Talk:Kenji Miyazawa

The following discussion 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.

---

"Nationalist"?

I removed the unqualified claim that he was a "nationalist" from the intro. One of the two sources cited was a 2006 PhD dissertation that was about about a religious and quasi-political ideology with which he was affiliated. The problem is that even though that source appears to be, in its brief coverage of the subject of this article, directly associating Kenji's politics with those of his co-religionists, it also specifies that hardly any other reliable sources make this connection. This means that the source is not sufficient for the claim that "Kenji Miyazawa was a nationalist"; it is sufficient for the statement "A minority of scholars have attributed nationalistic leanings to Miyazawa". The view is WP:FRINGE. I don't mean "fringe" in a derogatory sense. I just mean it is a view that is "not widely held among the academic community yet". Kenji scholars can duke this issue out in journal articles and scholarly books. If at some point the scholarly consensus becomes "Kenji was a nationalist" (i.e., a scholar makes the specific claim that this is the consensus view [通説, 定説, 通論, 定論] and is not called out by his/her peers) then we can add this statement to the article. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from deleting referenced sources. He was also a member of Kokuchūkai.--Catflap08 (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

If this is going to elevate I should admit outright that I am this user. I'm editing logged out for reasons.

The reliable sources all state that he was a member of a religious group. I've read numerous books and articles that state he adhered strongly to the religious views of this group. None of them mentioned the politics of the group, or hinted that he himself shared the political views of the group's leaders. The only source that does imply he shared these views also admits openly that this is a minority view.

126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) Why did you revert me again without trying to discuss here first?[1] WP:BURDEN says that the burden is on the party wishing to add information to the article that to find source that specifically support said information. I provided a coherent argument that your sources do not support your claim but in fact contradict your claim. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Follow the procedure so far you deletion is nothing else than a private opinion. --Catflap08 (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, per WP:BURDEN: please provide a source that actually supports the claim you are trying to add to the article. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, since I'm arguing that "he was a nationalist" is a minority view and so it is inappropriate to make this claim per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, I would draw your attention to WP:TERTIARY: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. I wonder if you can find a reliably published encyclopedia or similar whose article on Miyazawa Kenji states "Miyazawa Kenji was a nationalist"? 126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It turns out not only WP:BURDEN but WP:BRD is also on my side here. This claim was unilaterally and boldly added to the article by Catflap08 in January, challenged by another user (not me) in April before being re-added again, without justification, by Catflap08.[2][3][4] Since the default position should be "leave it out", I'm going to remove the claim again, and if Catflap08 attempts to re-add it without discussing here, I will take it as an indication that he/she is unwilling to use the talk page and our dispute will need to go to WP:FTN or WP:ANEW. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

already brought the case to the attention of admins ... mentioning both your names--Catflap08 (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean you posted on a semi-protected noticeboard so I would be unable to respond without logging in. Please read WP:SHOOTFIRST. I have been trying to discuss this content dispute with you on this talk page, but you jumped ahead and complained about me to the admin corps without making any attempt to use the talk page. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Third Opinion

This figure was a member of the religio-political group Kokuchūkai, which was founded by the nationalist Chigaku Tanaka. Very few sources independently refer to Kenji as a nationalist. Should the article refer to him as a nationalist? 182.249.240.43 (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I hid Catflap's initial, biased OP as a WP:COMMENT as it didn't meet the neutrality requirement of WP:RFC and apparently misled a couple of other participants who don't appear to have read my remarks below. 182.249.240.43 (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

126 reply detailing coverage of the subject in relation to nationalism in reliable and semi-reliable sources.

