Talk:Criticism of Soka Gakkai

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] This article should be merged with Soka Gakkai International

Personally, I believe the information outlined in this article belongs not in a separate POV fork, but in the main article itself (properly referenced with inline citations to the criticism). Also, the text appears to draw "original research" conclusions via not directly citing where the claims come from (merely noting certain references at the bottom) - this needs editing, and sourcing needs to be fixed. At first glance, it's difficult to work out which source belongs where in the article; so at some point, I will read through all of it carefully, and work out what factual elements belong to which source and remove the original research claims. I'd be most grateful for input from other editors on this. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure whether I agree with your take that this is a POV fork or your opinion that a separate article is unnecessary, I do welcome the your intent to provide sources for the content more rigorously*. Some of it is obviously inaccurate. Likewise, the main article is also heavilly POV and baised to present an overly positive picture of SGI, and it, too, contains factual inaccuracies. I hope you will be as rigorous in sourcing statements and pursuing a non-POV presentation in the main article as well. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 23:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
* In any event, the job at hand—in my opinion, at least—is to present the content in a NPOV manner, not to remove material that is unfavorable to SGI. I hope you'll agree.

Thank you very much, Jim. You are right on both counts of the inaccuracy - we seem to have two polarised articles, both of which are rather wide of the mark. I'll do some in-depth research (possibly a rewrite) of both, and then we can re-evaluate whether a merge is appropriate; admittedly, I am not in truth terribly familiar with the critical sources in question but I do insist on ensuring my own editing is as NPOV as possible, regardless of my own personal point of view. Rest assured, Jim, I have not the slightest intention of whitewashing criticism even though I am an SGI member - all aspects of factual subject matter, including criticism, should I believe be documented as fairly, accurately and thoroughly as possible throughout Wikipedia, and I do not intend to compromise this. I look forward to working with you on improving these two articles. Peace, and best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nicholas. If you have time, please look at the archived SGI take-page material. There's a lot to wade through, so there are parts the you will probably want to only skim, but there are also a number of contributions of substance. In any case, such as read will give you plenty of context about the article's development so far. All the best for your improvement efforts, too—I think input from new blood could be quite beneficial. Best, Jim_Lockhart 02:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)