Wikipedia

Talk:Kenji Miyazawa/Archive 3

< Talk:Kenji Miyazawa
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

RfC: How should this be worded?

Latest comment: 9 years ago40 comments8 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus that membership of Kokuchukai should be mentioned in lede, nationalism should not be, and unclarity should not be. The scholarly disagreements about the latter can be gone into with more detail in the article body. --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a debate on the neutrality of the following sentence:

A devout believer in Nichiren Buddhism in the latter half of his life, he joined the Kokuchūkai, a Nichiren Buddhist organization with nationalistic leanings, though it is unclear for how long, and what influence (if any) this had on his life and work.

Should it remain the same, have "with nationalistic leanings" removed, have "Kenji rejected the Kokuchūkai's nationalistic views" added, or something else? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This phrase seems a bit WP:OR unless there is a source that specifically says that same thing. It's not appropriate to have such a vague statement for the introduction. If it is "unclear" what influence it had, if it had any at all, then most likely it had no substantial influence. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Propose close as premature. It is generally considered reasonable to gather sources before proposing an RfC, and that has rather transparently not been done here. Also, it is very much worth noting that the phrase "Kenji was not a nationalist" is completely unsourced in this context, and a rather transparent, if perhaps unconscious, attempt to lead the responses. And the phrasing of the RfC is rather problematic as well, as it does not give any degree of reasonable indication of what "something else" might be. If I might be blunt, this RfC shows a remarkable lack of thought and preparation, and reflects rather poorly on the person who made such a rush to file it. Lastly, of course, by policies and guidelines, we are supposed to, in general, consult the relevant sources before filing an RfC, and I do not see any obvious attempt to do that before this filing.John Carter (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: We had relevant sources (like the ones Ubikwit reposted below), and we consulted them. We only need a few relevant, reliable sources to support whatever position we support. We are not expected per any policy or guideline to search the span of space and time for any minutely relevant source before we can even file an RfC. The whole purpose of an RfC is to get outside input (they might bring sources we were unaware of/unable to access). I have removed the implicative sentence after reading it in retrospect. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
And the above comment is a part of your consistent pattern of behavior to indulge in what seem to be exclusively personal comments, in violation of WP:TPG, without actually doing anything productive. That is one of the reasons the ArbCom is still being considered. There seems to be an extremely consistent pattern of behavior for, basically, making at best dubious actions, and then attempting to blame others for those actions. Out of curiosity, can you please tell me how the above comment contribute to this RfC discussion? Also, for anyone wishing to review some of the material which was found by me in a way relevant to this discussion, which I was not necessarily anticipating having to review as quickly, partially because I wasn't thinking the protection would be as short as it has been, please see below. I am sorry certain editors seem to have never grasped the concept that things do not need to take place immediately around here, and that that pattern seems to be ongoing. I also note that there was no apparent attempt to make a reasonable effort to find all relevant sources, which I believe is probably something ArbCom will consider if I take my concerns to them.
@John Carter: That comment was an objection to your proposed close, and I have removed my personal comments. I don't appreciate you trying to undermine this RfC. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Note to anyone responding to this RfC: As I have implied above, I believe that there was inadequate preparation for this RfC. Please consult some of the sources listed below before casting an opinion. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Passages from two sources

According to the following sources, it appears that there was an influence, but that is the subject of academic debate. The following two sources describe some of the relevant points.