So what you're saying, Catflap, is that we should claim "Kenji Miyazawa was a nationalist" without even citing a source? Almost no reliable sources actually say he was a nationalist. They say he was a devout follower of Nichiren Buddhism. Other reliable sources state that the founder of the particular religious group was a nationalist, that the group had nationalistic leanings, etc. But this is equivalent to adding the phrase "She is an opponent of gay marriage" to the article on Nicole Kidman because the leader of her religious group holds that view. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC) Since this subject is notable exclusively as a writer I added the "media, the arts, and architecture" topic to this RfC, and since the present dispute is based entirely on his religious affiliation I added the religion topic as well. Since your assertion is about his political views the politics topic was also added. Also, I should point out the following noteworthy data regarding the classification of Kenji as a "nationalist": For morphological reasons every possible Japanese word for "nationalist" (noun referring to a person) is derived from one of the root words meaning "nationalism". Since some sources might refer to him as, for instance, "nationalistic" or following a group that is associated with "nationalism", I decided to search only for the words in their simplest form. I then looked up the word "nationalism" in the English-Japanese dictionary Genius Ei-Wa Daijiten (Konishi and Minamide, Taishukan, 2001-2004). There were four words that could be taken as referring to the political ideology (主義, shugi) of nationalism (as opposed to words describing artistic movements or psychological tendencies): kokka-shugi, minzoku-shugi, kokusui-shugi and aikoku-shugi. I then examined the search results on Google Books, general Google search for specifically the Miyazawa Kenji Memorial Museum website, and general Google search for Japanese university domain-names. My search was slightly complicated by Kenji's surname being written two different ways in Japanese (宮沢/宮澤). This is why every possible combination has two links given. I focused on Japanese-language sources because somewhere between 90% and 99.99% of Kenji scholarship is in Japanese and has never been (will never be) translated. Therefore, if there is ever a claim made about Kenji in English-language source that is not backed up by Japanese-language scholarship, it is by definition WP:FRINGE. I also notice that User:Catflap08's user page boasts of speaking German, English and some French, but not Japanese. This makes it very difficult for this user to analyze mainstream scholarship on this topic. Please also bear in mind that these results are the ones that happen to include one or more of words for "nationalism" somewhere in the same book/webpage as the name "Miyazawa Kenji". The results almost certainly include a plurality of sources that say "Miyazawa Kenji was not a nationalist and here's why", "Tanaka Chigaku was nationalist ... [100 pages later] ... poet and children's author Miyazawa Kenji found Chigaku's religious views compelling" or, like Catflap08's source, "I think Miyazawa Kenji was a nationalist, but as of yet no one else agrees with me". The results that include one or more of the words for "nationalism" are also partly (mostly?) multiplied unduly, because of sources that use more than one of these words being counted twice, three times or four times. Mentions of "nationalism" on the official Miyazawa Kenji Memorial Museum website: kokka-shugi (0); minzoku-shugi (0); kokusui-shugi (0); aikoku-shugi (0) Books mentioning Miyazawa Kenji: 171,000 + 56,900 = 227,900 Books mentioning Miyazawa Kenji and nationalism (kokka-shugi): 380 + 157 = 537 Books mentioning Miyazawa Kenji and nationalism (minzoku-shugi): 132 + 23 = 155 Books mentioning Miyazawa Kenji and nationalism (kokusui-shugi): 129 + 25 = 154 Books mentioning Miyazawa Kenji and nationalism (aikoku-shugi): 53 + 3 = 56 Total number of books mentioning Miyazawa Kenji and nationalism: 537 + 155 + 154 + 56 = 902 Proportion of books mentioning Miyazawa Kenji that also mention nationalism: 902/227,900 = 0.4% Japanese university-domain webpages mentioning Miyazawa Kenji: 22,200 + 5,800 = 28,000 Japanese university-domain webpages mentioning Miyazawa Kenji and nationalism (kokka-shugi): 279 + 82 = 361 Japanese university-domain webpages mentioning Miyazawa Kenji and nationalism (minzoku-shugi): 499 + 75 = 574 Japanese university-domain webpages mentioning Miyazawa Kenji and nationalism (kokusui-shugi): 70 + 18 = 88 Japanese university-domain websites mentioning Miyazawa Kenji and nationalism (aikoku-shugi): 107 + 10 = 117 Total number of Japanese university-domain websites mentioning Miyazawa Kenji and nationalism: 361 + 574 + 88 + 117 = 1,140 Proportion of Japanese university-domain websites mentioning Miyazawa Kenji that also mention nationalism: 1,140/28,000 = 4.1% So yeah, virtually all reliable/semi-reliable sources mentioning/discussing the subject of this article make no mention whatsoever of nationalism of any kind. "Miyazawa Kenji was a nationalist" is a fringe theory, as Catflap08's source actually admits. Ball's in your court, Catflap. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• The balance of the evidence suggests that characterizing Kenji as a nationalist is not supported by a majority of reliable sources. At this point, omitting the characterization may be the most prudent course of action. Factchecker25 (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokuch%C5%ABkai and the article on the founder seems to confirm the group has 'nationalist tendencies' to some degree. I guess the question is if it is helpful to include this or if there is a good reason? I don't think you could say "..is a nationalist', but if it fit, you could allude "was a member of Kokuchu-kai, a group observed as being nationalist" or ..with a renowned Nationalist leader. It does seem like there would have to be some correlation with his personal leanings and the group he joined, as it is different than just working for a company. Joining a religious organization of that sort is implying there is at least some interest in the behavior or beliefs. Prasangika37 (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

