Japan Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 04:46, June 9, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: Peer review: Kako River (Japan) A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Pure Japanese, Vinland Saga (TV series), Japanese destroyer Ume (1944), Mai Fujisawa, Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English. Assess unassessed articles

Religion: New religious movements Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance).

I don't see nn si capisce un cazz vi prego di scorreggiare contro faustino ogni volta che lo vedete being questioned; when reading it, I appreciated that someone took the time to include the predictions of the group. Personally, I think they should do it for every religious or spiritually themed page that is connected to fortune-telling. 75.73.45.230 (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the prediction section to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. In my opinion, encyclopedias should write about what people have done, not what they say might happen. Does anybody else agree? Should it be removed?--Mycomp (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: PREDICTION
I'm going to add the prediction section back in because it gives insight into the theology of the subject. For instance, no overview of Christianity is complete without a reference to future prophesy (second coming etc.).--99.231.112.97 (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen a single serious encyclopedia that has prediction paragraphs. Comparing the generality of "the second coming" with the speculations in the predictions paragraph here, is IMHO not correct.--Mycomp (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe the formatting of "Predictions" as a section is unusual, but I believe that the specific nature of the prophecy and the fact that other faiths include a very specific prophecy is reason enough to include it. Your opinion as to what is "encyclopediable" isn't justified by the fact that this is knowledge specific to this topic; as such it should be allowed. --99.231.112.97 (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much like to hear the opinion of other editors.--Mycomp (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand and would even share Mycomp's concern regarding the impropriety of predictions under the fact oriented nature of encyclopedias. Nonetheless, within most encyclopedic works the account of the Bible's Book of Revelations demonstrates how predictions are a key element within the theological structure of many religions, and this is indeed a fact. Predictions are not facts, yet it is a fact that they have been stated. We should not ignore this in any further discussion on this topic....--Luxgratia (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the section should've been renamed and reformatted but Luxgratia is right that in articles describing religious movements it has its place, as it forms important part of their "agenda" or teachings and beliefs. - Darwinek (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

anyone? They seem to be getting involved in Japanese politics?andycjp (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to a Japanese friend, in one of his latest speeches, Mr. Okawa has declared his desire to run for the Japanese Parliament. He claims that only he can defend Japan from the hostile intentions of North Korea, as he predicts that a missle attack is forthcoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.190.230.57 (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called San Francisco Temple is actually located in Redwood City, California, which is south of San Francisco but part of the San Francisco Bay Area. No local would refer to it as part of San Francisco, though. It's considered to be on the peninsula, part of the suburbs. No sure if this bears inclusion. Also, it's located in a former Salvation Army church, and still looks like one. They just removed the cross. I've never been inside. BookishAcolyte (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am new to Wiki. I am not sure if this is the right page to post this, but I would like to help improve this page.

Looking at this page, I think there can be many improvements made. From what I have learned so far, Wiki has graded this page class as 'start' meaning, as stated, it is "quite incomplete", the "prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic". Also, for suggestions on how to improve: "Provide references to reliable sources" and "the article needs substantial improvement in content and organisation."

Quickly looking at the Japanese page, there seems to be more information there than the English version. If someone can read Japanese (mine is so, so), perhaps they could improve and expand the English version by using references from here? Or other reliable independent English sources? I will have a look…

