Buddhism Unassessed

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article discusses a contemporary religious group exclusively in political terms. It cites two sources, one of which was written by the group's founder in the 1930s, and the other of which is a historical work exclusively dealing with the antebellum history of the group. The article is also written exclusively by an editor with a history of misrepresenting/misinterpreting sources to make broad claims that aren't actually supported by said sources.

I don't know enough about the current ideology of the group to say whether the information regarding the pre-WWII group is still accurate for today, but the article currently fails to convince me.

(For the record, I'm the same person as on the Kenji page, now editing from a phone.)

182.249.240.34 (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So lets see Jacqueline I. Stone, Tanaka Chigaku himself and the website are unreliable sources then? And the fact that I created this article, an article you would probably not like to see to appear at all are problematic to you? This by somebody who refrains to use his original username --- looking at the history, no wonder. Wonder who has a POV issue now. --Catflap08 (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You did not cite the website at any point. Tanaka Chigaku himself is a very old, primary source. And Jaqueline I. Stone is a reliable source, but she is not actually discussing this (still-extant) group; she is discussing Japanese nationalism in the pre-War period. Therefore, writing the article on the contemporary group based solely on her work is problematic. And my edit history is at least as irrelevant as yours. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what exactly do you mean by "I created this article, an article you would probably not like to see to appear at all are problematic to you"? Could you please speak coherently? 126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Hijiri88 Please elaborate on how the neutrality is still disputed? Meanwhile more sources have been added. Are you the same author of previous IP edits? --Catflap08 (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Fifth !! reference just added. --Catflap08 (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I am, about which topic I was perfectly open with you last summer. About the sources: you added a single reference to an already sourced statement that it was founded by the nationalist Tanaka Chigaku. It doesn't change the fact that this still-extant religious organization is being described exclusively in terms of its nationalist founder who's been dead for decades. What happened after the war when the occupation forces forced the separation of church and state and cracked down on right-wing and nationalist elements in society? What happened after that? These questions need to be addressed in the article for it to a balanced description of this still-extant religious organization. I will admit that I am not the one to answer them (I heard only brief mentions of this organization in relation to Miyazawa Kenji before your little stunt on the Kenji article), but if you are not willing to answer them then you can't claim the article is up-to-date and neutral. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added a second source, again to the already-referenced statement

Its membership reached its peak with 7,000 adherents in 1924 and 23,000 in 1950. Nevertheless the organisation is mentioned as an example of how Nichiren's teachings were interpreted in a nationalistic fashion, also referred to as Nichirenism, and influenced Nichiren Buddhist based new religions in terms of propagation.

How does continuing to put make-up on this pig changing the fact that it's still a pig?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pick and choose. All sources boil down to what is said in the text. I can not make up refrences: https://books.google.de/books?id=uiZi2mgC5a4C&pg=PA281&lpg=PA281&dq=Kokuch%C5%ABkai%E2%80%8E&source=bl&ots=c0yrCJEJ9l&sig=47ZSASS-KGDFin7Rb5Ar2FgBl6Y&hl=de&sa=X&ei=HQHvVNeJCYGvUYqpgeAP&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Kokuch%C5%ABkai%E2%80%8E&f=false

https://books.google.de/books?id=ok33AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=Kokuch%C5%ABkai%E2%80%8E&source=bl&ots=vlKoFZNufb&sig=GsJhRCphZgUSKNiV5DdHqrr5zOg&hl=de&sa=X&ei=rgHvVMq2IJDhaMzZgOgI&ved=0CCgQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=Kokuch%C5%ABkai%E2%80%8E&f=false

https://books.google.de/books?id=s8BvgFul4MEC&pg=PA269&lpg=PA269&dq=Kokuch%C5%ABkai%E2%80%8E&source=bl&ots=0q5PH5VNhu&sig=AWw_myC2PxrTIxwSW0klYHeFcE0&hl=de&sa=X&ei=rgHvVMq2IJDhaMzZgOgI&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=Kokuch%C5%ABkai%E2%80%8E&f=false

