/Archive topic

How to confirm questionable source reliability[edit]

Thanks to @Headbomb: for identifying the International Journal of Humanities and Social Science (isbn 2220-8488), the February 2016 issue of which was a cited source, as predatory and deleting its use in the revision logged here. While IJHSS for its issues in 2012 and 2013 does appear in the now-deactivated Beall's List, the caveats on page 5 of the 2015 report "Predatory open access journals in a performance-based funidng model: Common journals in Beall's list and in version V of the VABB-SHW" leave open the question of whether subsequent IJHSS issues, such as February 2016, are reliable/unreliable. In case useful to know, the journal's website declares it's peer reviewed and refereed, and neither the journal nor its publisher are mentioned among predatory examples in Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources#Scholarly journals, Reliable sources#Questionable sources and the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. What is advisable in this case?

Deletions and revisions[edit]

Overall the topic of Ikeda's activities relating to the Japanese political party Komeito may be noteworthy (see WP:NOTEWORTHY), and it's worthwhile pursuing a neutral (see WP:WEIGHT) and balanced (see WP:GEVAL) accounting of Ikeda's actions and outcomes. Characterizations of Komeito itself belong not here but vetted in the relevant article and article talk page about the party; likewise is the case of the many other institutions Ikeda has founded. It may help to look at other exemplary articles and their treatment of overlapping topics: e.g., the GA-rated 2018 Nobel Peace Prize ties into Denis Mukwege, the Panzi Hospital which he founded, Nadia Murad, and Nadia's Initiative which she founded. Tacktician (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section title "Political involvement and controversies" was changed to "Political perceptions in Japan", because the content recounts primarily value-laden labels in the form of contentious opinions, accusations and allegations. Tacktician (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Several scholars, including Métraux which is not a critical one, wrote about this significant aspect of life and image of Ikeda, his involvment and controversies about Komeito, and this is not tabloid comments or value-laden labels. Before my intervention in this page, every controversial aspects had been deleted for years, trying to give a kind of flawless image to Ikeda. You have to accept these controversial aspects, and to stop trying to delete scholars sources. Asterix757 (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What, when and how are the overarching encyclopedic questions to address. The word "controversies" without context is vague: the section's text is rich in accusation but presents only one example of controversy. For this reason I've changed the section's title again to reflect the section's content and also to capture the gist of the previous comment above. In this respect, Métraux presents a good example to examine. First, the citation for his 1999 Japan Studies Review article was incomplete and inaccurate—no author, no article title, and wrong and incomplete publication date. For this reason I corrected it, adding also a second in-citation quote. Second, these two quotes cited to his 1999 JSR article, "The Changing Role of the Komeito in Japanese Politics in the 1990s," appear verbatim in Chapter 3: The Soka Gakkai and Politics of his 1994 book The Soka Gakkai Revolution and also in his Chapter 5: The Changing Role of the Komeito in Japanese Politics in the 1990s of Machacek and Wilson, eds (2000) Global Citizens: The Soka Gakkai Buddhist Movement in the World. In all three works, he presents historical context followed by his assessments: to convey the former and neglect the latter would be cherrypicking. Third, in his 1994 book, after he recounts that "two senior Komeito officials denounced Ikeda's 'dictatorial control' over the party", he also recounts (on the same page) that their credibility was called into question by a Komeito spokesman as well as the Soka Gakkai. This recounting does not appear in either his 1999 JSR article nor his 2000 chapter. For this reason, I've deleted the sourced statement in the text.Fourth, in all three of these works Métraux relates the same contextual analysis and assessment that begins with: "While it is difficult to determine his exact role, an examination of his daily itinerary would reveal that he would have very little time personally for political management and that most of the aging leader's time is devoted to religious affairs, traveling, and writing" (Global Citizens, pp132–133; cf. JSR 1999, p44; cf. Soka Gakkai Revolution, p59). For this reason, I've reflected the full quote in the text.Fifth, in his 1994 book, pp59–60, appears the statement "Whatever the truth may be, the fact that the Komeito, led by the inspirational oratory of Ikeda, can master six or more million votes in an election does make Ikeda an important national figure", but not in his 2000 chapter and not in his 1999 JSR article. For this reason, I decided not to include "important national figure" in the text. Tacktician (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The title "Politial controversies in Japan" is not vague. And the term is the one used by the sources in the section in a clear way. For instance : "Ikeda has been a controversial figure in Japan" (Kisala), "possibly one of the more controversial figures in Japan's modern history" (Métraux). I come back to the previous title. Asterix757 (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing clear about political involvement: As Métraux recounts, Ikeda's "actual role ... has been a matter of some controversy" and that Ikeda "potentially wields considerable influence in the political world" (JSP, p43). Other than that, the section merely contains critical accusations and claims, and one instance of controversy in which Ikeda's action is clear. Overall, these are criticisms. Tacktician (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please, stop pretending "the section contains merely critical accusations and claims", in order to change the title of the section. I gave you some quotes from scholars that show that Ikeda has been significantly a controversial figure in Japan. You act like you don't care. Now I give you more quotes of the section that prove that controversies is the right term : "Ikeda has been a controversial figure in Japan" (Kisala), "possibly one of the more controversial figures in Japan's modern history" (Métraux), Ikeda and his predecessors "have been deeply political, each in different circumstances and distinct ways, which has no doubt contributed to the many controversies in the Soka Gakkai's history" (Seager), "Ikeda has been so much more a controversial figure in his society than Cho" (Gold), "Controversy is an inevitable partner of greatness. No one who challenges the established order is free of it. Gandhi had his detractors, as did Dr. King. Dr. Ikeda is no exception." (Carter) Asterix757 (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The tabloid-esque quote used in this section from the LA Times opinion piece in the 1990s was removed years ago because the author didn't give any citations for who or under what circumstances those absurd ranges of comparisons were made. These inflammatory comparisons are not even close to encyclopedia quality or NPOV and should be deleted now as they were many years ago. Anyone who refers to Adolph Hitler when describing a Buddhist leader is obviously not credible or NPOV. QueerMichael (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing around unsubstantiated terms like "tabloid-esque", "absurd", "inflammatory", "obviously" are your own views and don't really have much to do with the value of a source in this article. The author of the citation you removed, Teresa Watanabe, was a seasoned journalist at the Los Angeles Times for seven years before she wrote that article. I disagree that it's tabloid journalism. It's just journalism, written to hold the interest of an audience half a world away from the subject. It's a good source and should be included. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LA Times is obviously not a tabloid. However, I agree that the comparison with Hitler is very strong. So I reinsert the source but with a softer quote. But it's not so difficult to find citation that justifies Teresa Watanabe's use : he was described as a "sutra-chanting Hitler" by Kakuei Tanaka [1] [2]. Asterix757 (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added much-needed context for the claims and accusations in this section of the article and, based on that context, changed the section title. Tacktician (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity[edit]

Article reads like a promotional pamphlet. Should be deleted. Tone is not encyclopedic. Biased. 2400:406A:962:AF00:74A5:5C46:25A1:498 (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories