Talk:Soka School System

Ok the first one:

Also, one of Japan's largest correspondence education programs is administered by Soka University in Tokyo.^[1]

The second one:

Its educational program is non-sectarian despite the Soka Gakkai's relationship to Nichiren Buddhism. Its buildings and campuses have been noted as architecturally supportive of the schools’ stated philosophy, designed to be bright and expansive with scenic views.^[2][3][4][5]

The third one:

The mission of schools, according to Soka education, should be to protect the dignity of human life and human rights. Its methodology is based on “human education” rather than the more popularly used term “humanistic education.” Here, the teacher serves as a role model of pacifism, assuming the Buddhist function of a bodhisattva. The teacher's role is to help students realize the inner dignity of their lives, nurture the will to live more strongly, and empathize with the pain of others. The curriculum has a strong focus on peace, human rights, sustainable development, and environmental education.^[6][7]

The fourth one is odd in that only the references are contested with the opposing edits supporting an uncited paragraph that says the same thing:

^[8][9][10] In founding the Soka School System, Ikeda modernized and broadened Makiguchi's vision of Soka education^[11] On his many visits to the Soka schools Ikeda modeled the types of caring for students he hoped staff members would embrace.^[12]

Fifth sourced statement contested:

One of the first western scholars to research Soka education and its applications was Dayle M. Bethel who wrote a biography of Makiguchi and who edited and translated his “Geography of Human Life” and “Value-Creating Education.”^[13][14][15]

Sixth sourced statement contested:

This was followed by Carl H. Gross’ anecdotal report on his visit to the newly formed Soka High School in Tokyo.^[16]

Seventh sourced statement contested:

Qualitative research has emerged in the form of books, articles, and dissertations. Considerable textual analysis of the Ikeda corpus is taking place at the Institute for Daisaku Ikeda Studies at DePaul University's College of Education. The Soka Education Research Initiative on Global Citizenship (SERI-GC) is a five-year research project launching at the University of Guelph-Humber in Canada the promotes study of the philosophy and practices of Soka education and its connection to global citizenship which is funded by the Japan-based Makiguchi Foundation for Education. An annual student-led conference about applications of Soka education takes place annually at Soka University of America.^{[17][18][19][20]}

Eighth sourced statement contested:

• The International Committee of Artists for Peace (ICAP) - United States, founded in 2002^[21]

I've left out anything that is clearly unsourced - unsourced material can be deleted without much discussion generally. But in each of these eight statements I have the following questions:

1. Is the source reliable? If so why not?
2. Does the text accurately summarize the source?
3. Does the text introduce POV language that should be attributed?
4. In the case where a text indicates opinion to what extent is that opinion due?

If those people who are disputing the inclusion of these sources either for or against can answer these four questions for each of these eight statements I think we might be able to make some progress. The only one a bit different is statement four. That is odd as the text for the statement is not contested, only the sources used to support it. We don't generally want to replace a reliable source with no source at all. If there are problems with those sources we should either remove the section or improve the sources. Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC) Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Simonm223

I will answer your questions first, and hope @Kelvintjy will do the same.

Is the source reliable? If so why not? I think it's not reliable if it's a primary source, that comes from a Soka school professor or a professor funded by the Soka Gakkai.

Does the text accurately summarize the source? It should, but most of the sources mentionned in this page are not quoted and are impossible to verify.

Does the text introduce POV language that should be attributed? I think so, many sentences in this page are adaptated from Soka Gakkai related websites.

In the case where a text indicates opinion to what extent is that opinion due? It can fit the page but it has to be not the majority of the texts + it needs other POVs and critics so that the page remains objective.

First statement : "Also, one of Japan's largest correspondence education programs is administered by Soka University in Tokyo" : the book is not quoted, and its a primary source since Jason Goulah is director of the Institute for Daisaku Ikeda Studies.

Second statement : "Its educational program is non-sectarian despite the Soka Gakkai's relationship to Nichiren Buddhism" : This sentence seems abusive according to the lawsuits filed by certain teachers. "In reality the curriculum is intended to reflect cult beliefs and perspectives" said Linda Southwell, a fired fine arts professor. "Soka U insists it is an independent, nonsectarian school not even as religiously influenced as, say, Brigham Young or Notre Dame universities. But at least a majority of Soka U's trustees have direct Soka Gakkai connections. Today 70% of matriculants are Soka Gakkai members", says a Forbes article in 2004.