https://books.google.de/books?id=4JUBAwAAQBAJ&pg=PP3&lpg=PP3&dq=Kokuch%C5%ABkai%E2%80%8E&source=bl&ots=0hBZQnOqLS&sig=DKHL5IQrEkGmUxPCyOekxtC0PNA&hl=de&sa=X&ei=rgHvVMq2IJDhaMzZgOgI&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCjgK#v=onepage&q=Kokuch%C5%ABkai%E2%80%8E&f=false

https://books.google.de/books?id=HWPpk8eDPf4C&pg=PT620&lpg=PT620&dq=Kokuch%C5%ABkai%E2%80%8E&source=bl&ots=ZqVxJV65kO&sig=TKMNnxQC80JTbDPl37ypMaIsaMQ&hl=de&sa=X&ei=rgHvVMq2IJDhaMzZgOgI&ved=0CFoQ6AEwDDgK#v=onepage&q=Kokuch%C5%ABkai%E2%80%8E&f=false

I agree that the article could be elaborated on but for what IS said the references suffice. Kokuchokai is on the fringe today not so much as in the days it was founded. I found no source saying that it’s a peaceful mediation class. --Catflap08 (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking at the free previews on Google Books, and none of them appear to give any detail on the modern organization. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well to this point the article is not about the modern organisation this is all info online – quite a lot actually and the sources are relevant. None online resources are also stated. This is still not enough evidence to claim the article is not neutral.--Catflap08 (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what if our article on the Catholic Church included only information on that groups activities before the Second Vatican Council? Would that article still then be neutral and balanced? We would tag such an article to be improved. So that's what I did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with neutrality. That would be the case if the article would be unbalanced. The article reflects what available sources so far state. Comparing this Organisation to the Catholic Church is quite absurd.--Catflap08 (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you found (or cherry-picked?) describe the modern organization because none of them are about the modern organization. Every last one of them discuss Chigaku and/or the group's origins, and nothing post-1945. I provided reasons why I assume -- again, an assumption, but not one you have yet been able to dispel -- this organization has seen significant change since 1945, as has the Catholic Church. If our article on the Catholic Church failed to even mention Vatican II or later developments I -- and likely most other good Wikipedians -- would call it unbalanced. The comparison is apt. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that’s what the article is so far about, is it not? The article was indeed created by me and only by using referenced sources. If the organisation has changed so considerably then add the referenced material. I would be careful to accuse other people by the way.--Catflap08 (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you removed the neutrality tag without addressing it, as part of your expressed plan to reinsert the unsourced claim that Miyazawa Kenji was a nationalist into the article. You want to wikilink this article, which claims somewhat dubiously that the organization is primarily political in nature, in the lead of that article. You don't want to go out and do the research on the modern Kokuchukai in order to clean up this article because you're afraid it MIGHT contradict you, and you don't want the article to explicitly state that it is unbalanced because that would defeat the purpose of wikilinking from the Kenji article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would hold my horses on that one. A plan?? Are you serious? From all that I can see you do not like Kokuchokai being mentioned along with Miyazawa. Even if the foreword that I included on the talk page on Miyazawa would not exist any reference that would enlighten us on what you call modern Kokuchokai would not be of much help as Miyazawa was a member in the days the group was founded. Again the reasons you bring forward to dispute the neutrality of the article seem rather POV.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC) So now we have seven references on what an article of four sentences is so far about. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uninvolved I removed this from the third opinion noticeboard (as well as this related discussion) because each are disputes between more than two editors. I personally have no opinion on the subject, but I would advise all parties to read WP:FORUMSHOP (and, if any of the IPs involved are indeed registered users as well, WP:MEAT). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Erpert: Actually, while on the Kenji page Catflap has been called out by about a dozen other users, this page is a dispute that only involves two users so far. (The IPs last summer were me on my phone, as I made clear here and elsewhere at the time.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the wording until I changed it yesterday implied the organization was first founded in 1914, in what read like (my misreading, poor writing, or actually what the sources say?) a merger of two previous groups, the Rengekai (founded 1881) and the Rissho Ankokukai (founded 1885). This statement had one source attached to it until Catflap08 added another a few days ago, without altering the wording.

The organization's official website says that it was founded in 1884 as the Rissho Ankokukai, and changed its name to Kokuchukai in 1914.

