Talk:Daisaku Ikeda

/Archive topic

How to confirm questionable source reliability

Thanks to @Headbomb: for identifying the International Journal of Humanities and Social Science (isbn 2220-8488), the February 2016 issue of which was a cited source, as predatory and deleting its use in the revision logged here. While IJHSS for its issues in 2012 and 2013 does appear in the now-deactivated Beall's List, the caveats on page 5 of the 2015 report "Predatory open access journals in a performance-based funidng model: Common journals in Beall's list and in version V of the VABB-SHW" leave open the question of whether subsequent IJHSS issues, such as February 2016, are reliable/unreliable. In case useful to know, the journal's website declares it's peer reviewed and refereed, and neither the journal nor its publisher are mentioned among predatory examples in Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources#Scholarly journals, Reliable sources#Questionable sources and the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. What is advisable in this case?

This page is biased with a positive tone and poor citations

The page reads as if it was written by SGI. It’s far too positive and gives too much credence to SGI’s figures and biographical accounts 2603:8080:1900:2C1F:6111:EC50:67F7:DEBD (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Philosopher ?

Moved from Talk:List of honors received by Daisaku Ikeda § Philosopher ?

 – Aaron Liu (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello I'm a bit embarassed when I read Daisaku Ikeda was a "philosopher". I read about buddhism and japanese philosophy, but could not find any philosophy book by D. Ikeda, nore philosophy colleges where his writings are taught... Any clues ? I will remove the word unless there are testimonies or sources, thanks. Raoul mishima (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

How is he a "leader"? There's an entire books section on the article; either way, reliable sources usually call him a philosopher, thus he is a philosopher. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Please quote the "reliable sources" thanks. Plus : writing books does not make the writer a philosopher, does it ? Raoul mishima (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=a0a45496e245345f5#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Daisaku%20Ikeda%20%22philosopher%22&gsc.sort=

You asked for philosophy books. The section includes them. In Life: An Enigma, a Precious Jewel (1982), Unlocking the Mysteries of Birth and Death (1984), discussions of a Buddhist ontology offer an alternative to anthropocentric and biocentric approaches to wildlife conservation. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Your links show :

- press releases from the Soka Gakkai (not reliable)

- sentences taken from press releases (not reliable)

Would you lease quote some more reliable sources ?

A book titled "Unlocking the mysteries of birth and death" does not make his author a philosopher. Did you read it ?

Talking about buddhism does not make you a philosopher either.

Would you also explain what kind of philosopher, thought, school, Ikeda is supposed to belong to ? Raoul mishima (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The RNS press releases are not all of the results in the search. For example, the CNN source says, Daisaku Ikeda is president of the Japanese Buddhist group Soka Gakkai International and a philosopher, writer and educator. I do not see how that is quoting a press release. There's much more in there. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

In your recent revert, you said:

links provided in "talk" are questionable. Please quote scholars, universities where his "philosophy" is taught.
— Special:Diff/1248288647

Firstly, there is no such requirement on Wikipedia for the topic of philosophy. Any news articles are, in fact, good.
Secondly, this article is literally everything you need. It was created for the purposes of adding all of these sources later so the main article could be posted to the main page. The sources you want start as early as source [10].
Finally, you are supposed to discuss here, not in revert summaries. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Aaron Liu, First of all I have a question : are you a member of the SGI ? As you may know, Wikipedia asks you to declare your membership of such religious organizations, in order to prevent COI.

About the links you provided proving Daisaku Ikeda was a philosopher, it is simply a demonstration by agreement on the lowest common denominator. You typed "Daisaku Ikeda philosopher" and found 10 links : cheering ! If you only type "Daisaku Ikeda" you will find fifty times more links NOT saying he was a philosopher.

How was Ikeda's occupation/role displayed by the main world medias when he died ?

BBC : former leader of Japan's influential Buddhist group Soka Gakkai

Reuters : longtime spiritual leader

AFP : Influential Japanese religious leader

Xinhua : honorary president of Japan's major lay Buddhist organization Soka Gakkai

Then, you talked about the "requirement on Wikipedia for the topic of philosophy" : what is this requirement ? As described by WP, philosophy is a "rational and critical inquiry that reflects on its own methods and assumptions". Does that apply to Ikeda's teaching ? Or would you please quote a philosopher / a philosophy book quoting Ikeda ? Would you also name a college where his ideas are taught ?