[1]
Tanaka Chigaku's Religious Nationalism
The first person to reenvision the establishment of the kaidan in a modern context was Tanaka Chigaku (1861-I93I) As a young man, Tanaka had abandoned his training for the priesthood of Nichirenshu, the chief denontination ofNicltiren Buddhism, to embark on a career of lecturing and proselytizing as a lay teacher.
What he advocated was not the traditional Nichiren Buddhism of temples and priests but "Nichirenshugi [Nichirenism]," a popularized, lay-oriented Nichiren doctrine applicable to contemporary social realities. In particular, he saw Nicltirenshugi as providing a spiritual basis for Japan as a modem state, and "the fusion of Dharma and nation" (hokoku myi5gi5) would be his lifelong concern. In 1881 Tanaka founded the Rengekai (Lotus Blossom Society) in Yokohama to propagate Nichirenshugi ideals. It was reorganized in 1885 as the Rissho Aulcokukai (after Nicltiren's Risshi5 ankoku ron) and again in 1914 as the Kokuchilkai, or "Pillar of the Nation Society"(after Nicltiren's words, "I will be the pillar of Japan")…The literary figure Takayama Chogyu (1871-1902} and the poet Miyazawa Kenji (1896-1933} were drawn to Tanaka for a time, though they would ultimately reject his nationalistic views.
[2]
What is worse is that there is a tendency in scholarship on Kenji’s religious outlook to omit and gloss over Kenji’s specific ties to Nichiren Buddhism. Instead of creating a rounded understanding of Kenji’s faith, these scholars have promoted a view that Kenji’s faith was that of a “relationship” with a “timeless dehistoricized Buddhism,” as Iguchi has keenly observed (2006, 135). This general consensus has negatively shaped the reception of Kenji’s works as being generically Buddhist or generically religious, and, like Iguchi, I would argue it is deleterious to our understanding of Kenji’s works. For years, it has been far more politically correct to say Kenji created his own faith rather than try to examine how Kenji, a devout believer in the Lotus Sutra and, most likely, a lifelong Kokuchūkai practitioner of the faith, could write a story like Ginga tetsudō no yoru and how the story might then express those specific beliefs. Thus, the story sometimes has been taken to reflect the author’s “syncretic” view of religion even though he had not frequented Christian churches since he was an elementary school student, far from the time in the late 1920s and 1930s when he was writing the story. One can trace back the origins of this bias by looking at the influence Horio has had on the 1964 zenshū (mkdz) and all subsequent editions. In mkz, the editors make such a claim, asserting Kenji quickly moved on from his “fanatic” phase after 1921.10 This claim is noticeably toned down from a statement originally made in 1966 by Horio, who was an earlier zenshū editor:

[Kenji’s] faith remained steadfast in his life and he did continue to create works of Lotus literature, but as for his involvement with the Kokuchūkai, after his initial joining [in 1920] it gradually changed and cooled. He became critical [of it] but that never appeared on the surface [of his writing]. That was because the Kokuchūkai’s activities were becoming more focused on nationalism [kokutaishugi 国体主義] and they were carrying out a role in making the faith more fascist … Kenji remained a devoted believer in the Lotus Sutra, but separated himself from the Kokuchūkai and attempted to single-handedly create his own beliefs. (Horio 1991, 157)

Ueda Akira criticized Horio, pointing out that he offers no evidence whatsoever to support his claim that “Kenji separated himself from the Kokuchūkai and attempted to single-handedly create his own beliefs” (Ueda 1992, 633). Moreover, Ueda, through his research on the Kokuchūkai house organ, Heavenly Task People’s Gazette (Tengyō minpō 天業民報, hereafter htpg), finds that the Kokuchūkai did not become more fascistic over time, as one might infer from Horio’s description, but one does find that in the years of Kenji’s most enthusiastic and “fanatic” embrace of the organization the tabloid ran articles on the front page asserting the close relationship between Nichirenism and Japanese imperialist expansion. Ueda charged that Horio twisted the facts and overlooked evidence. “This is not the attitude,” Ueda writes, “one expects from a scholar of the humanities” (1992, 634). Despite Ueda’s complaint, even today there is a notable bias in research on Kenji’s works where mainstream scholars, following Horio’s lead, acknowledge yet do not explore the depth of Kenji’s ties to the Kokuchūkai.
The next month, on 18 July 1918, Kenji kept trying to persuade Hosaka to convert to the Kokuchūkai. Perhaps excusing his annoyingly persistent efforts or minimizing how much proselytizing Hosaka, as a new convert, would have to conduct, Kenji wrote that “For us, shakubuku is a very, very small part.” Shakubuku, or violent proselytizing, is one of the two methods that, according to chapter 2 of the Lotus Sutra, believers should use to spread its truth. As a member of Tanaka Chigaku’s nationalist Nichiren sect, the Kokuchūkai, Kenji was very familiar with the emphasis this lay Buddhist leader put on shakubuku as the only true method of spreading the faith in twentieth-century Japan, in an age of degraded Buddhism or Mappō.