Otani (the source I used for the current wording yesterday) says Chigaku founded the Rengekai in 1880, which changed its name once in 1884 to Rissho Ankokukai and again in 1914 to Kokuchukai. The Britannica Kokusai Dai-Hyakkajiten article on "Kokuchukai" gives pretty much the same wording with the exact same dates.

If Catflap08's earlier sources actually both say the same thing and actually support the Wikipedia article's previous wording/dates, I don't see how these sources could be reconciled peaceably. 1880 and, even moreso, 1884 seem to be pretty secure as dates go, so if they say something different it's possible we could just reject them as unreliable tertiary sources. Given how Catflap08 readded them without touching my edited wording, though, it also seems possible that one (the recently added one...) or even both don't actually say what they were being cited as saying.

@User:Catflap08: Could we get some clarification on these issues?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please recognize the fact that the sources are about the organisation itself and not merely about its founding date? I am not the author of the sources. Even if one or the other may get the date wrong does not mean the content is wrong. In many articles on religious groups you will find disagreement on this issues. Some organisations will refer to a founding meeting some authors will accept that other others will use the official registration date. Again stop deleting references.--Catflap08 (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are not about the date then don't attach them to a sentence about the date. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources. Sources that don't support the material to which they are attached need to be removed per WP:V. Your stating that you didn't write the sources appears to be irrelevant to the issue at hand, unless you mean "I didn't write them, so I can't tell what their authors were thinking", but if that's the case then we have a serious problem either with obscure sources or with your competence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a RfC, as it becomes increasingly harder to follow your intention about the outcome of this discussion. Additionally you have added comments on both talk pages that I find to come close to a personal attack/insult.--Catflap08 (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First complaining the references are cherry picked, then additional references were added and finally existing once were deleted.--Catflap08 (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC explicitly states that the OP should present a neutral description of the dispute. The above is not only non-neutral but is a gross misrepresentation of the dispute. I never said this page cited insufficient sources; I said sources describing pre-1945 nationalism were insufficient to describe an extant religious organization. Those of Catflap's new sources I have checked all suffer the same problem, it seems. That is why the article appears to fail WP:NEUTRAL. On an entirely unrelated note, in the last day or so I found out that Catflap's sources either (1) don't actually give the information (regarding founding date, relationship to Rengekai and Rissho Ankokukai) he claims they do, or (2) are contradicted on these points by better sources. Catflap has completely ignored these concerns. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your and my comments just like respective edits are already recorded. This is for asking for others to comment. --Catflap08 (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and by presenting an unbalanced version of the dispute and expecting others to comment based solely on your version of events, you have violated WP:CANVAS. You will either be blocked or TBANned for this behaviour soon enough... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can only give my reason to seek an RfC based on how I perceive the conflict. As far as I can see we are both stuck. Personally I believe that those responding to the RfC will take the time to read the talk page, the edit history and maybe look up the references and based on that leave a comment, an alternative wording or whatever they feel is necessary. While you pinged a whole lot of editors on the Miyazawa issue (a strange action in my books and I am not sure if this in accordance with guidelines), I wait for who ever may want to leave a comment. Personally I hope for editors getting involved that neither you nor I have collaborated with before. I guess this process will take a couple of days maybe even weeks. I find you language in last couple of days to be inappropriate and abusive even within the ANI you started - I do not need that. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)--Catflap08 (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how RFC works. Other users should be presented with just the facts of the dispute, without POV commentary. Otherwise, even if they do wade through the entire previous discussion, they may suffer from inadvertent bias. This is why WP:RFC specifically instructs OPs to "[i]nclude a brief, neutral statement of the issue in the talk page section". I think if there's one thing you and I agree on, though, it's that third-party input is needed. So I suggest we work together to craft a brief, neutral summary of the dispute, and either collapse or WP:COMMENT this whole discussion. Now, I'm still not entirely sure what your concern is, but how about this wording:

One user thinks that only one or two third-party sources are enough to cite for the founding date and previous names of the group. He rewrote the sentence based on a new source, and removed the two previous sources because they had been cited for contradictory information. Another user sees this removal of cited sources as problematic.