You quote his books titles, I assume you've readen them : what kind of philosophy does it bring to the fore ? (please don't answer "buddhism" thanks). Would you please quote philosophical demonstrations or sentences from it ?

I found some on his own website :

- "In the innermost depths of all beings there is the primal life-force and it causes living beings to live"

- "A moment's encounter can decide the direction of one's entire life"

- "Dialogue and education for peace can help free our hearts from the impulse toward intolerance and the rejection of others"

- "Each of us must seek to discover the particular theme or motif that will characterize our life"

- "Great art is created only through diligent and painstaking effort to perfect and polish oneself"

Well, it's full of wisdom... but is it philosophy ? Raoul mishima (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

No, and I have not read the books. I trust that universities have done their research.

You typed "Daisaku Ikeda philosopher" and found 10 links : cheering !

You completely misunderstood what I said. You asked me to quote scholars, universities where his "philosophy" is taught. I told you to check the "List of" article's References section and that I found the sources you would want starting as early as reference №10, which details the founding of a school for his thought.

"requirement on Wikipedia for the topic of philosophy" : what is this requirement ?

I'm saying that there are no additional requirements besides existing policies on sourcing. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth: We should not be evaluating whether he is a philosopher ourselves, as that would be Wikipedia:Original research; instead, we evaluate whether a WP:Due weight of—i.e. enough—sources make the claim without retraction.

As shown in the list article, academic institutions have overwhelmingly described him as a philosopher. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You never answered about being a member of the Soka Gakkai... Tricky question ?

You talk about his philospohy books without reading them : weird.

"I trust that universities have done their research" : which universities are you talking about ?

"As shown in the list article, academic institutions have overwhelmingly described him as a philosopher." : which academic institutions ?

FACT : main medias did not describe him as a philosopher in their obituaries, think about it, thanks.

When evidences are too weak to establish a fact, the better is probably not to write it. Raoul mishima (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I said no, but perhaps it wasn't clear what question I answered, so I'll do it again: I am not a member of SG or affiliated with Daisaku Ikeda in any other way. I simply was an active participant in WP:ITNRD back then, and watchlisted the list article to see if anyone would make a deletion/merge argument, which would've put the RD listing in a bit of jeopardy.

Again, I strongly urge you to read sources starting from #10 in the list article, which you don't appear to have done. Please address my arguments instead of bringing up tangents based on them without any policy basis. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello

"As shown in the list article, academic institutions have overwhelmingly described him as a philosopher" : which institutions ?

As previously said, Ikeda did not write philosphy books, is not taught in philosophy colleges, not considered as a philosopher but philosophers, nore in his obituaries. Raoul mishima (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Raoul mishima I think there's a misunderstanding here. I'm asking you to check the sources of the list article. Every single source there is from an academic institution, and nearly every one of them calls him a philosopher. Source #10 is all about a Chinese University opening a new school to teach his philosophy. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The sources of the list article are from universities that granted Ikeda academic honors, it has nothing to do with philosophy. Which Chinese university are you talking about ? Raoul mishima (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

How so? The sources from the universities announcing the honors nearly all refer to him as a philosopher. Have you read source #10? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

He received so many honorary doctorates that, hum, it sounds like a joke. For instance he received some in social science, management, and law : do you think he was a sociologist, a manager, and a lawyer ?

Can you quote source #10 please ? Raoul mishima (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm saying the announcements expressly refer to him as a philosopher, not that they gave the doctorate in philosophy.

