Talk:Soka Gakkai

1. Redirect Template:Dated maintenance category

Flag

The flag shown is the wrong flag. This: Sanshokuki2 Is the proper flag. I can't make the edit because it locked

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2024

Third paragraph, last line: “After the war, it's expansion was led by its former third president Daisaku Ikeda.”

Change the it’s -> its 2607:1C80:4B:92E4:21AD:F345:EE85:DD0A (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Yes check.svg Done M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

2 suggestions.

First to the above mentioned section. This is a bit misleading, since Toda took the lead in postwar Japan. Ikeda stepped in later. I suggest making the following revision to the above mentioned section:

Josei Toda assumed leadership after the war as the organization’s general director, and later became its second president in 1951. Under Toda as president, the Soka Gakkai grew rapidly in post-war Japan. After Toda’s death in 1958, Daisaku Ikeda stepped in to fill the leadership void. Ikeda was inaugurated as third president in 1960, and his more progressive approach led to further growth throughout Japan and international expansion.

Next: The final paragraph of the intro section is also messy. Its focus jumps around (Introduction of suspicion, then Current political status of Komeito, then mentions that Soka Gakkai has been described as a cult.) It also reads a bit biased to me.

I propose cleaning it up and omitting sensational language elements. My thinking is listed below, then my edit proposal is under that.

1. The chronology of the first sentence is sloppy, and it feels a little biased, as if the controversy SHOULD be emphasized as the key impression people should have of the organization. That feels loaded. Why not mention the controversy, but note that it isn’t entirely defined by the controversy and remains influential in Japan. Because that reflects the reality of the organization today—most people are aware that there were controversies in the past but don’t think particularly negatively of it anymore. This edit also serves as a smoother transition to the political sentence that comes next.

2. No need to reintroduce Komeito because it is already introduced earlier. Why not instead give a quick qualifier just for smoother reading and quick understanding.

3. The cult mention feels unnecessary. Cut that sentence. There is heavy stigma associated with the word, and including it (1) doesn’t strengthen any points and (2) feels emotionally charged. This makes the article feel biased against Soka Gakkai. Why not just cut that sentence, but include the footnote used there, and move it up to the list of footnotes attached to “controversies.” That seems smoother editorially.

Draft proposal of paragraph:

Soka Gakkai has been embroiled in public controversies[5][6][7][8][9][10] and is still viewed with suspicion by some, but it remains an influential movement throughout Japanese society. Komeito, which is supported by Soka Gakkai, entered a coalition agreement with the Liberal Democratic Party in 1999 and is currently a junior partner in the government. 240B:C010:4C2:2098:253C:E460:AE28:48F0 (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Finance, school network, political party

Hello @Anachronist

You seem not aware that SG has a school network, founded a political party, and has a consequent financial power. I will re-publish those informations in the introduction. If it lacks sources, please say it and don't delete everything without discussing here, thanks. Raoul mishima (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BURDEN. Add sources, or don't add it.

And, you stil haven't addressed the COI issue. If you have a COI you shouldn't be making substantive changes to the article at all, especially unsourced ones.

I gave you a block warning. Ignore it if you don't mind the consequences. Consider this a final warning. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the WP:OWNership issues and lack of WP:RSs, Raoul is small potatoes compared to the cadre (3+) of self-admitted SGI members who consistently edit the page. Actually, I don't even know if WP:COI is applicable here, seems like Raoul just has a bone to pick with SGI (WP:NPOV). It's important to note that the person who raised the COI issue with Raoul in the first place is an SGI member who is concerned with editors "denigrating" the SGI. wound theology◈ 06:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Raoul has repeatedly avoided answering any question about COI. I have tagged the article accordingly for now. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear Anachronist,

I did not avoid anything. COI : not an issue for me. It's kinda funny you focus on my edits and not on the laudatory and promotional paragraphs that have been added to this page. Also, this page quotes a lot of primary sources, and we've not been hearing from you about that. Raoul mishima (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Not an issue? Are you associated in any way with Sokka Gakkai? I am asking you directly. You have avoided addressing this on your talk page multiple times. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring and such

Template:Ping The page you keep reverting was built by multiple editors which you rolled back on the 13th of August, hence why you keep having your edits reverted by other editors who are uninvolved. The WP:MOS is not debatable. Read MOS:HEADINGS and WP:CITEKILL. wound theology◈ 06:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Dr Brian Daizen Victoria's criticism of the Tsunesaburo Makiguchi's pacifism myth

Dr Brian Daizen Victoria's criticism of the Tsunesaburo Makiguchi's pacifism myth should be added to the article. 109.175.107.123 (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2025

Lack of citation for “cult in France and Belgium” claim

Hi, I’d like to challenge to remove the sentence:

“Soka Gakkai is considered as a cult in several countries, including France and Belgium.”

This claim lacks any citation and appears to rely on outdated or generalized perceptions. • The 1995 French report was non-binding and has not been updated to include Soka Gakkai in since 2005. • Belgium published a general list of groups in 1997, but never took legal action or made official designations against Soka Gakkai. • There is no current legal or governmental classification of Soka Gakkai as a cult in either country.

Unless a reliable, up-to-date source can be provided, this sentence should either be removed or revised for accuracy and properly sourced.

Thanks!

⸻

France: • In 1995, France’s National Assembly released a non-binding report that listed 173 groups as exhibiting cult-like behavior. Soka Gakkai appeared on that list. • The list was not a legal designation, and no legal action was taken against Soka Gakkai. • France’s MIVILUDES (anti-cult watchdog) has since moved away from such “lists,” and Soka Gakkai has not appeared in any official follow-up reports. • As of today, Soka Gakkai is legally operating in France and is not considered a cult under French law.

Sources: • 1995 Parliamentary Report (Assemblée Nationale) • MIVILUDES shifted its stance in the 2000s to a case-by-case behavioral approach, no longer maintaining blanket lists.

⸻

Belgium: • In 1997, Belgium compiled a “cult list” based on police and intelligence data. • It was meant for internal guidance—not an official designation or legal ban. • Belgian courts later clarified that inclusion did not equal guilt or illegality. • Soka Gakkai has not been banned or restricted in Belgium and continues to operate openly.

Sources: • Belgian Parliamentary Inquiry Commission (1997) • European Parliament discussions on religious freedom • OSCE reports on religious tolerance

⸻ Dadshorts (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)