Now, I admit the above is slightly tilted, since it clarifies my motivation and not yours, but only because I can't understand what your problem with removing the two citations. Could you please clarify what you are concerned about, so we can add that in?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Hijiri 88 I am waiting for neutral third party input, they will be able to read both articles talk pages and edits made. Your language was abusive.--Catflap08 (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where, might I ask, was my language abusive in the above post? No one is ever going to post here now because the whole thread is completely incomprehensible. Help me sort this out now or this whole RFC will have been a complete waste of time. I'm not going to collapse or COMMENT all of your posts in this section without your permission, and I can't do that to my posts while leaving your responses intact, but I guarantee you no good can come from this RFC as is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Catflap08, could you please learn to indent your posts? You are insisting on other users reading through the entire past discussion, but when you format your replies to me in such a way that they don't look like replies to me but like separate lines of conversation, it will only make it even more difficult for other users to follow. I would ask that you not post here, or on any other talk page, until you have familiarized yourself with WP:TALK. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm reformatting the RM with the more neutral wording and without the fustercluck between Catflap08 and myself putting potential commenters. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One user thinks that only one or two third-party sources are enough to cite for the founding date and previous names of the group. He rewrote the sentence based on a new source, and removed the two previous sources because they had been cited for contradictory information. Another user sees this removal of cited sources as problematic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Please rephrase the problem and the question. Viriditas (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: I already did. This RFC was actually started by Catflap08 in the section above, but his OP was nonsense. I asked him if the above wording was what he actually meant, and he ignored me, so I posted my best attempt at an interpretation of the problem. I'm pretty sure the actual problem is that Catflap08 ("another user") doesn't know how Wikipedia sourcing works. When I asked for him to get WP:CIR blocked until he can demonstrate that he doesunderstand how references work, I was told I was "forum-shopping". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The statement is clearly non-neutral: the way it is phrased right now implies that 'one or two third-party sources' are clearly not enough to cite for the founding date and previous names of the group. Catflap08's statement is non-neutral, but that doesn't change how this statement is also non-neutral. In view of this, I can't take a position without bias. Banedon (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Banedon: I deliberately tried to check my own bias by presenting my own POV the way Catflap apparently sees it. I am the one who thinks only one or two sources is enough, and Catflap has been arguing to insert a third and fourth source. The problem is that said sources were previously cited as giving contradictory (and apparently inaccurate) information, so I removed them when I changed the information for which they were cited. If you think I presented my own POV in an unbalanced and negative light, how would you word it better? Feel free to WP:COMMENT my OP and write your own as I did here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand what the dispute is about, or the arguments for and against each side in the dispute, and therefore can't write the lead question in the RfC. Worse, if the dispute is over this edit, then since I don't have access to either of the two references, I can't venture an opinion, either. Banedon (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm frankly in agreement with you over this dispute: I also have no idea what the problem is. I tried finding better sources to help redraft the article. When I found two ("my sources", the two Japanese language ones), I noticed they contradicted the material already in the article. Since my sources were in agreement and I didn't think I was able to access the other two sources ("Catflap's sources"), I removed Catflap's sources and rewrote the sentence to match my sources. I had assumed that Catflap had written the article based on what his sources actually said, rather than writing whatever and arbitrarily attaching sources. Catflap re-added his sources without altering my new wording, which made me suspicious. I then checked one of Catflap's sources and noticed that it agreed with my sources and did not back up the information to which it had been attached. I asked Catflap about this and he said the sources were for the article as a whole, not the sentence to which they were attached. I told him that this was not how Wikipedia sourcing worked, and he opened an RFC on the subject. I asked on ANI that he be blocked because users who don't understand how to cite sources and don't listen when they are told, they are a net deficit for Wikipedia. I was ignored. I then noticed that he was making the same mistake on a different article, and when I pointed it out on the relevant talk page another user posted on ANI requesting that I be sanctioned for personal attacks. I seriously have no idea what has been going on here, but it might be that articles related to Japanese NRMs have always had these problems and I only noticed thanks to a minor overlap between them and my preferred area. I'm frankly lost as to what the problem is here, and if Catflap had actually retired/semi-retired when he said he had I would be requesting this RFC be closed as pointless, but we take the cards we're dealt. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: First, I have to preface this by saying neither of the two parties engaged in the dispute above seem to be doing so with a complete understanding of the relevant policies with regard to either the content in question or the appropriate means of dispute resolution, as is attested by some previous comments and the two equally malformed attempts at RfC, neither of which uses appropriate format or wording. I'd further like to advise both parties to take a look at WP:C and WP:AGF, as both have assumed antagonistic stances with regard to the contributions of the other, with the result that some comments are not even tangentially relevant to the topic at hand.