--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ubikwit: As I explained to you above, the second article you quote can't possibly be used to support the status quo of this article's lede, since it specifically states that the view that it had an influence on his writings is a minority, WP:FRINGE view. I am not biased toward fringe views. Holt, Iguchi and Ueda might well be right and history might vindicate them at some point down the line. But Wikipedia should not be claiming that just because three or four scholars, two of whom don't appear to publish in Japanese and another one of whom appears to have a religious bias, have disagreed with the consensus viewpoint, it doesn't mean we should be saying it "isn't clear" in the lede of our biography of Kenji. Even in the quote you provide, Holt states the consensus view, calling it a "bias" on the part of the majority of scholars. Fringe theories might get a sentence or two, balanced against the more mainstream view, further down the article, or they can be relegated to the articles on their proponents.
As for the Stone quotation: please stop and consider what any of that has to do with Miyazawa Kenji. If you want to cite Stone in our Tanaka Chigaku article for the claim that he was a nationalist: fire ahead; I won't stop you. But Stone mentions Kenji, the subject of this article, in exactly one short sentence, and it's the same sentence she says that, although the group was nationalistic, Kenji rejected the group's nationalistic views. She can't possibly be cited for a sentence that implies Kenji was a nationalist.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: I don't have a strong view on the "nationalism" issue as I am not well-versed on the subject of the article. However, it would appear that you have conveniently omitted a key term from the Stone statement:
they would ultimately reject his nationalistic views.
Though Stone does not examine the influence the group had on Miyazawa's writing, as Holt attempts to do with respect to one of the author's "major works", that doesn't mean there wasn't an influence. I don't see any specific statements calling into question the significance of the group, or even a source for the statement, "Some theorize that he left the Kokuchūkai on his return to Hanamaki". The significance of nationalism overall (vis-a-vis membership in the group) is even less clear, so I stated earlier that it might be sufficient only to mention his membership in the group in the lead, and describe what sources have to say regarding the impact of that in the body of the article, be it related to nationalism, "Nichirenshugi", Nichirenshu, Christianity, syncretism or whatnot.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Ubikwit's call. Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ubikwit, Nishidani: I interpreted the quoted clause (Ubikwit's emphasis, not Stone's, mind you) as saying that while Kenji was attracted to Tanaka's views on the Lotus Sutra and lay Buddhist practice, he had no interest in nationalism, and once he realized the group was nationalist he distanced himself from them. This interpretation is in accordance with the other sources and the rest of Stone's article. While your interpretation is possible, it doesn't jive with what Holt states as the consensus view that he didn't care about nationalism. Also, regarding the supposed lack of sources for some theorize that he left the Kokuchukai on his return to Hanamaki: why would you not be able to find a source, when I very clearly included the source in my edit as inline citation at the end of that sentence. The exact wording used by the source is 賢治は、帰郷してから国柱会とは遠ざかったという説をなすものがいる. If you want to change "left" to "grew estranged from" to be closer to the source's 遠ざかった, fire ahead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It is also worth noting that according to one of the sources Miyazawa's interest in Kokuchukai cooled as it became more nationalist. That leaves open the question as to whether he was in primary agreement with it when it was in its earlier stages, and less nationalist, but still, apparently, significantly nationalist. If he was in support of Kokuchukai's early, less-overwhelmingly-nationalistic views, that would still, not unreasonably, qualify him as a nationalist, although of not as extreme a nature as Kokuchukai was in later years. However, that would not make him other than a nationalist, just not as extreme a nationalist as the group became later. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: That source is the quotation of Horio 1991, 157, in Holt 2014, 313. Holt radically rejected Horio's claims as having no basis in the primary sources. You also reject Horio's view. You now seem to opportunistically cherry-picking quotations that support your dubious interpretations of the other sources, even if none of the sources actually say what you want them to say. By the by, were you actually able to read Sturmgewehr's general reference encyclopedia quotes below, before you rejected them out of hand for being too old? Would you like translations? I was going to do the translations (which I unfortunately didn't specify to Sturmgewehr in our email correspondence) but now the Japanese quotes are there, so... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC) (Edited 02:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC) )
