Talk:Dai Gohonzon

message: I am starting a page on the Dai Gohonzon.
Please help if you like. 
Thanks.
Faith--Faith Likewater 01:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Working from and citing primary sources is against Wikipedia policy; see WP:ATT. Note that if you write based on your interpretation of primary sources, rather than describe what’s presented in secondary ones, you will be leaving your hard work open to unconditional removal by other editors who will cite original research (see WP:NOR) as grounds.Further, depending on what you mean, removing text that is “biased toward a particular Nichiren sect’s dogma” is potentially also against Wikipedia policy: the point is not to remove descriptions of one or the other school’s versions of a story, it is to balance them with descriptions of opposing versions of the story; see WP:NPOV.Fwiw, I think your removal of the section on the Dai-Gohonzon from the Nichiren article is also undesirable: The story was already balanced out (to some extent, at least—it was not very well done, I concede) with presentation of opposing views. If anything, that article needs further citations (not “cites,” whatever they are) to substantiate the descriptions of both sides’ versions, not deletion of “bias.” Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 12:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi, Jim,
You said: "Working from and citing primary sources is against Wikipedia policy" 
However, these two sources--one primary, one secondary--are listed as references for the Dai Gohonzon article because I lifted them straight from the original Nichiren article which I didn't write:
The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, Soka Gakkai, 1999 (available online here.) 
The Life of Nichiren Daishonin. Kirimura, Yasuji. NSIC, 1980
Hence, the original author of the Dai Gohonzon info in the Nichiren article worked from a primary source (The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin), not me. Or perhaps it wasn't Nichiren's words being referenced but rather those of the book's editors as they appear in the background info.
Anyway, I left the followiing two sources that are on the Nichiren page off of the listed references for the Dai Gohonzon article. But I have no problem listing them here. I just left them out because it appeared to me that all the info from the Dai Gohonzon section came from the 1st two books:
The Record of the Orally Transmitted Teachings, hard cover, Burton Watson, Translator, Soka Gakkai, 2005,  
The Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism (Seikyo Press), Tokyo, 2002. Available on line here 
What needs to happen is that the page numbers that the Dai Gohonzon info comes from in all 4 of these sources, or other sources, needs to be a part of in-line citations in this article and in the Nichren article, too. That was why I added the tag requesting in-line citations. Adding them would simply make the article seem more encyclopedic and less like a pitch from a particular sect. 
You wrote: "the point is not to remove descriptions of one or the other school’s versions of a story." I know that. But a real balanced view of the Dai Gohonzon requires an article devoted to the subject because the subject is very weighty. I disagree with you that the Dai Gohonozon info as it appeared in the original Nichiren article needs to be there. Perhaps the Dai Gohonzon info presented in a different format would work in that article. For instance in a section called "Dai Gohonzon" or one called "Nichiren Controversies." The problem is that the Nichren article is already long. And a separate article on the Dai Gohonzon provides room for a full, balanced exploration of the topic.--Faith Likewater 02:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article start 

message: I've changed the sentence that said "the characters Nam-myoho-renge-kyo", because it's impossible to write 'Nam' in Kanji. "Namu-myoho-renge-kyo" is what is written on every Gohonzon, and I've changed it to that. Steve (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Namu-myoho-renge-kyo

message: This article is very biased, and lacking citations. - Steve (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm about to remove the NPOV template as specifics are not provided, please use  or  for sentences, then detail issues here. - RoyBoy 21:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I've added some info, will come back to it tomorrow and see what I can do. Please feel free to add to/amend what I added as necessary. Steve (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased

message: I think this section needs some work. As well as researching the claim that the Mannen Kugo Daihonzon was inscribed for "all people". Is this section even relevent?  Steve (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "More than one" section

message: I replaced the ambiguous title of MORE THAN ONE by an accurate, relevant and informative title "Another Dai Mandala" - as claimed by the temple in which it is enshrined. What is "More than One"? many things are more than one, number 5 is More than One, three people are more than one... I think that the choice for the words "More than One" is rather not convenient. I also made the text simple and clearly referenced.SafwanZabalawi (talk)SafwanZabalawi  —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Another Dai Mandala" section

message: Do the two external links belong in the article? Also, the fraughtwithperil link is to a blog, which is against Wikipedia's policy as far as I know. ~ Stephen (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Safwan, my concern with the link to FWP is that it is a blog, not a published work. Robin is very knowledgable, but I don't think he is 'officially' regarded as an expert or historian of Nichiren Buddhism. I'll leave it to you and others to decide if the link belongs in the article. ~ Stephen (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Safwan, I think websites are OK [as citations] if it is the official website of the org. that is being discussed. For instance, Daisaku Ikeda is President of SGI, a citation from SGI's official website is fine. Other sources can get dubious; I always think it's best to reference to an independent source on some issues. Does that make sense? Even SGI's Dictionary of Buddhism, which I do rely on heavily, isn't the best on some subjects, because it is not neutral on issues like the D/G, but is written from SGI's perspective. ~ Stephen (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right, that it's best to include both sides of the argument, as you have in many places. I'm not trying to 'step on your toes' or anything, I hope I'm not giving that impression. I see what you mean about an independent source, I think it will be very hard to find one regarding the D/G. I'll leave it to you to decide what's best here. ~ Stephen (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions about the Dai Gohonzon section

message: I'm not sure about the SGI quotations in this section. Maybe they'd belong in a new section called: "Dai-Gohonzon in Nichiren sects" or something like that. Also, parts of this article seem like an attempt to defend the Dai-Gohonzon, maybe that would belong in a seperate section, too? ~ Stephen (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is some Editorialising in the article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch ~ Stephen (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview of the Dai-Gohonzon section

message: I believe the section on the “Account of the Fuji Branch” is written far too specific about the Nichiren Shoshu. Not all temples belonging to the Fuji Branch are temples of the Nichiren Shoshu. --Catflap08 (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Account of the Fuji Branch 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dai Gohonzon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323051331/http://www.gakkaionline.net/Dai-Gohonzon/index.html to http://www.gakkaionline.net/Dai-Gohonzon/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Half of the text in this article is about what other people think about the Dai Gohonzon, not about the Dai Gohonzon itself, which is the subject of this article.  Why is the largest section in this article about the Soka Gakkai's views about this wooden image?  How is that relevant to the encyclopedic entry about the subject itself?  It should be trimmed dramatically so that the bulk of the content is about the subject matter only (meaning only about the wooden object of Dai Gohonzon), not about people's opinions about it. 76.79.221.123 (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and since no one had done anything about this, I've removed this material.  It is very strange and inappropriate that the majority of this article isn't about the plank mandala called "Dai-Gohonzon" but instead about some people's opinions about it.  Also it is very clear that editors who are close to the subject, including an editor with the name of a Nichiren Shoshu temple, Myoshinji, have been responsible for much of the biased editing in this article that have lowered it away from encyclopedic standards. Orange Miike (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half of this material is about topics other than the subject