These sources are representations of reporters individuals and are underlying reasoning. Therefore, the notation that it is widely criticized as cult is an exaggeration, and since it feels the intention, why not delete it at the present time.

1）https://web.archive.org/web/20151222092033/http://www.observer.ug/component/content/article?id=19408:clerics-call-for-probe-into-happy-science 2）https://web.archive.org/web/20120825072332/http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/07/22/happy-science-a-new-cult-offers-celebrity-guide-heaven.html 3）https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/blooming--happy-science-cult-channels-disney-ghandi-jesus-and-thatcher-20151028-gkkzow.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orugaberuteika (talk • contribs) 13:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The word "cult" is solidly referenced in the article about the organisation, and is not an exaggeration. Every reference does not need to be duplicated here, since again, the article is about the individual and not the organisation. If you read the references, you will see that they do not represent the opinions of individual journalists; the word is used by multiple experts and organisations, as well as in media more generally, according to the reports in these three reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 14:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I will admire your enthusiasm.I can not understand this part. Could you tell me why you thought so. A little more carefully, I am waiting for your reply. Thank you.

Every reference does not need to be duplicated here, since again, the article is about the individual and not the organisation. Why differences arise between organizations and individuals. There is also a cult notation of the article on the wiki of happy scinece

In addition to that, I think that we need more evidence of cults to express it as a cult. There are many articles about the science of happiness in the world. For example, at a Japanese newspaper company, Okawa goes to Germany for a lecture and is taken up as an article. There will be more than 10,000 articles about him. I think that it is not logical to write Cult as it is written as cult only in three of them. For the writer of this wiki, I clearly feel the intention of writing Okawa Ryohiko worse than it actually is. I think this is different from the spirit of wiki comment added by Orugaberuteika (talk • contribs) 13:55, 20 October 2018

The article does not say that his organisation is a cult. (In my opinion it would be more than reasonable to say that, but that is beside the point, as it doesn't in fact say it). It says that it has been widely criticized as a cult. As for the difference between the individual and the organisation, it seems pretty clear that Okawa is individually notable. If he were only notable because of his connection with the organisation, there shouldn't be an article about him at all, rather a paragraph about him in the Happy Science article. The fact that Happy Science is called a cult (and a sect) in many different contexts and by experts and media all over the world is very well-sourced indeed in the article about Happy Science, so your claim that there are only three newspaper articles is verifiably incorrect. All those sources are not required here, for reasons already explained. There is strong and unambiguous consensus in favour of this phrasing among the editors who are unaffiliated with the organisation. --bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your polite reply. I would like to express my opinion.

1) If so, will need more articles about cults. There are only three here. Although there are only three sources, it is irrational to have more. I need to post more here.

2) And in these three articles, it is an arbitrary reason that someone said this. Some university professor said The basis is thin. not written any evidence that it is widely said to be a cult in the world. There is no explanation as to why it is a cult.

3) Cult is basically a small number of people. However, the science of happiness already has 12 million members. This is a huge religion.

4) Cult is acting as an antisocial act. There is no specific basis that the science of happiness is acting anti-social. There is no source.

5) For the above reasons, the notation of cult is an exaggeration at the moment, and I feel that intend to write Okawa badly beyond necessity. I Although I have nothing to do with the science of happiness, Okawa is one of the intellectuals respected in Japan by many people. I think that this way of writing is inappropriate. Then many Japanese respect the guru of antisocial cult religion. That should not be. In the cult group, there are no 12 million followers, and there is no way to pick him up in Japanese television and newspapers. (If we pick up the guru of the cult group, complaints will rush to the newspaper company.) If so, it should be despised first in Japan.The Japanese does not tolerate antisocial cults.

