (e.g. is this consistant with WIKI rules?). Vontrotta 17:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Per WP:NPOV:
Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1]
Also, this article is overly long. Perhaps individual sections should be rewritten as standaline article, and this articlepresent summaries of those articles and links to them, per WP:SS. -- Boracay Bill 23:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it is overly long, but it is poorly organized. I think some of the length could be reduced by editing out the multiple suggestions that one think seriously before joining this or any other cult/religion. "Practices" needs to be better organized, maybe a "Beliefs" section. And I agree that criticism of the org belongs in a "Criticisms" section (maybe a better name for the "External Views" section. Phyesalis 01:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
In my experience it's usually easier to ensure NPOV if you don't have a criticisms section. I far prefer "external views", because it can contain favourable, unfavourable and mixed opinions and leave it up to the reader to evaluate exactly how critical a statement is. Itsmejudith 15:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Internal Links and deleted Websites

I have added Internal Links and deleted websites because of Page not found or Server not found notices. Kathleen.wright5 14:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)