Talk:Daisaku Ikeda/Archive 1

message: Daisaku Ikeda doesn't own the Seikyo Shimbun newspaper. It Soka Gakkai that owns it. Distribution is between 5 and 6 million.
About the rape: "The Tokyo District Court dismissed the allegations in May 2000 as "an abuse of the right of action." The judge found "no factual evidence" to support their allegations and stated that their lawsuit was "entirely against the principle of good faith."
I don't know how to get to the actual court documents, but there is unofficial summary and translation of the court judgment at http://www.sokagakkai.info/html3/viewpoint3/record3/rec08_nobu_case.html
And Soka Gakkai's official answer to some of other accusations at http://www.sokagakkai.info/html3/viewpoint3/record3/record_index3f.html
---
I question the use of the terms "personality cult" and "cult" altogether. Nothing stated in the article, or in the discussion seem to fit even Wikipedia's entry on this topic, which defines the term as follows: 
"A Cult of Personality differs from charismatic authority in that it has a negative connotation by definition, and is thus a pejorative term. It also differs from general hero worship in that it is specifically built around political leaders."
(By the way, it seems that a good portion of the Wikipedia article on "cult of personality" seems to have been lifted from the site InovoyagerIs that appropriate? )
In addition, according to Infopedia, "A cult of personality is a generally derogative term to criticize the worship of a single leader". Although Dr. Ikeda seems to be quite popular among a large population of people, and though he has many accomplishments, (like any good leader, I would think) is there any evidence that anyone "worships" him or that he himself seeks such adulation? Isn't it POV to apply terms that are "derogatory" "criticisms" to descriptions of people or organizations as if they are factual, without substantiation? I haven't really seen anything that really substantiates the claim...
Also, according to dictionary.com, the definition of the word "cult" has not been shown to be accurate either. Can examples be provided?
The definition is: 
"1.A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. 
2. The followers of such a religion or sect. 
3. A system or community of religious worship and ritual. 
4. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual. 
5. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease. 
6. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing. The object of such devotion. 7. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest. " 
It's just not clear to me that the application of these terms to Dr. Ikeda are well founded. Especially since Wikipedia's definitions of the two terms are themselves under dispute. It would seem innappropriate that a disputed term be used in reference to anyone in Wikipedia. 
Not to mention, it raises some real issues, say for high school students doing research on the topic, when the first result in a Google or dictionary.com's encyclopedia site search are references to Wikipedia's definitions. 
Perhaps the terms should not be applied to Dr, Ikeda, SGI, or anyone else, for that matter, until the definitions themselves are at least agreed upon. Just a thought...Ruby--68.45.57.193 02:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daisaku Ikeda and Seikyo Shimbun 

message: Trying to silence the voices of dissent is typical behaviour of brainwashed cultists. It is really very unpleasant to witness. 
:: Yeah. Your not kidding! Those Anti-SGI Cultists will stop at nothing to keep those free thinkin', peace lovin,' 10 hour toso chantin' SGI Nichiren Buddhists quiet! Really sad...
Ikeda is a controversial figure, but this article reads like an autobiography of L. Ron Hubbard. 
And your point is....
Do we really need to know about every award he ever received? The Rumanian ex-dictatur Ceausescu and his wife also had some impressive titles. They were still put up against a wall and shot. (That's something you don't see often enough.) -- 04:04, 15 Apr 2005 User:62.107.63.48
Really. Daisaku Ikeda and his wife can hardly be compared to a communist dictator.--151.198.99.71 22:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, ok, that is just my opionion - my Republican Buddhist friends won't leave me alone! Actually there are a lot of Republicans who practice this Buddhism, too - and military people, and war supporters (believe it or not) and soccer moms even. A LOTof those, actually. (But then, again, this IS an amazing practice!!) It is, after all, a very "pull yourself up by your own boostraps" kind of belief system. Many of us, Republican and Democrats alike just also happen to believe that while you are doing so, you should refrain from using someone else's backside to keep you anchored. And that if you do happen to have used someones backside to help you out, then once you have got your boots on, you shouldn't just to walk all over them with them. Rather, it would be much better karma, and is, (believe it or not) also a good thing (good karma, onemight say) to also help that person, (or someone else,) to at least get a pair of boots of their own. And, heck, if they need some help getting them on, well hey, even if you pulled your own on all by yourself, without anyone's help at all, that doesn't mean you can't also make it a little easier fot the next guy. And especially so, if someone DID happen to loan you his/her back in the first place. The "middle way," "karma" "interrelatedness of all life" : brothers keeper," "do unto others..." Its all pretty much the same. We just happen to actually work at living it. - R. 
Excuse me, but that money was actually hidden by the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood, not the Soka Gakkai.--gab 00:45, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, that is not necessarily true. I'm an SGI member myself although I could care less for Mr. Ikeda. I'm a member because of the practice, not the people. Personally I see Ikeda as being a money-hungry arrogant tyrant who cares more about his own agenda than that of the SGI. Being a member of SGI-USA I look up to my leaders here, in America, not Japan. Say what you want about Mr. Ikeda. This is one SGI member who will not be offended, promise. :) --- 22:07, 28 July 2005 User:24.215.92.110
The easiest way to determine the validity of any of this is to visit the site, get to know someone who practices, and see for yourself. SGI International andSGI-USA. 12 mllion people seem to agree that SGI and Nichiren buddhism works for them. Are they all just mistaken or brainwashed? 151.198.99.71 22:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typical cult behaviour 