If he was a confirmed member of the organization, then you can say so uncontroversially. As to whether it was "nationalist" is a discussion for that article, not this one. At any rate, back in those days, nationalism was hardly exceptional. Teply (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@User:Teply The article already does say he was a member of the group. Thing is, the group is arguably best-known as the religious group of which he was part. And he himself was almost certainly not a nationalist. Almost no reliable sources discussing him (including the group's official website's article on him) refer to him as sharing the nationalistic views of the group's founder.

@User:Prasangika37 Please read WP:NOTSOURCE before citing other Wikipedia articles to solve a dispute on this (currently much better) Wikipedia article. One of those articles was written in its entirety by Catflap based entirely on sources discussing Japanese nationalism during World War II, as discussed on the relevant talk page. Anyway, you could repeat my earlier Google experiment with "nationalism" "replaced with "Kokuchūkai" and find that almost all reliable sources discussing Kenji also mention that he was a member of the group, but almost never refer to either him or the group as nationalist.

126.0.96.220 (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree Not enough support in third-party, reliable sources to support this characterization. -The Gnome (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay yes I see this is quite clear now. Seems to be a single user's opinion as opposed to something that is validly sourced or established. Prasangika37 (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• No - Do not refer to Kenji as a nationalist. At first glance, I'm having trouble seeing any sources which uses this adjective in relation to Kenji. I'm happy to change to mind if anyone wants to point to an RS for me. NickCT (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
• Not a Nationalist After spending a great deal of time looking at Japanese references to Miyazawa, I come to the same conclusion as the IP editor above. Simple membership of a group does not mean one agrees with the views of a group's leader. Unions, trade guilds, etc all have members of dissociative views, the leader of the AFL-CIO is a declared Communist, that doesn't make every union member a communist as well. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 00:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose "nationalist" characterization Not enough sources claim otherwise. --Iamozy (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• Closing because it's pretty clear there's a consensus. I suggest moving on to more interesting content. I came here intending to start the Matasaburo of the Wind, but I see someone else has already gotten it going in the last few weeks. Maybe some of the people here would like to work on Vegetarian Great Festival or The Dragon and the Poet. "どっどどどどうど どどうど どどう" Teply (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2014 (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.

Kokuchūkai

Sorry to say that, but to say that he was a ‚devout‘ Buddhist might sound fluffy and cuddly in a Western perspective, but he was a member of Kokuchūkai which should be mentioned. He was no registered member of any traditional Buddhist temple, even within Nichiren Buddhism. Him being a member of Kokuchūkai is part of his biography to call him therefore a devout Buddhist is itself farfetched. --Catflap08 (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what fluffiness has to do with it. His connections to Kokuchūkai are dealt with after the lede; unless you are going to explain in the lede what Kokuchūkai is, that would make the lede opaque to most readers. "The poet Miyazawa Kenji (1896-1933) was an early twentieth-century Japanese modernist who today is known worldwide for his poetry and stories as well as his devotion to Buddhism", "the renowned Buddhist author, Miyazawa Kenji", "Among the possible interpretations of Ginga tetsudō no yoru, one must consider that it is an expression of the author’s Nichiren Buddhist beliefs, which he long held and explicitly articulated elsewhere in other works and correspondence. Reframing both the scholarship on Kenji’s ties to the prominent prewar Nichiren organization, the Kokuchūkai, and the research on Kenji’s close friendship with Hosaka Kanai, I demonstrate how the salvation that the protagonist Giovanni finds in the story is shaped by the teachings of Nichiren Buddhism.", "Poet and Buddhist agro-revolutionary, a devout Buddhist", "This and his strong Buddhist faith drove Kenji to spend most of his brief life in a passionate struggle to improve the lot of the poor farmers there". This is from a few minutes on just English-language sites. Dekimasuよ! 06:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The term ‘Kokuchūkai’ has an interwiki link. The average reader should be allowed the intelligence to press that link and find out what Kokuchūkai is all about. Traditionally in Japan one would be expected to be registered with a temple when called a Buddhist. Kokuchūkai is a lay organisation, not affiliated to any Buddhist school and with a dubious nationalist agenda - why is that a problem to mention?--Catflap08 (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@ Hijiri88 Why should it be poking to mention in the introduction a fact that the main text elaborates on? I find your edit itself to be POV as it seems you do not like that fact to be mentioned. He is no more mentioned as a Nationalist but member of Kokuchūkai. Seems like whitewashing his biography.--Catflap08 (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

<EDIT CONFLICT> Because the sources that merely summarize the facts briefly (as our lead should) and even many that go into further detail don't even mention the organization. They simply refer to him as a devout follower of Nichiren Buddhism. You removed all reference in the Kokuchūkai article to the balance problems in that article, then wikilinked to it in the lead of this article. Your comments immediately above this one make it clear that that was your intent, and they also make clear why. You want this article to come as close as possible to saying "he was a nationalist" as it can. You have been engaged in a slow motion edit war on this topic for more than a year, and you have come up against unanimous opposition in this edit war from at least nine other users (possibly more including one user who commented on the inappropriateness of your behaviour without remark on the content and another whose view on the content was ambivalent). This type of disruptive, IDHT behaviour has gotten other users TBANned/blocked. You clearly are not interested in the topic of Miyazawa Kenji -- if you were, you would have read one of the hundreds of sources that refer to him as a devout Buddhist without any reference to nationalism, sometimes without even naming the Kokuchūkai -- so why not just move on to something else? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Even in the foreword to „The dragon and the Poet“ his Kokuchūkai‎ membership is mentioned. Its not my fault that Kokuchūkai‎ is what it is.--Catflap08 (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Which translation? And why not read a biography of the man, or his entry in one of the histories of Japanese literature, or some such? Anyway, don't close a comment addressed to another user with a question and then some time later tag more commentary on to it. I was already done answering your question (beginning with "Because") before you wrote the above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I can not see what you are doing at the same time as I do. Here you go

https://books.google.de/books?id=4JUBAwAAQBAJ&pg=PP3&lpg=PP3&dq=Kokuch%C5%ABkai%E2%80%8E&source=bl&ots=0hBZQnOqLS&sig=DKHL5IQrEkGmUxPCyOekxtC0PNA&hl=de&sa=X&ei=rgHvVMq2IJDhaMzZgOgI&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCjgK#v=onepage&q=Kokuch%C5%ABkai%E2%80%8E&f=false

--Catflap08 (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't see the reference to Kokuchūkai, but it's a translation of a children's book and from the cover/title it appears to be itself aimed at children. Is it in a biography of the man? Anyway, even the best single source is still just a single source. You were met with comprehensive analyses of how Kenji is discussed in hundreds of sources in his own language -- the language of 99% of Kenji scholarship -- and failed to respond. You waited for me to drift away to other concerns and then dropped in to reinsert the same questionable material you were already told numerous times not to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

My most recent edit summary is another piece worth noting, but here's some more:

1. When we search the websites of Japanese universities for the name "Miyazawa Kenji" (in its most common orthography for simplicity) we get 23,200 hits.
2. When we take away all references to "Kokuchū" (by any orthography; -kai can also be spelled a few ways, but isn't important) we get 23,100 hits.
3. Okay, fine. Maybe the majority of those are merely library listings of book titles, so of course they don't connect the man with the group. So how about this. When we change "Miyazawa Kenji" to "Miyazawa Kenji wa" (which tends to appear at the start of sentences, so likely not too many library listings of book titles) and add the names of two of his most well-known works, "Ginga Tetsudō no Yoru" and "Haru to Shura" so as to guarantee no library listings of any one of his works, we get 56 hits.
4. When we take away any any reference to "Kokuchū" (see above for rationale) we get 43 hits.