Regardless of this academic debate, it's really not appropriate to have such a vague statement in the introduction. It's very out of place. The intro does not need to summarize every single point in the article - it's an introduction, not a fifth-grade essay. And this point, as far as I can tell, is not really essential to who he was and why he was significant. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Possibly. However, the lede is supposed to at least summarize the content of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Right now, we have a roughly 19-20 paragraph article, of which 4 paragraphs are devoted to his religious beliefs. It is pretty much required that content roughly constituting 20% of the article be in some way discussed in the lede. It may be that the existing section has undue weight, either to much attention or too little attention. But the best way to determine that would be by reviewing all the relevant reference sources, encyclopedic and otherwise. Until that is done, however, we have to assume that the content as is is appropriate. So, barring discussion and consensus about changing the nature of the existing content, it would seem that at least the equivalent of one sentence in an at present two-paragraph lede deal with the roughly 20% of the content by paragraphs of the existing article. John Carter (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The sentence in question was based on SilkTork's attempt to summarize what one paragraph of the article looked like when he suggested it. The paragraph in question was unilaterally added by me, but I expressed concern at the time that it violated WEIGHT to be quoting a blatant fringe theory. No one at any time told me "don't worry -- it certainly belongs in the article". So I self-reverted last week, partly as a result of this dispute. The new wording in the body is by no means appropriately summarized by what is in the lede. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Really John Carter? You've said twice[3][4] that being in a nationalist group doesn't make Kenji a nationalist, and now you're saying that it does "qualify him as a nationalist"? You are truly a piece of work. And your "history of Asia" reference list that you're copy-pasting from external sources are either not in English or have to do with World War 2 and its aftermath, so I'd like to see just how many of these sources are remotely relevant to this discussion. The only source sofar provided that claims Kenji was a nationalist ends with, in paraphrase, "no one else in academia believes Kenji was a nationalist, but they're all wrong"; by definition WP:FRINGE. You are trying to keep the argument going for argument's sake. As you said earlier, stop beating a WP:DEADHORSE. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 16:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Sturmgewehr88: You are apparently by the above comment at best dubiously capable of rational discussion, as I see nothing in it which to my eyes would qualify as "rational". ::::First, the sources I added relate to Japan in general, and are considered by the American Library Association in their most recent list of reference works as among the most useful for reference purposes. That, in the eyes of most, would, presumably, probably include post World War II Japan, as it is, you guessed it, a part of the history of Japan. I acknowledge I haven't checked myself which discuss this matter, because it took some time to go through the list. Rather than raise completely irrelevant comments in a rather transparent attempt to impugn others, maybe you could actually do something useful, and maybe look for them yourself? Or is that to much of an effort to expect from you?
That being the case, your continued involvement in this discussion may be problematic. You seem intent on putting words in the mouths of others, in quotes no less, despite the fact that such words were not spoken by me. That is a gross violation of fundamental civility, but under the circumstances I have to say that is in no way a surprise. I thank you for providing an increasing amount of evidence which could be used against you should this matter be taken to ArbCom, as I am becoming increasingly convinced would be appropriate, but I am far from sure it is in your own interests to indulge in such behavior. And I also note your continued insistence in phrasing comments about the purported nationalism of the individual in a way which is completely unrelated to the content in question, which does not call him a nationalist, but says he was a member of a nationalist group. There are, whether you as an individual are capable of understanding this or not, gradations in most human opinions. If you are even remotely possible of doing something that would be truly productive and useful, now might be a good time to demonstrate that. John Carter (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: Uh, no. I expanded the lede for you and I started the RfC for you, but I will not look through your list of sources for you. You've proven to me that you're willing to complain about something but not willing to fix it yourself. I have in fact done twice now something "truly productive and useful", what have you done besides complain about policy/guideline violations here and at ANI?