Coming back around to that topic, here's how I see the content issues--and they don't seem terribly ambiguous to me from a policy perspective, once one has taken the time to cut through the considerable noise above. Catflap's sources are, by and large, perfectly acceptable and they seem to reasonably support the claims to which they are attached. Hijiri's assertions that including this information represents a violation of neutrality if the article presents a holistic history of the article's subject does not reflect any element of WP:N (nor any other policy on the topic that I am aware of). All Wikipedia articles are a work in progress and our process of iterative improvement is pretty much a defining aspect of editing on this project. If Hijiri can provide new sources to further contextualize this group in it's modern context, that would clearly benefit the article, but he can't try to block Catflap's attempts to elucidate on the early history of the group solely on the basis that he hasn't researched every aspect of the group; he's not in any sense required to -- he is only required to provide sourcing for claims he does want to add to the article.

If Hijiri is certain that the movement has changed substantially in the time since the events which Catflap is sourcing (and I've no doubt that it has) and he wants to provide that information for better context, then the burden is clearly upon him to provide the appropriate sourcing. Catflap cannot be expected to provide an explanation for the absence of every single claim that any other editor could hypothetically suggest is central to an understanding of the topic. And the suggestion that we can't add completely verifiable statements to a topic until we are prepared to present a complete review of every major aspect of its history is a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" argument that is not enshrined anywhere in policy or community consensus and which would in fact make present method of collaborative editing on Wikipedia (as we understand it today) completely untenable.

All of that said, I don't think any of the non-primary sources should be removed; so long as they meet the standards of WP:RS in this context, there is room for both side's sources, with appropriate (non-OR) discussion of the differences in their perspectives. For the record, though, a website which is a primary source for the topic of the article itself is not an appropriate source for establishing the movement's date of origin and cannot be used to supplant a date supplied by a secondary and reliable source (even if an editor is really, really certain that the website is more accurate; remember, verifiability, not truth). Snow ^{let's rap} 22:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I failed to mention I do agree with Hijiri's stance that citations cannot be placed at an arbitrary point in the article but should rather be used as general references or attached to claims which they do directly support. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: I agree with you 100%. I was earlier skeptical that the group was discussed in reliable sources as nationalist, because of sourcing problems in the article among other lesser factors. I added a neutrality tag to the article because I believed Catflap had cherry-picked sources that weren't actually about this group in particular but rather about pre-war Japanese nationalism in general. Catflap's initial response didn't help allay my concerns. Going out and doing my own research revealed that my neutrality concerns were unnecessary, but that the article contained factually inaccurate information and in at least one place was actually contradicted by the cited source. I removed the neutrality tag myself and changed the article around a bit, inserting my new source and removing one free/online source that had been misquoted, and one other that I didn't have access to but looked like it was being misquoted.

The conflict since then has been solely about whether these sources should be reinserted next to material that they may or may not verify. I radically altered the article today to basically summarize what all the sources I have access to say, and I at least have no further problems with the article.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like the best approach to me. I'm not familiar enough with alternative sources (and no more than tangentially familiar with the topic at large) that I can speak to the implication of cherry-picking -- all I can say with certainty, on reviewing all of the sources provided between the various disputed versions, is that they all more-or-less represent reliable sources in policy terms (the primary-source website is problematic, but for the narrow purposes you use them for in the most recent version, they are acceptable). Being as they all represent reliable sources, the appropriate response is perceived cherry-picking or anachronism within them is to add counterbalancing sources that treat the group in a more contemporaneous fashion -- which seems to be the approach you've settled on. I've no idea how well the present wording and format will suit Catflap's perspective, but I think including all of the relevant sources and presenting their perspectives (including where they diverge) is a step in the right direction. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]