So yes, clearly a decent proportion of sources do mention the Kokuchūkai in relation to him -- but not enough to justify the emphasis you are trying to give it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I have no idea what you are on about. In the source, a forward to one of his works a short bio is included. Months ago somebody argued the nationalistic case – point taken. He was a member of Kokuchokai end of story, that’s what his faith was built on and Kokuchokai was what it then was. Since you go on about it in two articles you seem to have a problem with Kokuchokai. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Great. And once someone rewrites the Kokuchūkai article to put less undue weight on the group's nationalism -- a nationalism no one except a lone Wikipedia editor seems to think Kenji shared -- then maybe wikilinking the group's article in the lead will be appropriate. You don't know what I'm on about for the same reason you appear to now think it's spelled "Kokuchokai" -- you don't read Japanese and you are (at best) clumsy with sources in languages you do speak. You clearly have no interest in this topic and have no intention of improving this article. You are here solely to push a fringe POV. You have been violating consensus and behaving disruptively on this article for over a year now. If you try to violate consensus by pushing this POV in the article again, I will request for you to be TBANned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The article on Kokuchūkai‎ is written based on sources available and if you call me clumsy call all authors on the issue clumsy too. As far as I know “Kai” means society. It is not my fault that the guy was in this organisation. I think you may be pushing things rewriting articles in order to fit your view of the world thereby ignoring what sources have to say about the issue. --Catflap08 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and you know nothing else about the man, it seems. In your brief examinations of a limited number of sources of Nichiren groups you came across the name Miyazawa Kenji, and so you came on Wikipedia, looked up the name and rewrote the article to include every few paragraphs the unattested claim that he was a nationalist. You have been fighting for the last year to keep the article this way, against unanimous opposition. Your claims that "his faith was based on the Kokuchūkai‎" are wrong -- even the group itself says his faith was based on his reading of the Lotus Sutra. STOP TRYING TO REWRITE THIS ARTICLE'S LEAD TO FIT YOUR OWN POV NOW OR YOU WILL BE TAKEN TO ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this wasn't me. Nor was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenji_Miyazawa&diff=603518401&oldid=602008035 the first user to revert you. So that's two more users who oppose you on this issue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. In the lede the Nationalist issues was gone since June 2014. I inserted the fact that he was a member of Kokuchokai, a fact nobody denies. Now you say he was a Nichiren Buddhist. Nichiren Buddhism is not a sect or school. So in effect you do not want to see that a reference is made to the fact that the guy was a member of Kokuchokai – right? As this would specify to which branch of Nichiren Buddhism he belonged – and by all means a controversial branch. So to sum this issue up you want referenced information not be on display – right? --Catflap08 (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If "he was a member of Kokuchukai" is not related to "he was a nationalist", then why did you make this connection yourself last year? You are trying to unbalance this article in favour of your own POV, as you have been stubbornly doing for over a year. Your latest attempt to sneak "Kokuchukai" into the article via an otherwise unnecessary link to a Google Books search for the word is yet another example of this disruptive behaviour. It has already been explained to you by a dozen other users why your edits here are inappropriate, but you appear either unable or unwilling to listen. This is beginning to drain on my patience. If you waste any more of my time on this petty bickering, I will request that you be topic-banned or blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Uninvolved I removed this from the third opinion noticeboard (as well as this related discussion) because each are disputes between more than two editors. I personally have no opinion on the subject, but I would advise all parties to read WP:FORUMSHOP. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Hijiri 88 You seem to get the line of events confused. I did indeed insert the nationalist issue which some found to be disputed. I then inserted that he was a member of Kokuchokai, which since inserted nobody objected to – as he was a member of that group (quite devoted actually) – which you deleted. And now you are trying to warn me!?--Catflap08 (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The best description of his religious affiliation is "he was a devout follower of Nichiren Buddhism, which had a significant influence on several of his literary works, and had a special affection for the Lotus Sutra". Very few sources even mention the Kokuchukai, and those that do never draw the same conclusions you have, which you explicitly stated are the conclusions you also want this article's readers to draw. Your specific desire to name the organization with which he was affiliated, and to overlink your own poorly-written article on that group so as to encourage our readers to draw the same conclusion you have, is disruptive. Three users -- User:Dekimasu, the 128 IP and myself -- have all independently opposed you on this point, and no one has taken your side. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I know you probably think, again in violation of WP:AGF, that the IP was me, but please consider that the IP reverted you on January 13, you reverted back immediately, I was actively making logged-in edits at the time, and it took me over a month to notice what had been going on on this page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Hijiri 88 The term “devout” seems a rather peacock term please note WP:FLOWERY. You keep changing the subject. First of all I changed the wording in June 2014 to the effect that he was a nationalist, this was challenged and discussed. I accepted that. I then entered the fact that he was a member Kokuchukai, This remained to be in the article until you deleted it. A fact that is mentioned in the main body of the article. You then carried on and deleted a reference I added dealing with the issue in the foreword to one of his own translations. You said you found it not suitable which is a POV, you insert “devout Nichiren Buddhist” you like the wording better. In effect you delete a reference that deals with the fact discussed and deleted factual information with a vague statement.--Catflap08 (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I have now added a RfC, as it becomes increasingly harder to follow your intention about the outcome of this discussion. Additionally you have added comments on both talk pages that I find to come close to a personal attack/insult.--Catflap08 (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Membership in Kokuchūkai and reference to it