"Such words were not spoken by me". I have difs, you definitely said that. Don't say things that can come back to bite. And I would love you to take this to ArbCom so we can bring some real attention to this issue.
My phrasing makes it unrelated? The sentence currently implies that he was a nationalist, which you just admitted, although you oppose balancing it because "we are in no way responsible for what editors may or may not conclude" (which violates WP:NPOV). Also, if you actually read WP:LEAD, it says "the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important points" (emphasis added). It does not say to summarize the entire article. I agree with User:Wikimandia, the lede now needs to be shortened. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
First, I apologize for not noting you actually did do something and I apologize for missing that. Beyond that, I can see no point in responding to comments which are clearly counterproductive, violations of talk page guidelines. Regarding taking this to ArbCom, we'll see on Thursday. Until then, honestly, I really don't see much of a purpose here. If you were to propose an alternative, by all means do so, but you seem insistent on refusing to do so. You have made no suggestions as to how to improve it, nor has Hijiri, and the lede does basically demand that everything be summarized in it, including the 20% of the article which relates to his religious beliefs. You also seem to believe that your view of implications takes priority over everything else, which I believe you will find, if you ask, is rather questionable, particularly if the material is otherwise in accord with other requirements. Now, if you can say that 20% of the existing content of the article contains no important points, well, then you clearly have objections to the content of the article. The appropriate way to deal with that would be through addressing it directly. If you wish to change it to something else, you are free to propose it. You have, however, pointedly refused to do so. That is a legitimate cause for concern, particularly since most of what you have said is fairly clearly in violation of WP:TPG, and, of course, ArbCom deals exclusively with problematic behavior, like violation of TPG. Swearing doesn't help, either. Like I said, wait until Thursday, because I'm kind of busy till then. But, also be aware that the request for ArbCom will be over all recent conduct by Hijiri88 primarily, and I rather tend to think that he would not like that. Regarding your sources below, you should realize this is the English wikipedia, and that it would be useful if you were to provide English text. Most people wouldn't need to be told that. I also believe it worth noting that the points of importance regarding other encyclopedic sources, which I welcome seeing, includes information on the length of the article, if it has any specific named sections, and so on, to provide an indication of the relative weight to be given in our article in terms of overall content. Again, most people wouldn't need to be told that. None of that is, of course, provided below, probably to the surprise of no one who has followed this conversation to date. John Carter (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: Thank you. But I have proposed alternatives, namely either we only mention he was a member of the Kokuchūkai in the lede and explain his relationship in the body, or say "Kenji was a member of the Kokuchūkai, a Nichiren Buddhist organization with nationalist leanings, however he rejected its nationalistic views". We currently have sources for both alternatives. And again, WP:LEAD literally says that the lede only summarizes the most important points. I do not object that his religious beliefs or his membership in the Kokuchūkai are important points; they should be mentioned in the lede. However, this "20% of the body = 20% of the lede" nonsense needs to stop. Also, what talk page guidelines do you think I've violated? And swearing? Seriously? The single instance of me swearing in this entire discussion was a "minor swear word" said out of frustration and not directed at anyone, much as you did. Stop being a hypocrite (at the very least) and we will get along better. Actually, we could coöperate better if you stopped viewing this as a war (me on Hijiri's "side", looking for excuses to get me blocked like the "possible copyright violation" and swearing). In fact, I want you to write down how you think the lede should be worded, and we can get to the body later. And yes this is enWP, but considering that the article is about a Japanese man, it would be common sense to think that the majority of relevant sources would be in Japanese. But since you can't read Japanese, I will see about getting a translation for you. As for weight, you'd have to ask Hijiri about that. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Other sources