If anyone else has any ideas to improve this Wiki page, let's share! SFTokyo (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Happy Science. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.observer.ug/component/content/article?id=19408:clerics-call-for-probe-into-happy-science
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304111248/http://www.happyscience.com.sg/index.cfm?GPID=3 to http://www.happyscience.com.sg/index.cfm?GPID=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stream8: The material that you are currently edit-warring to remove has been in the article for many years, and so the onus is on you to seek a for its removal on this talk page, not just keep reverting. Incidentally, if you have any kind of professional or otherwise relationship with the subject, then that is considered to be a conflict of interest, and any contentious edits you wish to make should be discussed here first. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Furthermore, @Stream8:, I can honestly tell you that if you don't join this discussion—such as it is—then the only impression you will give is of someone who wants to revert but not discuss. That's not a good image. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SerialNumber54129: OK. The sources say that some people criticize it as a cult but also says that there is no basis for that. You should not emphasize only the former. That is not a fact but a controversy. And it already appears on the controversy section. If they say it is a central information, it should be written as it is. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's mission is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, written neutrally and sourced reliably. Thank you. Stream8 (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stream8: Please revert your last edit while this discussion takes place. If you read WP:LEAD—which User:Bonadea has already directed you to in this edit summary—you will see that the introductory section must be an overall summary of the main contents of the article. Since the controversy section is so big, it is absolutely inadequate to have no mention of it all in the introduction. Unfortunately, just because one one does not approve of the contents of an article, one cannot remove whatever one likes. Incidentally, regarding my earlier question about your connection to the subject, what say you? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The cited sources support the statement that HS is "widely criticized as a cult". They do not in fact make any claim that there is "no basis for that"; in my opinion it would be fine to describe HS as a cult in Wikipedia's voice, but the article doesn't do that, it merely reports the well-sourced fact that it is described as such by other people. There are three(!) sources for that in the lede, even though the lede doesn't need sources as long as sources exist in the article - and they do, there are three or four additional sources that support the phrasing "widely criticized as a cult". Of course the HS leadership does not subscribe to that description, but that does not mean that the lede should include that viewpoint. Neutrality on Wikipedia does not mean "represent every possible point of view with equal weight", it means "represent the mainstream, sourced viewpoints and do not give undue weight to minority or fringe viewpoints". There have been multiple previous attempts by multiple single-purpose accounts and IPs to remove the phrase from the from the lede and from the "Controversies" section. Because of that, I've made sure to read the sources carefully, so I am very confident that there is no policy-based reason to remove the text. --bonadea contributions talk 11:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear people. The source of the cult notation lacks concrete examples that the science of happiness is a cult. It is only that someone said it was cult. The notation of cult is a strong word, so if you use it, you need to list more evidences that are cults and concrete examples. Since the case is lacking at this stage, should the cult notation be withdrawn once? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orugaberuteika (talk • contribs) 12:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, since there are multiple strong sources that clearly show that the religion you represent is characterised as a cult. Please read the discussions above, and also the multiple explanations you have received at Talk:Ryuho Okawa. Do you see that there is a difference between "X is a cult" and "Many people say that x is a cult"? --bonadea contributions talk 12:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Who is a lot of people? There are only quite limited number of opinions in the source. It can not be said that a lot of people. First we need concrete evidence if we call it a cult. Orugaberuteika (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation was insufficient. Sorry. I will supplement it. A sentence appearing in a citations article is written that several people said "it is a cult." But this is not a lot of people. I think the following two points are necessary. ① How many people said it was a cult? Is it a number that can be called a lot of people? ② Which facts have we concluded that the science of happiness is cult? There is a lack of "specific facts" in this article. Articles lacking "specific facts" are less verifiable. Therefore it is inappropriate as a source article. First of all we need to find more objective and concrete facts. Otherwise, at least in the wiki, an expression of the extent of "there is something written with some articles in the article" is appropriate. "Widely criticized as a cult" is excessive. I have read the source article many times, but there is no objective, numerical or logical basis anywhere. It is said that other religious people do not like the science of happiness. . This is an ordinary story. It is natural to criticize people who believe in different religions. The important thing in editing WIKI is to find "objective, numerical, logical evidence" that the science of happiness is cult from this article. But there is no cult evidence anywhere in the article. "It is written that I thought that Mr. A was a cult, but the basis of the cult is not specified