With all due respect, this bibliography entry is not a matter of research, but you have a point. We wouldn't put an SGI publication in the Shoshu bibliography. Putting a Shoshu publication in the SGI bibliography is asserting the dominance of the sect over the former hokkeko which is exactly the sort of hierarchical thinking that SGI rejects. Let's limit the bibliography to SGI's self-presentation (put all the Middleway books in there, there's an idea) and respectable outsider accounts from people who are not invested in the argument. This will do a service to readers.
I was recently picking through Japanese books critical of SGI at the Harvard library and I was surprised to find so many smears and guilt by association arguments. The best Japanese books on the subject are not by freelance journalists but by scholars of religion like Shimazono. Of course, the Japanese public has some distrust in religion scholars after the whole Aum Shinrikyo affair, but alas, that distrust is not something Wikipedia can integrate neutrally into articles.  (tock)