message: The rape charge was thrown out when it was found that the woman had been lying about President Ikeda's whereabouts. It was also found by the judge that the woman, Nobuko Nobuhira and her husband Junko had attempted to extort money from President Ikeda, and when the attempt failed, she charged rape.  See http://www.apublicbetrayed.com/case_studies/case_study3.htm, under the subheading "False Accusation."  It also includes the court's summation of the case.
-gtdanyelz-gab 00:43, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
This is correct. In fact, there seem to be many accusations, but no convictions. And there are many reprints of the courts' summation and decision on this case, as well as those on several other accusations that have been lodged against Dr. Ikeda and the SGI. For example, here is a summary posted by an organization that appears, on the surface, at least, to be an impartial outside analyst:
From: Rights Without Frontiers ,Ave. Winston Churchill 11 / 33 – 1180 Brussels – Belgium – Phone: + 32 2 345 61 45 – Fax: +32 2 343 74 91 – Email address: info@hrwf.net 
*"There is no evidence that Honorary President Ikeda committed rape. Nobuko Nobuhira, a former member of Soka Gakkai, brought a lawsuit, alleging that he raped her. She lost because the statute of limitations had run out (without determining whether he committed a rape). Yet, in the lawsuit brought by her husband, the court dismissed the case because he abused a right to access to the court by not bringing sufficient evidence of rape and continually altering the date and circumstances of the alleged incidents. The court determined that Ikeda did not commit a rape. Additionally, Soka Gakkai denies any other rape allegation. 
and... 
*"Soka Gakkai promotes democracy, the respect of human rights and of the child’s rights, non-discrimination, ecology, nuclear disarmement. This role has been recognized by the United Nations. In 1981, Soka Gakkai became a UNHCR-recognized NGO and in 1983, it was also registered with the ECOSOC. Soka Gakkai sponsors artistic 
events, concerts, theatre performances, exhibitions, etc."--68.45.57.193 01:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape charge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed comment about Gandhi, King, Ikeda 

message: 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)
thread_title: Lives in Tokyo with two sons?

message: There is no evidence to suggest that Daisaku Ikeda is funding the Komeito party. The party website clearly outlines its sources of funding.http://www.komei.or.jp/en/faq.html 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Protest against use of certain sources

message: 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. The Tokyo Journal article is neither useful nor trustworthy. Ireneshusband (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Let's discuss it before adding it again is the better approach. Especially since this article is about a livng person. See also WP:BLP. Garion96 (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: So, do you object to Rick Ross being used as a Tertiary Source? Historyhelper (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Regarding the Ross page. It is a page consisting only of links to articles. It doesn't state anything. Like the text "being a dominant leader". Deducting statements like that from the links is original research. The link used does not backup the text. Garion96 (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rick Ross 

message: According to certain sources, Ikeda's "real name" is stated to be Song Teajak.
These sources all seem to be in Spanish (or Catalan).
No explanation is given as to why someone apparently of Japanese peasant ancestry would have an imported Korean or Chinese name.
Presumably this information is false?
Varlaam (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song Teajak 

message: I've just deleted:
:The well known British journalist and political commentator Polly Toynbee published her  thoughts critical of Ikeda in the Manchester Guardian in 1984.
The Manchester Guardian didn't exist in 1984. It had become the Guardian years earlier.
The fact that somebody published her thoughts (critical or laudatory) on Ikeda is of little significance. What did she say? If it was substantive and we know precisely where she said it, it should be readded. 
I have to say, though, that it does sound vaguely familiar. I think I've read of how Ikeda was badgering Toynbee to talk up his relationship with Arnold Toynbee. Maybe somebody here can come up with a solid reference. -- Hoary (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. Toynbee's piece was reproduced in the Daily Yomiuri, and it is quoted extensively and discussed in Peter Popham's Tokyo: The City at the End of the World, pp 63 et seq. It's not a "criticism", it's a description; and I have therefore added it to the main part of the article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Polly Toynbee

message: The article tells us that:
:In [1995], previous accusations over vilification of Daisaku Ikeda were eventually completely exonerated of the charges by the Japanese Supreme Court
I can't even guess what that means. Can anyone help? -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Criticism" obscurity

message: A great many books by Ikeda are listed. These are given titles in English. Are these titles the original titles, or are they nonce translations for this article? Either way, who published them, and what are their ISBNs? Perhaps somebody interested in Ikeda could provide this information. -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Books

message: In this edit I deleted a set of "Friendship links", whose obscure title actually just listed links to Wikiquote. -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Friendship links"

message: First, the article says Ikeda received "the United States Congressional Award." According to Wikepedia's article on the Congressional Award, it is given only to people between the ages of 14 and 23. It's possible the award was given to young people in SGI, but I doubt Ikeda himself received it.
Second, there are a number of controversies surrounding Ikeda that either are not mentioned or sugar-coated, including allegations from several years ago of misappropriation of money and attempts to buy political influence in Japan. There was a huge blow-up in SGI membership in the 1990s after Ikeda's excommunication from Nichiren Shoshu, because Ikeda didn't bother to inform the membership for many months. People found out about it through rumor and the internet and many bailed out of SGI then. His pushing of aggressive proselytizing tactics back in the 1970s also remains controversial. None of this is mentioned in the article. 
It's suspected that many of the honors given him, including honorary degrees, were conferred as conditions of some institution receiving a generous donation from SGI. Here is an example:
http://www.sfweekly.com/2010-08-18/news/park-near-coit-tower-may-hang-plaque-honoring-alleged-cult-leader/
Mahabarbara (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ikeda Article Too One-Sided