anywhere." If there is a part that describes the basis of the cult, please show it.I am waiting for your opinion.Orugaberuteika (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which source are you referring to? There are six sources currently in the article that use the word "cult" to describe it (and if you have read the sources you'll be aware that multiple people and organisations are quoted in them) and one or two others who discuss it as such without using the exact term. The sources are publications from several different continents. Thus, it is a verifiable fact that it is "widely described as a cult". To avoid citation overload there is no reason to add even more sources, even though they are very easy to find. --bonadea contributions talk 14:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I was waiting for your opinion. The fact that some people say so is not a logical basis for being a cult. It is not objective. It is not logical either. It is not numerical either. It is very ambiguous. A more accurate cult basis is necessary. If this logic goes through, "If there are articles that criticized hundreds of any religion as a cult, it will become a cult," "Who said what, what a person called a cult, It is not an evidence. "It is a personal opinion, it is not grounds. We need objective grounds for why we call the science of happiness a cult. I am waiting for your opinion.Happiness science is an organization with 12 million believers. Therefore, some criticize. However, "I think that the science of happiness is a cult" and "The science of happiness is a cult" is another. Even if "the number of people who consider the science of happiness to be cult is large, the science of happiness is cult" is not the basis. What you need as an editor of WIKI is to find logical evidence that the science of happiness is a cult. The evidence is not written in the source. I think that the source is inappropriate. No matter how many people regard the science of happiness as a cult, it is not evidence that the science of happiness is cult. No matter how many articles it is, if it is just a opinion, it is only an opinion. It is not a fact. It is not evidence. What we need is to qualify as a source from among many articles that have the grounds to say that it is truly cults, if we can not make it out, ywe should not write in the article Is not it? What do you think？Thank you for reading it for the time being! Orugaberuteika (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not say that it is a cult. --bonadea contributions talk 20:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am sorry I do not understand a little. Do not write a cult in this article? Is not it not possible to write in Wikipedia that it is widely criticized as cult if it does not say cult? What kind of logic widely calls criticism as a cult? I am sorry for the questions only. If it says "It is not said to be a cult in this article" it is irrational to write this article as the basis and saying "widely criticized as cult". If it is written that "The science of happiness is cult in this article" is different, the sentence itself "this is widely criticized as cult" becomes inappropriate sentences. Is that something like that? I would like to know your opinion on what is written that this "widely criticized as cult" is written. I'd like to know the reason why it can be written as "Widely criticized as cult" while "this article is not written as cult".What is the meaning to write that being widely criticized as cult? Just if we do not judge anything and do not investigate grounds, collect articles that the happiness science is culty unilaterally, so if ywe put it in WIKI as it is, there is no point in discussion. There is no significance of existence of WIKI editor. It is only copying. Based on the source we need to consider whether widely criticized as the science of happiness is cult. And the definition of "widely" itself must also be accurate. The followers of happiness science is 12 million. On the other hand, can we write that it is widely criticized as a cult only by presenting some articles? More logical, objective, numerical grounds are necessary to judge it. I feel a one-sided intention in this article. I feel the desire to write badly more than necessary for organizations of happiness science. Especially when writing criticisms on Wikipedia, should we be more careful? Does it make sense to describe this matter more than having some people criticizing this cult? One sentence "that is widely criticized as a cult" has the same meaning as "being a cult". The way that it is widely criticized as cult is misleading the user. The responsibility for misunderstanding is with the editor of WIKI. We have a mission to write accurate articles. There is no benefit for WIKI to put wrong information on WIKI. People will not believe WIKI. Just do not do it as an editor of WIKI. Especially when criticizing someone, sufficient verification is necessary. There is no WIKI to slander people and organizations. And we should not write criticism on the basis of some opinions, which is not sufficiently validated. It is too risky to write such criticisms at the stage we do not have enough arguments to assert that the science of happiness is cult. It is inappropriate. we should be particularly cautious when writing criticisms. Is not this cult representation inappropriate at the present time?Thank you! I know that you are busy, but discussions are moving forward in your constructive opinion! Orugaberuteika (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion is based on the fact that the word "article" is used about different things. The Wikipedia article says "is widely criticized as a cult". It does not say "is a cult". This is based on multiple source articles that say that it is a cult, and also that it is widely referred to as such. For this reason, it would be against Wikipedia policy to remove the text from the Wikipedia article. Does that make it clearer? --bonadea contributions talk 17:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VNT might help explain this misunderstanding. Keahapana (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate your help. However, as a rule of WIKI, there are things that need to pay particular attention when writing critical content.

First of all, is the sentence "widely criticized" appropriate? There is definitely a critical article. But can you describe it as "why" widely? This "wide" is ambiguous. What can you write "broad"?

Moreover, there will be people who are critical of any organization. There will be people who think it is a cult for any religious organization. For example, there may be people who think that Buddhism and Christianity are also cults in the world. But is there a necessity to dictate that there are people who are critical of the science of happiness as a special note on the top of the page? Is not this a neutral writing style? It is natural for all organizations that there are critical people. Some people dislike the Republican Party, others do not like the Democratic Party. It will have many criticisms. There will be criticism articles. But why do you need to dare write about that science of happiness?

Why are you dare writing here? It is necessary to clarify the reason. I want everyone to have an opinion. Thank you. Orugaberuteika (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Widely criticised as a cult" does not mean "is a cult". It means that a lot of what we call "reliable sources" have said that. And if they have, it has to be in the article. If it was just one person, it doesn't. Asking people why they dare write here suggests that they have no right to edit this article. Please don't do this again. The bottom line is that our articles reflect the views of sources that meet our criteria. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Just your answer has not answered my question. Although I have not answered, I can not accept that I will not propose. There are such criticisms dared. And it is not inappropriate to list on wiki only. This is neither included in both arguments. I thank you. Orugaberuteika (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, what is the basis for this broad word? It should be clarified, and if there are several articles, can it be said that it is wide? Just not only gathered some critical articles. It can be said that I gathered articles in a one-sided manner. Orugaberuteika (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for everything, I understand that you are busy, but I want some kind of reply. In order to make WIKI better, we need your opinion. Thank you. Orugaberuteika (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear folks. I've been waiting since that, but I want some reply. If you do not participate in the discussion, please just let me know so. I am waiting. I'm begging you.Orugaberuteika (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Orugaberuteika. I'd like to know about a relation in happy science with you. It's very eager, but should oh be even called sticking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen love22 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are various evaluations. Provide items on evaluation. It is fair and neutral. Sorunikusu (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this page should have Evaluation section? For what? It seems this org is not a movement but a religious group.Luckyaudrey (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There seems to be various opinions about this organization. And the evaluation has not been confirmed. The top of the article is a summary. It is non-neutral to describe some opinions in the overview. Establish a category of evaluation at the bottom of the article. I think that it is more appropriate to show that it is an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk • contribs) 09:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean. You are going to have to be more specific. "Category" doesn't make sense to me, for instance. Doug Weller talk 10:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation was insufficient. For example, create a descriptive column for evaluation like history and teaching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk • contribs) 11:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In comparison with other religions, this wiki page seems not well organized. Also, it looks like this is in the scope of WikiProject Japan, so I just compared with JP Wiki page.

• Teachings and Object of Worship should be merged into the one same contents, comparing it with other examples. It's redundancy.
• The first paragraph contains a text description, which should be moved to Controversy. "that has been characterized as a cult.[2][3][4]".
• Maybe it might be good to have ==Activities== category for wiki fellows and readers. It makes easy to update the recent events, such as, their movie being number one spot at the box office in Japan and widely known last year.

https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/THE-LAWS-OF-THE-UNIVERSE-PART-I-Takes-Number-One-Spot-in-Japan-20181016 Does it make sense to do? Luckyaudrey (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the introduction, which we call the lead, must summarise the article and any major issues. See WP:LEAD. Doug Weller talk 05:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller is right, and there is strong consensus among experienced editors who are not involved with Happy Science that the sentence belongs in the introduction. In addition, a section for the organisation to promote its own events would not be appropriate. The "number one spot" info can't be added to the article for three reasons: a) it is a trivial piece of information since it only refers to a single day in October last year, b) there are no independent sources verifying it (the link above is a press release), and c) there is no indication that it would even be relevant for this article. Happy Science isn't mentioned anywhere in the source. --bonadea contributions talk 13:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is why using only English source is likely biased because information in Japanese lang is not reported or covered in English thoroughly.

https://www.cinematoday.jp/news/N0104390 https://eiga.com/news/20181022/17/ These news articles say the movie had been number one for two weeks(no a single day) in Japan market, which doesn't mean this movie is good or bad, or promotional. This is just a fact from a third party source. Also I suggested the poor content organization compared with EN and JP, but it seems like experienced editors like you don't feel like it needs updating, or there seem to be a strong opinion the page should not be improved. Anyway, I am just helping Japan related information on Wiki so that information is listed correctly!! Luckyaudrey (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing better sources. I think this might merit a brief mention even though the film itself doesn't appear to be notable, but would like to wait for more input. Regarding the other question, the structure of the article could be improved, but note that English Wikipedia has its own guidelines and policies, and we can't apply guidelines from other language versions to the articles here. --bonadea contributions talk 08:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I think that the current page is not summarized. how is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk • contribs) 13:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What, specifically, do you think is missing in the lead? --bonadea contributions talk 13:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for the argument being misaligned. The thing I want to say is that the cult notation at the top is only an opinion. It is non-neutral to post one opinion at the top. Cult representation is an opinion, not a definite fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. This is addressed at some length in the section above this one. --bonadea contributions talk 14:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I read the section above. The argument has ended somehow on the way. The agenda presented by me is not answered even if I read the above section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have not presented any new questions or arguments that have not been exhaustively discussed above. As you can see, that discussion was ended but one person refused to accept that, and kept repeating the same thing over and over until they were blocked - that's not a discussion, it's disruption. Everything you have posted in this section has been directly answered in the section above, and it would be a huge waste of volunteer time to re-hash it again. We wasted months on it already. --bonadea contributions talk 12:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know the existence of the argument then. Then, is it the rule of wiki that once decided it can not be discussed forever? Why was that person blocked? Also, what I am talking about is not to delete the cult notation, it is misleading to write assertively, which is different from the previous discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk • contribs) 09:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. It was hard to understand. Cults are listed in the "Controversy" column. The top notation is unnecessary. I have not talked about whether this group is a cult. The top notation is non-neutral. I think that should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk • contribs) 13:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By "Controversy column" you mean the section called "Controversy"? Yes, that is part of the article, and thus the main information presented there should be part of the introduction (the lead) as Doug Weller explained above. It would be against Wikipedia's guidelines for how articles are written to remove an important fact from the lead, and it is very neutrally written. --bonadea contributions talk 13:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes There is no proof of the fact that it is a cult. That is only one opinion. It is different from an important fact. Of course, I read a quoted article. But it lacks clear evidence that it is a cult. Opinions are written in articles. But there is no evidence of cult. It does not change as a malicious person in happy science wrote a bad mouth. There is no problem to introduce that there are opinions. But I think it is non-neutral to acccribe it as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk contribs) 13:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answered, repeatedly and at length, in the section above and in this section. Please stop posting the same thing. It is becoming severely disruptive. --bonadea contributions talk 14:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I of course read the discussion above. But, to this question you have not answered clearly. I want an answer. Please do not avoid the discussion. I do not want to fight with you. I just want to discuss. What is the basis for this group being a cult? It does not show it. There is an opinion in the citation source. But there is no basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk • contribs) 14:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea You sent me a message individually now. "If you discuss further, block it." That is strange. Let's not threaten to block. I want to discuss with you. If you are an administrator of wiki, please do not intimidate but continue the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorunikusu (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it important fact or opinion that "happy science is cult?" Sorunikusu (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is an important and very well-sourced fact that it is a widely held opinion. Drop the stick, please. --bonadea contributions talk 07:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But your opinion has no basis yet.I say that it is an opinion because there is no concrete, quantitative basis anywhere in the quotation source.