6) At the moment the cult notation should be deleted. It should be noted after further verification. comment added by Orugaberuteika (talk • contribs) 13:55, 25 October 2018

All these points are addressed already (except that I'll add that it is a misunderstanding - maybe based on a poor translation of the word "cult" into Japanese - that cults are necessarily small groups of people. That is not the case, a cult may have millions of members. Not that that is really relevant since the article does not claim that HS is a cult.) --bonadea contributions talk 05:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Would you please give me your opinion in turn over my issue? Once what I discussed is permanent, the meaning I propose here will be lost. It will be laborious. It is wrong to say that decisions discussed once in the past can not be changed forever. Would you give your opinion in turn to the issue of 1 to 6? If you do not have an opinion, you may write that there is no opinion. I want your opinion. I do not want to answer only a part but please answer the number showing the number.comment added by Orugaberuteika (talk • contribs) 13:55, 26 October 2018

I have already replied to your opinions 1-6. You ask questions that I have already answered in this very section, and questions that have nothing to do with the article (and I have replied to that as well!) Since it seems that I am not capable of expressing myself clearly due to the language barrier, it would be pointless for me to try to rephrase the exact same things yet another time. Other editors may be more skilled at this. --bonadea contributions talk 14:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. [[User:Orugaeruteika}} your questions have been answered. I don't know why you have repeated them. I agree with Bonadea. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Doug Weller. Thank you for participating in the discussion! Please let me know your opinion. I have not received the opinion of Doug Weller so far, so please let me know what you think. However, I am waiting for Bonadea 's answer. I have been discussing with Bonadea so far. I want to get a word directly from Bonadea. Nice to meet you. I think that it is a theme that has not been discussed yet in my recognition. If you think it is wrong, I'm very sorry to trouble you but can you show it again? Best regard. I do not have time to spare, because I am a reasonable person, I do not feel like repeating meaningless. I want you to understand it. If there are many questions, I am sorry. Squeeze to one point. The article called "being cult" which is the source of this article lacks the "specific case" that it is a cult. Why can we certify as a cult? Is not it inappropriate to pick up a source that does not contain concrete examples as a source? In this article I feel the intention of expressing Okawa Ryoho over badly. Again, I have nothing to do with Okawa Ryori. However, this is inappropriate as a statement for a living person. How to interpret the meaning of the term 'cult' is another problem, I believe that this citation is inappropriate citation. bonadea, Doug Weller, I really appreciate the two people. I would like to receive the opinions of my dear friends. With love comment added by Orugaberuteika (talk • contribs) 13:55, 30 October 2018

I wait for the answers of two dear friends.comment added by Orugaberuteika (talk • contribs) 13:55, 2 November 2018

I already responded above. --bonadea contributions talk 12:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I want to discuss it. I will not answer questions that are difficult to answer, so if there is any, the discussion will not proceed. ask. Just because I want to know your opinion, with love, Orugaberuteika (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that there were a lot of questions. I will supplement it. I want to argue a point. "This source lacks concrete grounds." The content of this article is an article that "Mr. A thought that science of happiness was a cult". There is no written rational, concrete or objective argument about why the science of happiness is a cult. Numerical verification has not been done either. Based on such an unfounded article, it is a little overwhelming to write "widely criticized as cult".Where in this citations article "Whether it is inappropriate as a source because there is no objective, logical, or numerical evidence to prove cults, It is not evidence that some people think that this religion is cult and just write it, it does not assert that it is a cult. If it is accredited as a cult, it is necessary to find a logical and concrete basis for objectively indicating it. Please indicate which part of this article falls under that. Otherwise it is inappropriate to write in cults and articles. How about? Orugaberuteika (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to write so add it. Forgive me. This article is an article for a living person. I have to write this article carefully. And when writing criticism sufficient verification is necessary. That is the rule of WIKI. If the argument that "Okawa is a guru of a cult organization" is insufficient, is not the sentence "widely criticized as cult" is inappropriate? If writing "cult", more evidence is necessary. Many people objectively read this article, and now it is a state where it can not be judged that "Okawa is definitely cult" when looking at the source. At this stage, is not it exaggerating to write that "the group he made is widely criticized as a cult?" How about feeling it is inappropriate notation even from the WIKI rule? WIKI must write the truth. If you do not do enough verification, tell a false alarm and write a person badly, that is something you should not be as an editor of WIKI. I think it is inappropriate to write that cult groups are widely criticized at this time. More discussion is necessary. Although arguing may not be needed anymore, I do not think there is a clear, objective, and logical basis clearly stated there even if I read the argument that has been written so far. If at least many people read this source, "If Okawa is certainly a guru of a cult organization," the source is inadequate. Orugaberuteika (talk) 23:27, 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]

Why is it written cult? Is the source insufficient? Even if I write it, it disappears for some reason soon. I want you to tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Detourcontrive (talk • contribs) 14:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]