Membership to Kokuchūkai deleted in lede, reference dealing with it also deleted.--Catflap08 (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The above is a gross misrepresentation of the dispute, and this RFC was made in bad faith by someone being opposed by all three other involved users, in violation of WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:CANVAS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

So much for gross misinterpretation.

#1: [5]

#2: [6]--Catflap08 (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

What about the fact that this RFC is just forum-shopping, after three other users have already opposed this specific edit, and about a dozen more opposed your earlier characterization of Kenji as a "nationalist", and at the time you were saying the two were one and the same? This RFC is simply a rebranding of the same exact topic as the previous RFC, in which numerous users opposed your additions and no one agreed with you, and your failure to admit to these facts in your opening summary is a clear attempt to bias other users who don't know any better in favour of your side of the debate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Hijiri 88 The edit you refer to was overturned in June 2014. You now however oppose the fact him being mentioned as a member of that organisation in the lede. Calling him a devout Buddhist is one thing (even though quite misleading) – why is it such a problem to state exactly which Buddhist organisation he was a member of? Again you accuse me of stuff as all I did was inserting documented facts. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a violation of WP:UNDUE to refer to the organization in the lede. All our sources indicate that he was interested in the faith in the Lotus Sutra, not, as you put it in your discussion of your current proposed wording, "a lay organisation, not affiliated to any Buddhist school and with a dubious nationalist agenda". You've been about as clear as you can be that emphasizing Kenji's supposed nationalism is your goal here, so mentioning the fact that consensus was already against you on this fact and the current RFC is a violation of WP:FORUMSHOP is entirely relevant. Also, regarding Kenji's mostly non-denominational devotion to the Lotus Sutra, I would draw potential commenters to the Donald Keene quote I posted on your talk page just now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well what about he was devout Buddhist and member of Kokuchūkai? Saying in the lede that he was devout Buddhist makes him look to the reader as a guy may be sitting in mediation in a zen monastery drinking tea and writing poetry. He was not. He was a member of a Buddhist organisation on the fringe of Nichiren Buddhism. A form of Buddhism that some say to be on the fringe of Buddhism full stop. Further … when you speak of „Plan“. Yes there was indeed a plan. I work mainly on Nichiren related matters. If you look up some dictionaries Nichiren Buddhism is often connected to fierce nationalism and many issue become mixed up. I therefore researched the issue and came across the term “Nichirenshugi” which scholars translate as Nichirenism in this conext one comes across Kokuchūkai and Tanaka Chigaku, League of Blood Incident and Nissho Inoue. I guess they all had the plan to discredit Miyazawa. Certainly any author out there mentioning Miyazawa’s membership with Kokuchūkai are also part of a great big “plan”.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, find a 6-sentence summary of an encyclopedia article (hell, find an encyclopedia article!) on him that mentions Kokuchukai, and then we can talk. The one source you have cited over the past few days is the introduction to a children's book that is so poorly-written that we could easily assume it got its information from Wikipedia. He was completely devoted to the Lotus Sutra (like Nichiren Buddhists tend to be) and lived his life according to it, his dying wish being to have a thousand copies of the Sutra in Japanese translation distributed to friends and associates. He infused Buddhist terminology into his poetry and children's stories. There is not a scrap of evidence except in WP:FRINGE sources trying to claim a nationalistic agenda for Kenji that he held any affection for the politics of the religious group that he worked within for a brief period long after converting to Nichiren Buddhism. The second half of your above comment is an extended admission that you are still on this "he was a nationalist" rant that was soundly resolved last summer.

@Factchecker25: @Prasangika37: @Teply: @The Gnome: @NickCT: @Solarra: @Iamozy: @Dekimasu: How do you folks all feel about Catflap08 trying to get around the previous consensus and starting a whole new RFD on the same exact topic in a different colour T-shirt?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Remove – summoned by botomatron. From what I can understand of this dispute, there should not be any reference to him being in Kokuchūkai unless it is impeccably sourced, as it seems to go against all other known data about his life. If Kokuchūkai was the man's belief and religion and philosophy, then surely he would himself have mentioned it many times. There should be no reference to him being a nationalist either. If a historic figure is a true nationalist, that information tends to be easy to find. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: Strictly speaking he was a member of the group -- for about eight months, mostly because of geographical convenience. The problem arises from one user being personally convinced that the subject was "not a devout Buddhist, but a nationalist", and wants this article's readers to click the link to his own poorly-sourced article on the group so they can draw the same (almost certainly incorrect) conclusions. The standard scholarly view is that the subject had a brief flirtation with the group and, if as Catflap08 claims the group had a "dubious nationalist agenda", our subject was unaware of that fact. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Thanks for the explanation. Definitely agree it doesn't belong in the intro at all. There's no significance in the scope of his life - it's not like he was with the Symbionese Liberation Army for eight months. Looking at the previous RFC and discussions this is clearly someone's personal agenda that IMHO needs to be escalated because of its disruptive nature and likelihood it will continue past this RfC. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Well since it is said that Kenji was a “devout” Buddhist the only affiliation registered is the one with Kokuchukai. What I can gather is that his family followed Pure Land Buddhism which is not noted to be Lotus Sutra based. If Kenji was registered and affiliated with any other Nichiren based temple, lineage or oragnisation it should be noted. Please note that calling a source using “bad English” is a PVO, hence preselecting what the reader should be able read. Please also note that the nationalist issues has already been dealt with.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: What about the temple he was buried in? The article cites this information and it's thoroughly sourced with absolutely no misrepresentation whatsoever of what the sources say. Unlike most of what you write on Wikipedia, which seems to be mostly your personal opinions and guesses, which sometimes happen to correspond with what you claim are your sources and sometimes don't. I don't know what a "PVO" is -- do you mean "POV"? And yes, if a source was originally published in English, and the quality of that English is extremely poor, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume the source had a lack of editorial oversight, meaning it could very easily be one author's poorly considered opinion, or even based on Wikipedia. But all of this is beside the point, since what the source says is irrelevant to the real problem here: that you are cherry-picking sources in order to promote your own WP:FRINGE POV. If I wanted to cite my own POV, I would say your going out of your way to attack a local hero of Iwate Prefecture, about whom you clearly know nothing, on the fourth anniversary of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami was offensive and wrong. But that's also pretty irrelevant to this dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You should start making up your mind if it’s the so called poor English that you oppose or the information the “poor English” contains. Secondly if the Kenji man’s family belonged to Pure Land Buddhism it would be likely that he was buried in such an affiliated temple graveyard. Please note that his affiliation with Kokuchukai is not one with a traditional Buddhist sect or school, so given the time he died and the time the organisation was founded they had no graveyard(s) for their adherents. Since in literature it is underlined that he was affiliated with Nichiren Buddhsim the only Nichiren based organisation he was an adherent of is the one already mentioned. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because all families like to spit on the last wishes of their favourite son. You are making speculations with absolutely no reference to reliable sources. Your friend John Carter has said numerous times that users acquainted with Buddhism and Japan in general should be fixing these problems; you are ignoring all the reliable sources on this topic because they are all in Japanese. Actually no: you are ignoring them because they don't say what you want them to. Stop this madness now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Move to close Catflap08 was unanimously opposed in his earlier attempt to characterize Kenji as a nationalist, and he has now been unanimously opposed in his attempts to trick our readers into clicking a wikilink that, thanks entirely to him, would cause them to think we was a nationalist. I reported his abuses on ANI with a no-consensus result on how to deal with him. He posted a revenge ANI against me and, when it didn't go the way he wanted (and he apparently didn't get his way on an unrelated page) he has apparently now retired. With no one left to argue in favour of his proposed change, I can't see anything good coming out of this RFC. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Why was the reference to membership of Kokuchūkai deleted from the lead? Kokuchūkai is mentioned six times in the main body, and his membership appears to be significant, given the impact it had on his relationship with his father, that it is argued it had an influence on his later writings, and that there is speculation (albeit minor) that it reveals some of his political affiliations. Per WP:Lead, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Foreword

I will yet include the reference made in a foreword to one of Miyazawa’s English language translations. A Foreword that makes reference of him being a Buddhist, Nichiren Buddhist and member of Kokuchūkai. Further more this is a reference for all to read via google books.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The English in that foreword is terrible, though not much worse than what you have been expecting me to read on these talk pages. Worse, it doesn't actually say what you claim it does. It says the same thing as the Donald Keene quote I put on your talk page: that his membership in the Kokuchukai was peripheral to his biography at best and all that really mattered to him was the Lotus Sutra itself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Structure of biography

@User:Dekimasu: I liked this edit and I agree with your motivation, and like I said in my edit summary the timeline is going to be a bit screwy if we include a separate section on his religious views.

The way I see it the main problem is that he went to Tokyo initially for religious reasons, and not discussing his conversion to Nichiren Buddhism and his desire to "spread the word" (for want of better terminology) before talking about what he did in Tokyo seems a little confusing. (It's not a criticism of your tweaking, since I'd be one to talk with my edit discussing his death right in the middle of the biography.)

I think we should probably overhaul the section-titles in this article, since "early life" is a misnomer (he lived to be 37 and the section deals with his life up to the age of 24) and "literary career" is problematic (he was never a "professional" writer and he only received payment of five yen for one story in his whole life). The section titled "literary career" is actually about that portion of his biography (it's even told in roughly chronological order like a Wikipedia bio should be) in between when he moved to Tokyo and started actively writing (as a hobby, it would seem) and when the time came to discuss his death. There is literary stuff in that section, but it's mostly biographical.

I think giving one brief outline (Biography) of his life and the key events of said life -- maybe about the length of the current "literary career" section -- should come first. This section would deal with his sister's sickness and death, his relationship to the other members of his family, and so on, in much greater detail than it does now. (Can you believe this article still doesn't give his sister's name!? Up until yesterday, the English Wikipedia article on Miyazawa Kenji name-checked Tanaka Chigaku but not Miyazawa Toshi!) There could be some literary stuff here, but it's mostly to provide background information necessary to understand the following sections.

This would be followed by another section (no problem with keeping theLiterary career moniker, frankly) discussing his literary works in enough detail as is normal for literary biographies. The usual stuff (I haven't actually verified much of the present completely unsourced section, so I don't know about that content, but the biographical stuff can be completely cut out because it will be covered in the above section.

Then there's the section I worked on yesterday (Religious beliefs). I wrote it myself and put a lot of work into it, but I don't think it's perfect. I included the material about how "some scholars" consider him to have been a nationalist as a form of compromise with ... that other guy ... but it feels like I was violating WP:POINT or something, and blanking that paragraph is probably still better because fringe is still fringe.

What do you think?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)