Open main menu

Contents

PropagandaEdit

This article is BLATANTLY propaganda from Mahikari followers, and my attempts to post FACTUAL information about what this group teaches continues to be deleted by members. If they have nothing to hide and want to be open about what they teach, why are they embarrassed by the facts that they teach that Jesus died in Japan, Mahikari is the only "true" religion, etc.???? The references and links are taken from Mahikari's actual textbooks!!!

This article does have multiple problems although it is less pro-Mahikari than it used to be. Help with balancing it is appreciated. It is in fact acceptable to cite Mahikari's own material in order to show what its views are. But there are also some academic texts cited and they should be the main source for the article. I don't think anyone here is a member or a supporter of the movement, but even if they are they have a right to contribute so long as they respect WP policies. We always assume good faith of our fellow editors. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, you (Itsmejudith) and DougWeller are Mahikari members, so your neutrality should be questioned! Honestyisbestpolicy (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you not insult other editors. Personally, I don't really understand why anyone should believe in any religion or cult. This is a policy and guidelines issue for Itsmejudith and myself. Doug Weller (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I am not trying to insult you or Itmejudith, but your efforts for "neutrality" seem to remove FACTUAL statements from Mahikari literature itself and whitewash it so it appeals to the general public. As editors of this Wikipedia article who seem to be passionately defending pro-Mahikari agenda, it is clear you have direct experience and/or ties to this group. Wikipedia is an open forum, and therefore both sides should be heard. Honestyisbestpolicy (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I continue to be frustrated by the unilateral censorship of FACTUAL statements that I have posted about Mahikari teachings on this article. ItsMeJudith, you deleted the entire section that I posted under TEACHINGS without room for discussion--YET, everything that was written was sourced and quoted directly from the Mahikari bible Goseigen. Your claim that "it was not sourced properly" plus your deletions once again show a pro-mahikari agenda. Do you have a copy of the Goseigen, as I do???? If not, then how can you claim what I posted is false???? Only members of Mahikari (or ex members) have access to the actual writings of Okada, so which one are you? I am interested in making this a balanced article. My opinions are irrelevant--what I've posted is the Mahikari "truth" as they believe it so readers can decide if they are frauds. Honestyisbestpolicy (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Serious ConcernsEdit

POV POV POV this article is so biased that a monkey's uncle could realise it is merely propaganda designed to present a completely favourable portrayal of this "Sukyo Mahikari" 'religion'. The controversial nature of it has been intentionally ignored (as a previous person has noted), and prevalent assertions such as "The Light purifies the spirit, mind and body. This practice can be done anywhere and at any time and is the main activity at Sukyo Mahikari Centres throughout the world." should surely be preceded with 'according to...' and 'supposedly...' in order to give this article a sense of encyclopeadic objectivity and NPOV, and to distance the writer from the subject at hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.170.43 (talkcontribs) 08:08, 8 October 2005

First I am obviously not a member. When I said it was okay I had only skimmed it and was also comparing it to the original. The original was essentially just saying all their claims are valid and they are the one true faith, or in least almost went that far. Also when I said it was okay I didn't mean to indicate that no further improvement was necessary. I just wasn't in the mood to fight much about it at that juncture. I imagine it still needs improvement. I just didn't know enough to edit it much. Although it seems to have been edited some sense you came.--T. Anthony 11:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the addition made, it certainly augments and serves to further demystify this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.168.76 (talkcontribs) 13:06, 18 October 2005

Using the Goseigen book as a sourceEdit

As the editor using this has pointed out that it is non available to non-members (and added a link saying the same thing, a link to a personal website and thus removed), we can't use it as a source, see WP:Verifiable Doug Weller (talk) 08:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This stance is ridiculous . . .the Goseigen is THE foundation of Sukyo Mahikari, so to not be able to use it as a source is unbelievable. Are people interested in learning about Sukyo Mahikari going to come on here and only read the whitewashed propoganda from SM recruiting brochures? The Goseigen and other text from Mahikari exist and are only available to members once you join -- so how can people do their proper research about this organization if they are recruited under false pretenses? You should refer the Mahikari Wiki page as well-- the Goseign is used everywhere as a legitimate source. Are you gonna try to censor that as well? Honestyisbestpolicy (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've raised the issue about the Mahikari article on its talk page. It isn't a question of censorship, Wikipedia polices require a source to be verifiable, and if I can't go to the library and get them to get it for me, it isn't verifiable and you could claim it said anything and readers couldn't check it. Doug Weller (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Doug, I suggest you go to an academic library or do a google search for used books. . .perhaps you can find a copy and *verify* that what was written in my posts was pulled from a legit source -- this is the book that Mahikari (both sects--including Sukyo Mahikari) use as the basis of their teachings. The propaganda from the SM website . . "the origin of the world is one. ." is pure whitewash recruiting when you reach Okada's actual beliefs. If we are trying to build a fair article on this sect/cult, then their actual teachings should be included. They can be quoted from the Goseigen verbatim. . .that is a far more legitimate source for what this cult believes than a recruiting brochure or their public website. In the future, I hope that both perspectives on this group/cult are included. I've included the information for you to look up on your own:

Holy Words: Goseigen by Yoshikazu Okada Hardcover, Bishop of North American Region of Sukyo Mahikari, ISBN 0971486301 (0-9714863-0-1)

For all people interested in joining this group, it's important to know what they really believe *before* you devote your time and hard earned money to them--they are not what they seem. Honestyisbestpolicy (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

To throw in my 2 cents, I beleieve that one's own opinion about whether this, or any other organization, is a "cult" presents a biased point of view that should not be presented in this article as fact. If any information should be added to this effect in this article, specific references should be cited and BOTH sides of the story should be told in an objective matter. Many organizations make publications available only to those who have become members. The Project Management Institute is a perfect example. The PMBOK is only made available to people who pay the membership fee and join the PMI. Does this make the PMI a cult? Please... Mbhowareyou (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

ProblemsEdit

This page has been problematic for far too long. The recent edits by Honestyisbestpolicy have only brought this to a head. I am going to stubify the article.

I also said that I would discuss here the message that Honesty left on my talk page about the Goseigen link. There is no way that this qualifies as a reliable source. It is a geocities page and appears to be an advocacy site. Even more important, it seems to relate to Mahikari as a whole and not to Sukyo Mahikari in particular. Honesty would be welome to take this to the reliable sources noticeboard or take out an RfC.Itsmejudith (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

See alsoEdit

I removed a repeated link that was in the lead. Is a link to cult neccessary in the see also section? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source that shows that this group is considered a cult? TIA --70.109.223.188 (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many published articles that refer to Sukyo Mahikari as a cult. Since there has been recent heated debate about what consistutes a "legitimate" source, I will simply show you a link to what was published online by the European Parliment [1] Both Mahikari/SukyoMahikari are officially considered cults by the government,which also outlines the criteria they used to identify these organizations as cults. Honestyisbestpolicy (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Doug Weller (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened while I was away?Edit

It looks like there was some decision to move most of what was in this article to the Mahikari article. The problem with doing that, is that much of that material then becomes redundant in the Mahikari article (which I noticed as I was assessing what still needs to be edited there) and when you click through to this article, there is not much of value left. There was a debate earlier about whether this should be a separate article, but by moving all the substance to the other article, the effect is to provide a de facto answer to the question. It seems the only reason to keep this a separate article is to provide more facts than in Mahikari. As I look at the Mahikari article, it would be improved by taking out most of the Sukyo Mahikari information (as well as some other newly added information that should go into a separate article). The alternative is to dump this article and include everything in Mahikari. Comments?Vontrotta (talk) 08:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if edits here have caused problems for the Mahikari article. I don't think it was me that dumped material from here into Mahikari. Rather I stubified this article by simply removing material. I would be happy with either solution: to merge the two or to keep them separate. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
What were your thoughts on removing all the material (other than it was nearly incomprehensively written)? It would be a lot easier if I reverted your stubification and started editing for comprehensibility - but I don't want to do that if you had a more fundamental concern. Vontrotta (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Folks, it has taken three years to get to this point and I applaud your efforts. It has been a battle ground of sorts over the years. I would suggest to keep Mahikari and Sukyo Mahikari as separate articles, for the reasons Vontrotta has mentioned 'to provide more facts than in Mahikari'.

Mahikari written material can be sourced dating back to the early 70's through an international network of interested people..... time permitting!

I was wondering who the publisher 'L H Yoko Publishers, Tokyo' was. Seems it's a Mahikari owned publisher and it's publications not generally accessible to the public. Unless a publication turns up in a second hand book shop.

I asked a former member about it, seems the original group Yoshikazu Okada formed in 1959 was called L. H. Yoko-shi Tomo no Kai - broad meaning L.ucky H.ealthy Friends of Postive Light Organization. Interesting Okada used two English words to describe his group! I guess this is where the Publishers name came from. Can it be used as a citation?

According to an Australian source the National Library of Australia has local Sukyo Mahikari publications in its collection. However, the collection stopped when Sukyo Mahikari moved its publications offshore in early 2000. Skeptomai (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, since no one objected, let's keep two articles, with the "details" in SM and a reference in M. When I get a chance, I'll give it a tryVontrotta (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My first time using this feature, but why is the History explained in both this article and the Mahikari article? I think a reference should be made to the Mahikari article within this article. This allows for a central source of history that can be managed and, more importantly, challenged. Also, all citations within this article of the World Divine Light Organization should be removed, as no information within that site describes the Sukyo Mahikari organization. Several other statements made in this article are misrepresented as well (will be providing more details in the near future). Is it OK for me to make such substantive changes on my own, or it this the proper forum the more appropriate method to do so? This article still has value on its own, as there are many more items that can be added that are unique to the Sukyo Mahikari organization. This will be worked on in the near future as well to improve this article and scrutinize every citation made - especially those that are many years old. Thank you. Mbhowareyou (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, Sukyo Mahikari was started in 1959 - not 1978 as stated in this article. As such, Sukyo Mahikari is not considered to be a "breakaway" organization - this is extremely misleading and incorrect. Please see http://www.sukyomahikari.org/about.html. I am unable to edit this part of the article. Thank you. Mbhowareyou (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I made some updates to this article based on recent information. I also added notes where specific citations are needed. This is a work in progress, and more citations will be needed and added to the article. The History section refers to the Mahikari article, which should serve as the central source of history related to the organization's founder and the events that occured after his passing. Mbhowareyou (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Added to Status Section - Article Still a Work In ProgressEdit

Information was added to the "Status" section of this article to give more information about the status of the organization from a worldwide perspective. This section, similarly for the rest of the article, is still a work in progress as more recent information, sections, etc. need to be added.Mbhowareyou (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Added to Status Section - Article Still a Work In Progress-what a jokeEdit

just see the history as how this article has been systematically reduced to an advertisement for SM. And you want progress? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.80.247 (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

All content on the SM article follow the Wikipedia guidelines with respect to verifiability and assumes good faith. Please refer to the discussion board guidelines above when posting to this discussion board - specifically where it pertains to maintaining politeness and a good-faith effort to collaboritavely improve the article. If you have specific reasons to back up your assessment, with specific examples of where this article deviates from Wikipedia policies, it would be welcomed.Mbhowareyou (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversy sectionEdit

Europe22: It is true that ideally there should not be a criticism section, but all view points should be integrated in the main article. But just look at the history of this article, and you will see how it has been systematically cleared of all critical viewpoints, and has now become a propoganda material for Sukyo Mahikari (for free ofcourse). Thus the only way out is to have separate sections, developed somewhat independantly and finally someone has time to integrate in the final article. This is what Wikipedia suggests as well. Wikipedia:Criticism

"Many criticism sections started as separate from the main body of articles by editors with a strong point of view on the subject or who are concerned that the article does not present a balanced view of the subject but do not have the time or resources to integrate the criticism effectively. Sections created for these reasons may be temporary and may eventually be integrated into the main article in appropriate places. The "separate" section might be tagged POV-section, criticism-section, or similar to indicate that it is expected to be temporary." If you have any other suggestions for a way around, it is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.94.198 (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The page you cite (WP:CRITICISM) is just an "essay" and it is said that it "contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion", while the page WP:NRMMOS is an official guideline of WP. This is the last page that should be followed. Moreover, what is the purpose of having a "criticism" section if sooner of later, this section will be merged into the main body of the article? Is this not possible to do this now ? In addition, the mention of the parliamentary reports that I added in the article is not a criticism, but a fact that falls under to the "status" or "reception" issues. For these reasons, I think it should be better to revert your change. But feel free to add criticisms about beliefs or practices in the article if you have sources. Regards (sorry for my bad English), -- Europe22 (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; however, I have critical remarks regarding most of the text in this article. Do you mean that I add "my" criticisms (ofcourse, with references) after each of the corresponding line in the text, with the word "however" or something similar? Will this be easy to read? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.94.198 (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Franckly, I don't know, and I'm not familiar with the subject... For my part, I think it should be better to expand the "reception" section, as criticisms can be considered as part of the reception of the movement. Yes, it's probably a bit hypocritical because only the title of the section will be changed ("criticism" => "reception"), not its content... -- Europe22 (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The reception section should present both positive and negative reception of the organization - again as cited from reliable, verifiable sources - placing criticism in an isolated section can be construed as an attempt to advance one's own personal opinion/agenda. I have moved the community service recognitions from the Status section into the Reception section, as it seems more appropriate to be placed there Mbhowareyou (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Unverifiable, Unreliable Information PostedEdit

A great deal of mis-information and info from questionable sources from an unregistered user have been posted to the first paragraph of this article as follows:

  1. Yoshikazu Okada never served as the head of a branch of Sekai Kyūseikyō - removed
  2. Information about the "succession dispute" of the organization is already documented in the Mahikari article. It is redundant here - link provided to this portion of the article and clarification added that SM name arose out of the succession dispute
  3. Membership is 1 million. The reference of 490,000 was posted 4 years ago (2006) and is therefore out of date. - outdated reference removed
  4. The "William Sanborn Pfeiffer" article cannot be accessed - unverifiable information removed
  5. Other citations in this paragraph are not from reliable sources of information (i.e. personal or unidentifiable web pages) and have therefore been removed.

In the future, please post information only when it can reference reliable sources of information. As these changes are being made by unregistered users, this article may need a request for change protection Mbhowareyou (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

All the references are verifiable. The references were second hand, published in reputed journals rather than your "sukyo-mahikari" website reference propoganda material. Please revert the edits, or I am going to put this article in NPOV dispute: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.153.103 (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


I can't comment on all of the sourcing issues. But one obvious issue is the membership. If we have sources for different values we should give them all, not just the most recent. NPOV requires we include all significant points of view, not just the official one. Or, as the great American philosoper Yogi Berra once said, "when you come to a fork in the road, take it."
As for the Pfeiffer article, it's published in a journal that is held by over a thousand libraries.[2] It's also available online for a fee. That's more than enough availability to allow readers to verify it.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


1. Yoshikazu Okada never served as the head of a branch of Sekai Kyūseikyō - removed

How do you know that he was NOT a member of SKK? Furnish proof please; all references are welcome.

2. Information about the "succession dispute" of the organization is already documented in the Mahikari article. It is redundant here - link provided to this portion of the article and clarification added that SM name arose out of the succession dispute

I think a brief history here might be relevant.

3. Membership is 1 million. The reference of 490,000 was posted 4 years ago (2006) and is therefore out of date. - outdated reference removed

Is it 1 million or 1.05 million? Did you make the statistics yourself? Did you take into account those who left Mahikari? The attiration rate is high as has been stated in the references. All other references and proof in this regard are welcome (try not to use ONLY sukyo mahikari website info)

4. The "William Sanborn Pfeiffer" article cannot be accessed - unverifiable information removed

As commented by user: Will Beback; you need to access this article via a library or pay for getting this article.

5. Other citations in this paragraph are not from reliable sources of information (i.e. personal or unidentifiable web pages) and have therefore been removed.

If "Establishment of a National Learning Institute for the Dissemination of Research on Shinto and Japanese Culture" of Kokugakuin University is not a reliable source of information, I do not know what could be a reliable source of info. Perhaps, you mean that the ONLY reference that can be used here is the "reliable" SM website?. Dexter73 (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

  • For #1, info should only be posted on the article if it is verifiable. Proof should be furnished that something IS true - not whether it is NOT true.
  • Citation #1 references a different mahikari organization (Sekai Mahikari Bunmei Kyōdan). Any info on the history of the Mahikari organization should be referenced in the appropriate Mahikari article. Repeating it here is redundant and requires multiple sources of info to be updated if there are changes. Reciting "brief history" is not relevant, as there are enough links to the centralized source of historical info contained in this article
  • Citation #2 links to a web page that anyone could have posted - there is no indication of any reliable source whatsoever. Try not to use ONLY unrelaible, outdated info
  • For #3, what is posted is a blatant misrepresentation of the membership of SM. Not only does it refer to information posted 4 YEARS AGO, it is being presented in a way that makes it seem that this is current info. If you wish to keep this info on the article, it needs to be clearly stated that the figure cited if from 4 years ago.
  • For #4, I moved this info to the "Reception" section, as it is not appropriate to be placed there, instead of a section that is intended to provide an overview of the organization.

Any future attempt to blatantly misrepresent old information as current will be reported to Wikipedia adminstrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbhowareyou (talkcontribs) 15:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

1. For #1, info should only be posted on the article if it is verifiable. Proof should be furnished that something IS true - not whether it is NOT true.

There are several references to the fact that Okada was a memeber of SKK. If you have claims otherwise, please furnish them, and include in the text. You are welcome.

2. Citation #1 references a different mahikari organization (Sekai Mahikari Bunmei Kyōdan). Any info on the history of the Mahikari organization should be referenced in the appropriate Mahikari article. Repeating it here is redundant and requires multiple sources of info to be updated if there are changes. Reciting "brief history" is not relevant, as there are enough links to the centralized source of historical info contained in this article

I agree, but there should not be any attempt in future to state that Sukyo Mahikari was established in 1959.

Both Mahikari organizations share the same lineage - therefore both organizations claim that they started in 1959, and both are correct. The succession dispute merely resulted in the two organizations going their separate ways Mbhowareyou (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

3. For #3, what is posted is a blatant misrepresentation of the membership of SM. Not only does it refer to information posted 4 YEARS AGO, it is being presented in a way that makes it seem that this is current info. If you wish to keep this info on the article, it needs to be clearly stated that the figure cited if from 4 years ago.

Agreed, I have incuded the date

Dexter73 (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation #2 links to a web page that anyone could have posted - there is no indication of any reliable source whatsoever. Try not to use ONLY unrelaible, outdated info

You can contact the editors at http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/ which is part of the ELMAR (Electronic Media and Religions) initiative of the Division of Religion and Philosophy at the University of Cumbria. emails are provided.

Dexter73 (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Both Mahikari organizations share the same lineage - therefore both organizations claim that they started in 1959, and both are correct. The succession dispute merely resulted in the two organizations going their separate ways Mbhowareyou (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Its no more correct than a granddaughter--aged 8 year--claims pension rights because her grandfather is 70 years old! What she can, however, claim/boast is a "known" family lineage of 2 generations. Dexter73 (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable un-verifiable propoganda material cum claimsEdit

In August 2004, Los Angeles mayor James Hahn presented Sukyo Mahikari of North America with a proclamation commending the organization for its efforts in helping to create a peaceful and harmonious society.[22] In September 2009, Mayor Mufi Hannemann of Honolulu presented Sukyo Mahikari with a certificate declaring that September 27 will be Sukyo Mahikari Day in Honolulu in recognition of beach and park cleanup activities that the organization has conducted there over the past ten years.[23]

All of them refer to sukyo-mahikari websites, with which I do have a problem. Please provide independently verifiable material as well, since sukyo websites need not be trust-worthy, and may claim anything for propaganda reasons. Actual facts need to be established and corroborated, instead of relying on non-trustworthy sources. Failing to do so, they will be removed. Dexter73 (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

the organization's site clearly links to external sources of information, including the ACTUAL COPY of the certificate presented by Mayor Mufi Hannemann.

Due to the out of control, blatant and continued attempt to post unverified, second-hand claims, to remove or continuously edit other verifiable information which demonstrates a clear attempt to push the personal agenda of a single contributor, a request for page protection has been submitted for this article. It is completely apprioriate, as this is an article about the organization, to post what the organization claims and to use its website as a verifiable source of those claims. It is clear that current contributors to the article are not seeing eye-to-eye on what constitutes as a reilable source. Mbhowareyou (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

the organization's site clearly links to external sources of information, including the ACTUAL COPY of the certificate presented by Mayor Mufi Hannemann.

You are welcome to post the corresponding (external) link by yourself in the wikipedia section. This makes life easier for those who want to verify the claim/claims.

It is completely apprioriate, as this is an article about the organization, to post what the organization claims and to use its website as a verifiable source of those claims

You can use the sukyo-mahikari website as a resource, but claims by the organization (that can be verified) should be verifiable by third-party sources. A claim by the organization as claimed in their website is not a verifiable claim (circular reasoning) Dexter73 (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That is why statements such as "organization x CLAIMS THAT..." are used. Using the 'citation needed' brackets in this case is inappropriate. It is appropriate to state that the organization claims that membership is 1 million and operates in over 70 countries, then to cite the organization's website as a source of that claim. Of course, third-party verification lends greater credibility to the claim - making it more of actual fact than a claim. Mbhowareyou (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Then, please add explicitly that these are "claims" Dexter73 (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I came here because of a note an editor left on the NRM project's talk page. Please note the restrictions applying to the use of self-published sources, per WP:SELFPUB:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Any material in the article based on self-published sources that is not in line with the above should be removed. SELFPUB is part of WP:V policy. The primary aim of the article should be to reflect coverage in secondary sources. --JN466 01:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of Referenced SourcesEdit

This section is being set aside to curtail further edit warring and encourage good-faith discussions in regard to each and every source of information currently being referenced on this article. Each source should be listed once, then evidence provided, referring only to the actual Wikipedia policies for verifiability, no original research, for that source. Follow-up discussions for each source will then help to definitevely decide whether a source should continue to exist in the article as a reliable source. Alerts have been added to the top of the article to indicate that the sources and info presented in the article are currently in dispute. These alerts will be removed when, and only when, a consensus has been arrived on including or excluding sources Mbhowareyou (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In regard to what constitutes a 'reliable source' it is worth mentioning the following here, which is taken directly from the Wikipedia policy of verifiability:

‘Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made’

Based on the policy stated above, the info referenced in the article Encyclopedia of Shinto contains no published sources - all claims posted on the 'Sekai Mahikari Bunmei Kyōdan' page [1] and 'Sukyo Mahikari' page [2] do not contain references to published sources and are therefore not verifiable. For example, there is no information on the site that explains where the 490,000 membership figure came from. Because of this, I believe that references to this information should be removed from the article entirely. As a general rule, any third-party information included on the article that does not include published sources should be immediately removed. Furthermore, any attempt to revert this article to previous versions in order to restore what is known to be unpublished third-party information should be reported to Wikipedia administrators. Mbhowareyou (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Under the pretext of changing one statement, you remove lot of materials, which is not acceptable. You have started this section, so list all your concerns and discuss first before removing or starting to adjust things. As I said before, I do not have any objection to " your" references that as well includes propoganda material, but some references for your claim (which still has not been done) needs to be done. If you have concerns over some of the references, then we should discuss it. The shinto encyclopedia has several experts in eastern relegion, so it is not wrong to refer them. WIKIPEDIA:SOURCES

You removed several citations I added to published material - I reverted this info and noted the change as vandalism. I have reverted the content back to the state where this published info is included.

" Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria" For example, see your own reference to some news article in connection with Sukyo Mahikaris achievements.

I found the 'Google Scholar' site and did a search, Encyclopedia of Shinto is present in the resutls. In the event that different published sources make different statements (specifically in this case in regard to when the organization started - 1959 or 1978), it is important to express both viewpoints in a neutral point of view.

Originally founded by Yoshikazu Okada in 1959 under the name L.H. Yokoshi Tomo no Kai [3][4], the organization's name was changed to Sukyo Mahikari was registered on 23 June 1978 by Keishu Okada after a succession dispute[5].

Not true. Even legally, Sukyo Mahikari is a separate and independent of the original organization (SMBK). What you write implies that the original organization, somehow changed its name and registered itself as sukyo-mahikari, which is a blatant lie. Legally, SM is not even allowed to use several symbols of SMBK. You continue to insist this falsification and so I am putting this article under NPOV. Dexter73 (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this phrase needs more work. It would be blatant falsification to claim that either SMBK or SM is somehow a "splinter" organization, or to say that one of them is the 'true' Mahikari. This is the main reason I suggest that this article reference the Mahikari article for historical info - then this info can be challenged in one place and we can have a definitive source. I think a decision should be made to either expand the History section of this article and remove references to the Mahkari article, or include the reference and remove it from the SM article. If we decide to refer to the Mahikari article, I recommens the phrase you quoted to be removed entirely from this article. Mbhowareyou (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like the Encyclopedia of Shinto is the online version of this book. At first sight, this seems like an excellent scholarly source, precisely the sort of source that we should be citing. --JN466 02:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Independent sources of information were obtained for the organization's current membership of 1 million. Additional independent references are welcome. Additionally, the second sentence of the first paragraph was updated to remove the mis-statement that implied the original organization somehow changed its name and registered itself as sukyo-mahikari.Mbhowareyou (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Major VandalismEdit

Very sad to note that vandalism has resulted in this wiki being a propaganda material for Sukyo Mahikari. Even quotes from peer-reviewed materials have been replaced! I think we should delete the whole article and put just one pointer to the SM official website. I am really fed-up. There is no point in having this article at all. Do all of you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter73 (talkcontribs) 22:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

MembershipEdit

"n 2006, membership was reported to be close to 490,000,[6] but the organization has expanded to a current membership of one million" Does this include both active as well as dysfunctional members? How was the number arrived at? Do we have peer-reviewed data on the membership? If no one has this information, I will include it as "claims by the organization" Dexter73 (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Monumental SwindleEdit

This was an observation by the quoted organization. It is strange that there are no peer-reviewed membership statistics, and the person who has removed the sentence demands a peer-review of the quoted observation of an organization. Strange indeed. Are there are peer-reviewed claims of SM by the way? I would like to see them quoted as well. Dexter73 (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps my comment belongs here as opposed to below where I'd posted it. Regardless of the issue of peer review or not, the claim in "Bulles" that Sukyo Mahikari is a "monumental swindle" doesn't seem to belong on Wikipedia. If you take a look at the "source" here (http://www.prevensectes.com/mahikar3.htm) you'll see that it's an unsigned newsletter article with no sources cited to support it's point. I'm fine with something in a reputed journal that's critical of Mahikari being included but I can't imagine how anyone could look at that webpage and think the article was part of a "reputed journal". And membership numbers are not the same thing as criticism. Wikipedia takes most religious movement numbers at face value. But a criticism as scathing as this should at the very least be signed by the author and should be published somewhere more reputable than a newsletter/blog for it to be included in a Wikipedia article. How does one begin the process of finding consensus about the removal of "sources" that don't meet Wikipedia standards such as this one? Jedlev (talk) 06:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Since no one has, in the last two months, provided a counter-argument to the assertion that BULLES as an unsigned online newsletter does not meet Wikipedia standards, I've removed the claims associated with it. If you think it merits reinstatement, please comment here to explain why.Jedlev (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Removing sourced informationEdit

Using some newsletter article or meeting notes is not allowed in wikipedia. Dexter73 (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing sourced informationEdit

User logged from IP 58.7.176.41: please refrain from removing sentences without discussing first in this talk page. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free for use propaganda/advertisement webpage. Facts from reputed journals may be included, even though they may be incovenient truths to its followers. Sorry about that. You can refute them by adding well-sourced information yourself (not from Mahikari websites please!), but you cannot delete or try to suppress information in this domain. Dexter73 (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dexter73, I believe you might be referring to the publication Bulles in regards to its claim that Sukyo Mahikari is a "monumental swindle". I didn't delete that, but I do believe it should be removed. If you take a look at the "source" here (http://www.prevensectes.com/mahikar3.htm) you'll see that it's an unsigned newsletter article with no sources cited to support it's point. I'm fine with something in a reputed journal that's critical of Mahikari being included but I can't imagine how anyone could look at that webpage and think the article was part of a "reputed journal". How does one begin the process of finding consensus about the removal of "sources" that don't meet Wikipedia standards such as this one? Jedlev (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Use of term "claims"Edit

When referring to a religious organization's beliefs and teachings, the phrase "claims" is overly skeptical. I've checked other religious movement pages and found that none used the phrase "claims" to describe a religious organization's teachings or theology. I've gone through the beliefs section and changed the word "claims" to "teaches" or "believes" where necessary. In cases where an unverified claim was actually being made (such as the claim about number of members), I've left the phrasing as is. If I'm wrong and the phrase "claims" should apply here (but not on other similar religious pages) please help me understand why! Thanks!Jedlev (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Additional SourcesEdit

I recently read Religion and Cyberspace and Japanese New Religions, which are sources currently cited on this page, and will be making some edits based upon these books. For any questions about this content, please comment here. Orlivia (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Orlivia Added one sentence on natural farming from Japanese New Religions book.Orlivia (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Orlivia Added more content from previously cited sourceOrlivia (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Orlivia

not neutral opinionEdit

The article about mahikari is far from being neutral. It mixes and distorts some of their concepts with some ones pesonal interpretation regarding the topic. It´s not about agreeing or desagreeing with the contend, but pointing out the way it´s presented.

words like: a lot, many... show how are we adding to the facts our personal opinion. And this should not be happening in a wikipedia page.

Being neutral is really a challeging task. When we tell or write a fact, we tend also to include some of own values and personal views, but the purpose of wikipedia, as far, as I understand it, is to inform, leaving aside personal opinion. Religions are in fact very delicate topics. But being neutral should be the goal and if a page is incapable of it, whould be removed or re-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exs sky (talkcontribs) 18:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

edits 21st januaryEdit

Best to gather that information based on reliable sources and insert section on criticism. Per definition it is a new religion. Based on that definition there are a few orgs that are considered cults but the term cult is conflict burden on Wikipedia.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


Edit again because you are wrong!Edit

Mahikari is a real cult and listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_lists_of_cults_and_sects So you are wrong! N1gh7r4v3n (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Again with all due respect please rad the guidelines an get familiar with Wikipedia. If not I will have to report you for vandalism. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sukyo Mahikari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Return to "Sukyo Mahikari" page.