Here are some Japanese encyclopedia entries:

Mypaedia, 1990:

"詩人，童話作家。岩手県生まれ。日蓮宗を信仰，[…]農民に対する深い愛情と，日蓮宗の信仰に基づく深い宇宙観に貫かれた浪漫的な作品を書いた。"

Obunsha's Encyclopedia Epoca, 1983: "また田中智学の国柱会に入信し，法華経への信仰を深めた。[…]法華文学の創作を志して[…]死期の迫ったのを悟るや「私の全生涯の仕事は此経典をあなたにおとどけして，その中にある仏意に触れて，あなたが無上道に入ることを」ということばを記した『法華経』１０００部を印刷して知友に分かつよう遺言して，３７年の生涯を閉じた。"

Encyclopedia Japonica, 1971: "彼は在学中から日蓮宗を信仰していたが、二〇年には日蓮主義の信仰団体の国柱会に入会翌年一月には無断上京して筆耕・校正で自活しながら街頭布教をおこなうかたわら、文芸による大乗仏教の布教を決意し、月に三〇〇〇枚に及ぶ原稿を書いたといわれる。"

Britannica International Encyclopaedia, 1975: "しかも、生家は熱心な真宗信者であったので、幼年（一九一四）に法華経を読んで以降は常に座右におくようになり、一九二〇（大正九）年には日蓮宗の信仰団体である国柱会（田中智学主宰）に入会した。そして、父母の改宗を熱望したが入れられず、父この対立は深まるばかりであった。[…]父母に無断で上京した。[…]筆耕た校正で自活し、街頭で国柱会の布教などをした。[…]国柱会の高知尾智耀から文芸による大乗仏教の普及をすすめられたことで、賢治の創作への情熱はかきたてられた。"

Encyclopaedia Heibonsha, 1985: "詩人，童話作家，農芸科学者，宗教思想家。[…]浄土真宗の濃密な信仰の中で育つ。1914年中学卒業，この年島地大等編《漢和対照妙法蓮華経》を読んで感動、終生熱烈な法華信者となる。20年ころから特に田中智学に傾倒、田中の主宰する国柱会に入会，父親にも日蓮宗への改宗を迫るが容れられず，21年1月無断出京，自活しつつ童話制作や布教活動に従事するが，8月に帰郷 "

Encyclopedia Nipponica, 1988:

"詩人、童話作家、農芸化学者。農村指導者、宗教思想家。[…]哲学書、宗教書を耽読するようになった。[…]この秋、島地大等編『漢和対照　妙法蓮華経』を読んで激しく感動[…]二〇年、田中智学の国柱会に入会、父にも改宗を迫るがいれられず、翌年一月に突如無断状況、[…]布教活動等に加わり、[…] "

And English encyclopedia entries:

Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan, 2002: "After a nine-month stay in Tokyo, during which he faithfully attended a Nichiren study group and wrote many children's stories, Miyazawa returned home to Iwate"

I'll add more later. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If those are the full length of the articles, then there are two real questions here. One of which is whether you have violated copyright, and that is something I have asked for input at over at WP:ANI. The age of the articles is also another concern, considering that the most recent one is 1990, 25 years ago. Academic views regarding such a recent topic can very easily change over that period. It is of course worth mentioning that many of those I linked to above and at the Bibliography of encyclopedias: history, and Bibliography of encyclopedias: general biographies, are more current, and would do a better job of indicating the current academic view of the topic, and that someone acting in good faith would almost certainly at least try to find information from them as well. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: Whoops, I left the year off of the English encyclopedia, so the most recent is only 13 years old (what was that about not being responsible for what editors conclude?). Actually, being "someone acting in good faith", I looked at your sources after I added these, and Kodansha was one of them. The above quote from Kodansha (which is not the whole entry) calls the Kokuchūkai (without mentioning its name) a "Nichiren study group" and says nothing about nationalism. Maybe based on this source that you added to the list of history encyclopedias we should remove any mention of the Kokuchūkai from the lede and shorten it in the body? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hijiri88 here. I checked all the encyclopedias in the Iwate University Library (i.e., one of the best places in the world to study up on Miyazawa Kenji) that I could find, and emailed the relevant quotations to Sturmgewehr (we were discussing this a bit by email, and I wanted his opinion on which parts to quote). They are not the full-length articles. The articles are all several hundred characters long. The quotes provided are those portions relevant to the current dispute -- a spattering of references here and there, uses of the word "Kokuchukai" with no reference whatsoever to nationalism, in a coupla cases referring to Tanaka Chigaku by name, but nowhere making any reference to the group's nationalist philosophy having any influence on his writings. A few of them talk about Kenji trying to spread the faith through "Lotus literature" (法華文学, hokke-bungaku), but that is as close as they get. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
And by the way -- they also had a lot of English-language encyclopedias, and the only one that had an entry on Kenji was the Kodansha Encylopedia of Japan, which should be clear enough indication that if a claim appears prominent in English works but is not backed up by Japanese scholarship, it is by definition fringe. And Japanese scholarship does not talk about Kenji's relationship with the Kokuchukai or with nationalism anywhere near as much as some Wikipedia editors would probably like, or anywhere near as much as would usually be considered necessary to include it in the lede. Another "encyclopedia-like" general biographical reference work (probably the most widely respected in western universities where Japanese literature is concerned) is Keene's Dawn to the West, which devotes nine pages to Kenji and the only passage that mentions the Kokuchukai was quoted in full here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, Mypaedia and Britannica International Encyclopaedia are widely available in Japanese electronic dictionaries, online, and so on. If someone wants to check these more recent editions of these works and say whether they have been "updated" to include a more thorough discussion of Kenji's nationalist views, they are free to do so. Kotobank has Mypaedia at least. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you all didn't think to check Google, though, apparently. This page search for "'Kenji Miyazawa' encyclopedia" shows quite a few results in the Books section of Google search, including at least one article in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature which deals with the subject specifically. I won't have access to that book for at least a few days, given work schedule, but it is a very recent work and I have every reason to believe that, although it will almost certainly be for our purposes biased, like most specialist reference sources are which are specific to a given topic other than biography, the subject of this article. But that, and a few sources I was sent through the Resource Exchange, are ones I am going to have to take a few days to get through. Under such circumstances, I think it is reasonable for those who have such to send the material to others, to let them see what all is included. I believe it would be very useful if the information Hijiri recovered and sent to Sturmgewehr were sent to the others involved, like Ubikwit, and myself, and maybe anyone else who takes part in the discussion here. John Carter (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: Well, it would be a little pointless to forward that email to everyone who's taken part in this discussion since I literally copy-pasted all of the relevant information above (the same information that you accused of being a copyright violation and outdated). Plus the last time I took the time to do something "pointless" you left a belittleing and dickish comment[5], so I'm very reluctant to try again. The only thing I left off is that Hijiri has access to the Iwate University library (which gives him better access to Kenji Miyazawa material than you or I have) and he found a "dictionary of Miyazawa Kenji" and that he'll look at it in detail later. Also, if you will have access to the Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature in a few days, please post any relevant quote from its entry on Kenji Miyazawa. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does Colligan-Taylor's article that John Carter toots up above just say exactly what John Carter said a few sections below "has to go"? She uses the word "Buddhist" once in her opening ("Through his writing we see how ... the Buddhist's sense of compassion ... can nurture attitudes rooted in “deep ecology” and promote the growth of a bioregional consciousness"), and doesn't refer to "Nichiren" or "Kokuchukai" anywhere! Why, User:John Carter, do you constantly insist on relying on "the sources" (meaning English sources you have access to but the rest of us have to work to see, rather than vice versa) and then totally ignore what those sources say when it is inconvenient for you? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It was suggested that the brief encyclopaedia excerpts placed here by Hijiri88 might have infringed copyright. I don't see any cause for concern: the excerpts were correctly wiki-formatted as quotes, and directly attributed to their respective sources; however, for absolute clarity, I have added quote marks to them. Thank you, John Carter, for keeping an eye open for copyright matters; if in doubt, it's always good to ask, as you did here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers: Why did you think I was the one who added the quotes? I looked up the quotes and emailed them to Sturmgewehr88 who posted them here. Additionally, the ANI thread was obviously inappropriate wikilawyering (he knew that they were select quotations rather than full articles, but failed to mention this fact on ANI) and the OP was trouted by Shii for his efforts, so I don't see why he should be thanked. Next time I open a spurious ANI thread in order to get a user I don't like in trouble for something they obviously didn't do can I get a thank you? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Does the RFC question need to be reformatted?