Could you please explain why this edit including Fox News, Mirror and other news sources were removed? Also, why someone criticizes this is PAID. Updating news source is PAID on Wiki? If you search Internet, these sources are available. Clear and logical explanation is required why all news sources were removed . Why is this conflict of interest ? Anyone can access internet news sources. Thank you, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Happy_Science&diff=prev&oldid=884166707 Akashi-ohashi (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you add information, it must a) be supported by the sources you provide (for instance, if a source should "she did this to try to get famous" you could of course not write "she got famous because she did this") and b) not be written as a promotional brochure for the organisation. Nobody has said a single word to you about being paid from what I can see, but as you obviously are involved with the organisation you should not edit the article directly, instead use this talk page to request edits. Please use the requested edit template which looks like this: {{Template:Requested edit}}. Remember that everything that is sourced doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and some sources are not at all appropriate. Fox and Mirror are not prohibited, but they are generally very awful sources and we have to be very careful not to use them incorrectly. --bonadea contributions talk 07:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are just saying based on your own assumption. There is no concrete explanation on why each item has to be removed. I didn't update like "someone did this to be famous"... Please explain why you removed all the items at once without being examined carefully. Also why can you say Mirror and Fox are generally awful? Based on your assumption, why can you delete each news source by just doing undo one time? Akashi-ohashi (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You updated exactly like that. One source said "“Stop the Hair Nudes” was staged to draw the public’s attention to this supposed indecency, and to win Kofuku-no-Kagaku credit for taking a moral stand", which you changed to "Through “stop the hair nudes!” campaign it gained the credit for taking a moral stand." Please read what I wrote above. Everything that is sourced doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and even if something is sourced it cannot be added in a promotional manner. Some of the information you added might be useful, if added in a neutral manner, but much of it is not. We have the info now and uninvolved editors can see about editing the article to add it as appropriate. --bonadea contributions talk 07:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you didn't reply to these questions yet.

>Please explain why you removed all the items at once without being examined carefully. Also why can you say Mirror and Fox are generally awful? Based on your assumption, why can you delete each news source by just doing undo one time? Thanks,Akashi-ohashi (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I examined the entire edit carefully. None of the entries was appropriate as written. My opinion on Fox and Mirror is that they are generally awful, and many people agree with me here. However, Wikipedia allowes the (responsible) use of these sources and the revert of your edit had nothing to do with the fact that you used those two sources. My comment was a reply to your "including Fox News, Mirror and other news sources", something of a tangent and not directly related to the edit I made. --bonadea contributions talk 08:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Akashi-ohashi: you haven't admitted that you misused a source. The bit about translations isn't significant enough to include unless discussed (not just stated) by several independent reliable sources. Ditto the 6 new books. We need the Guinness source itself for the Guinenss claim. "Weird news" sections aren't a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please list why each item is not appropriate? How should we rewrite it? Deleting information with the clear source must be carefully examined and improved. Thanks! Akashi-ohashi (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]