Third statement : "The mission of schools" paragraph is inspired from primary sources, authors (Jason Goulah and Joffee Monte) that are both employed and paid by the Soka School System.

Fourth statement : same remark, primary sources all the way...

Fifth statement : the sentence is intended to show that Makiguchi was an influential and widely studied theorist.

Yet, who are those "western scholars to research Soka education and its applications" ?

The author quoted, Dayle Bethel is, again, associated to the Soka Gakkai. And one of the few reviews of Bethel's book says "Makiguchi was, as Bethel admits, ignored in his lifetime, and he made no appreciable impact on Japanese education (...) Bethel can be faulted on a number of grounds. First, he is somewhat naive in his treatment of the Soka Gakkai, tending to accept the speeches and writings of Ikeda, and the Gakkai's stated goals, as synonymous with actual accomplishment".

Sixth statement : it's impossible to find any information about this report.

Seventh statement : "Qualitative research has emerged in the form of books, articles, and dissertations. Considerable textual analysis of the Ikeda corpus is taking place at the Institute for Daisaku Ikeda Studies at DePaul University's College of Education"

This is all unsourced, and those books and analysis seem all funded by centers linked to Soka Gakkai, which does not make it objective or scientific.

The Institute for Daisaku Ikeda Studies says himself it "provides up to $15,000 in tuition support" to "students (...) who demonstrate a record of service and commitment to the ideals of Tsunesaburo Makiguchi, Josei Toda, and Daisaku Ikeda". That does not look like objective researches. And there is no source or evidence of those "Considerable textual analysis of the Ikeda corpus".

Eighth statement : The International Committee of Artists for Peace (ICAP) does not seem to be part of any school system and may not belong to this page. Raoul mishima (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Raoul mishima please read WP:PRIMARY I think you are making a few mistakes in interpretation here. Simonm223 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

OK now that I'm at a computer I can respond more fulsomely. So regarding excerpt 1: The publication in question is an academic monograph published by a reputable academic publisher. It includes analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas and as such constitutes a WP:SECONDARY source by Wikipedia policy. However even if this were not the case, it would be covered by WP:ABOUTSELF which allows use of a primary, even self-published, source to describe the subject in their own words.

Regarding excerpt 2 - this is supported by no less than four sources of which three are peer-reviewed. A Forbes artice from 10 years ago that has no author information is not sufficiently due to override these sources. Frankly I'm uncertain that the Forbes article is reliable at all. I will look at your responses to the other six when I have time later. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding excerpt three The Goulah chapter is part of a book published by Information Age Publishing - an imprint of Emerald Publishing The Monte chapter was from an academic book pubished by Rowman & Littlefield - these are all respected academic publishers. The assertion that these constitute primary sources based on your statement that these people are employed by Sokka Gakkai is not in line with our policy on source reliability and original research.
Regarding excerpt four, again, we see these sources all come from academic WP:BESTSOURCES with books and peer reviewed articles associated with Springer, Routledge and Teachers College Press - to remove these academic sources, especially when the text they were cited to was retained, seems out of line with Wikipedia policy on citations.
Regarding excerpt 5 This again is an WP:ABOUTSELF issue. Some minor rewording might be in order so as to properly attribute the claim to Bethel however what it actually says is that Bethel was one of the first western scholars to study this organization; I am concerned that removing this seems based on reading something into the article that isn't actually there.

Regarding Excerpt 6 I was able to access bibliograpical information at this url an editor's personal access to a source does not affect its reliability. If you feel a need to verify its statements I would recommend consulting your local library.

Regarding Excerpt 7 It's not at all clear that the material you refer to is unsourced. This is a lengthy paragraph but it does contain four references at the end. While this probably deserves greater scrutiny than the other excerpts in order to ensure there's no WP:SYNT going on, this is a matter of article improvement, not mass-reversion.

Regarding Excerpt 8 You may have a point in that it is described as a research institute. I do not see any indication, from the cited source, that ICAP is a research institute - it appears to be an advocacy group / arts NGO. As this fails verification it is likely appropriate for removal. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)