Last night, I removed the citation of Holt in the lede and moved it down to the religious views section so that we could summarize what Holt says on the issue rather than arbitrarily attaching it to the summary in the lede even though our summary is not what Holt says. Since the appropriateness of the inline citation in the lede was not under discussion I felt this was not inappropriate given the ongoing RFC, and Ubikwit apparently didn't disagree since they removed my tag but didn't re-add the citation. But they also removed all reference to "nationalism" and "influence" from the lede. Given that User:Dekimasu (who still hasn't weighed in...) and I still think that the word "Kokuchukai" should not be in the lede, and User:John Carter is probably still in favour of keeping the lede exactly as it was (or maybe they were only in favour of it because I was the one removing it?), and it's really not clear where User:Ubikwit stands given that the recent lede edit goes against what they have been saying on this page, I think keeping the RFC open one way or the other, but maybe reformat the question? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

My recent edit does not go against what I've been saying here. I added some observations below, but you commented here instead.
The full spectrum of views related to the influence of the Kokuchukai, etc., should be elaborated in the main body, unless others feel that the minimal description presently in the lead is insufficient.
It seems clear to me that the Kokuchukai should be mentioned in the lead.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ubikwit: If you're referring to this comment, it doesn't directly address your edit, but I am glad to see you no longer appear to be arguing for using the word "nationalist" in the lead. We can talk about whether the Kokuchukai should be named in the lead -- I still disagree with you on this point, since from what I've seen the majority of sources (in both English and Japanese) either don't name it or give it only the most blink-and-you-miss-it mention (and they don't have wikilinks for readers to click on and find out about how the group is nationalistic). But I'm happy you are not arguing about whether he was a nationalist. You appeared to be doing so previously, but I can see how that could have been a misunderstanding on my part (and User:Sturmgewehr88's?). Either way, though, the current RFC question is inappropriate, if you agree with me and Sturmgewehr that mentioning "nationalism" in the lead is not a good idea. How about Kenji was a member of the Kokuchukai. The Kokuchukai was a Nichiren Buddhist group with nationalistic leanings, but Kenji himself was not a nationalist. Sources generally refer to him as a "devout Buddhist". Should the Kokuchukai be named in the lead? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that wording would be too cumbersome for the lead, but I do think his affiliation with the group should be mentioned in the lead.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
That wording wasn't meant for the lead of the article. I'm talking about reformatting the RFC question. The current wording as formulated by Sturmgewehr a few days ago is focussed on whether "nationalism" should be mentioned in the lead, but if you are no longer arguing for that then that question can be taken as being resolved. As for whether the lead should name the Kokuchukai, I already know your answer, and having read the somewhat brief and potentially ambiguous remarks addressing the issue by User:Nishidani and User:Sturmgewehr88 below, I get the feeling that I might be on the losing side of that debate. But given that both of them were talking not about whether the Kokuchukai should be named and wikilinked in the lead but whether nationalism should be, I'd prefer direct statements to my own interpretations. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenji Miyazawa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenji_Miyazawa/Archive_3&oldid=1136871148"