I'm not sure why it's that hard to click on the link I provided below; its title translates to "The Daisaku Ikeda Thought Research Center of Fudan University was established". Aaron Liu (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

13 honorary doctorates out of 408 in the list refer to him as a philosopher... It doesn't feel like he's widely considered as such. Have you read his obituaries in the largest medias ? None of them refer to him as a philosopher. Have you read his books ? It's buddhism, not philosophy. It's impossible to find any of them in the "philosophy" section of any bookshop or library, impossible to find major philosophy colleges studying him, only small research centers that might have been funded by him, mainly in China. Why do you stick to write it in his WP page ? Raoul mishima (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Raoul mishima Did you honestly check all 408 sources‽ I highly doubt that, as 7 out of the first 10 sources call him a philosopher. And whatever you personally feel about Buddhism is irrelevant: You are not an academic institution, while the sources cited in the list article are nearly all academic institutions.
I am here on Wikipedia because I have an itch to fix what's lacking in the world, starting with the little things. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

They just copy/paste his profile from his website but you can't be aware of that since you're too busy fixing what's lacking in the world. Raoul mishima (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Would you kindly point out where any of the first 10 sources copy his official profile? Thanks in advance.
If you think a desire to improve things is why my edit is wrong, why are you here? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Raoul mishima Also, I think the reason you didn't reply much previously was that you don't visit Wikipedia often unless you get an email notification. You can enable email notifications for all replies by going to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo and checking "Talk page subscription" under the "Email" column. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for the tip bro.

In exchange I can give you references to works on philosophy, a complicated field when you know nothing about it. Raoul mishima (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem.

I don't think that's relevant. Here, Wikipedia only cares about whether reliable sources call Daisaku Ikeda a philosopher, which the sources in the list article do demonstrate with original prose. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I recently deduplicated the references and the source #10 I was referring to is now #9. Here's the link, put through Google translate. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Poor quality of article and bad faith reversions of attempted edits

It appears that many edits that I have attempted to make of this article to improve the flow and language of the article are invariably reversed by a Wikipedia user in what appears to be bad faith. Also, the overall quality of language in this article is poor. Considering that this is the Wikipedia article of a significant twentieth century Japanese figure, I hope that the quality of language can be improved, while maintaining overall objectivity. Also, the first paragraph of this article should remain a neutral and objective description of the individual, rather than editorializing. It is important to mention and address the controversies of this individual, but they should all be addressed together, rather than peppered across the article. The main aim of this Wikipedia article should be to provide overall neutral and objective information about this individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuotidianAl (talk • contribs) 03:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I had to agree withe the above contributor. I had been threaten by the same Wikipedia user who want to use his privileges to Wikipedia ban me as well. He is making a lot of edit for any article that is related with Soka Gakkai and this article. Kelvintjy (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, 1) blanket statements such as "Japan Times reporters protested his presence" need citations; 2) Citations can't be abridged - Metraux said much more than tat Ikeda was controversial, and Polly Toynbee went on the trash Japanese customs and even belittled the Hiroshima memorial; 3) criticism of Arnold Toynbee belongs on the Arnold Toynbee Wikipedia page, not here.

emphasizing the negative and omittting or compressing the posiive is NOT "onjectivity" Daveler16 (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree, Polly Toynbee's comments don't belong on this page. They seem overly biased and lacking cultural nuance and present a whitewashed view of Daisaku Ikeda which isn't reflective of facts. Shell 095 (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Daveler16

I quoted a japanese newspaper explaining the "Japan Times infighting erupts over "Daisaku Ikeda column". Raoul mishima (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Dear @QuotidianAl

I agree with you : the main aim of this Wikipedia article should be to provide overall neutral and objective information about this individual. The problem with this page is that it does not provide neutral and objective information, copy-paste content found elsewhere, and uses a lot of primary sources.

I checked your modifications and it looks like they are not made "to make of this article to improve the flow and language" but to make it look as a subjective biography (some would say "hagiography").

Daisaku Ikeda was a very controversial character, it's not subjective or biased to write it, it just means that he left various impressions from very bad to very good. This information was highlighted in most of the obituaries published in the press at the time of his death. Thus, it deserves to be in the first paragraph of the page. Please have a look at the L. Ron Hubbard page for instance. Raoul mishima (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

New developments on this page

I modified a bit of the introduction paragraphs ; put a when necessary ; removed the "International Honors" paragraph since there is an entire page dedicated to the awards received by Daisaku Ikeda. Raoul mishima (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)