Talk:Masanobu Fukuoka/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

if anybody wants to write some bio. here's some info: http://larryhaftl.com/ffo/fintro.html 200.55.100.229 23:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

tense of verb

Since Masanobu Fukuoka passed away in August 2008, the verbs likely should be changed to past tense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark (talk • contribs) 16:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

achievements

i very much doubt the claim that fukuoka produced similar yield to intensive farming. it needs a reference. otherwise i just the section off trueblood 08:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC) on second reading, i doubt that the person who wrote the section has read anything by fukuoka( i have), just wild claims in the section, 'all the work can be easily done by hand and is reduced by 80%" nonsense. might be worth putting mark bonfils back into the article, though. trueblood 08:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Wild Claims"? As a practitioner of Fukuoka's philosophy on my own farm I can assure you that claim is anything but nonsense. Although I can't verify specific numbers, I know from experience that one can do all the work by hand, and overall labour is greatly down. Montydog 5:30, 2 Sept. 2006

Broken external link

The external link at the end of the page:

The Fukuoka Farming Website

is broken

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. ST47 19:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

arguing

quote from article: The Fukuoka method is not suited to growing large quantities of grain, like those presently produced in the industrialised world by means of large-scale mechanization. But one could argue that the vast majority of this grain goes to feed animals (which could be more efficiently fed by diverse forage systems), and the quantity used for direct human consumption could be grown by the Fukuoka method

indeed one could argue that, but i doubt it and i wonder if this is the place to argue. i propose to delete the passage and just leave it with mentioning that fukuoka's method is a small scale method and it is even part of his philosophie that things should be small scale. if he argues somewhere that his method can feed the world, so be it, we can put that in too. but the editors should leavetheir speculation or opinion out. trueblood 07:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Chop this paragraph, its opinion and speculation quercus robur 09:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Un-done edit (of claimed to be irrelevant Links) by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:QVanillaQ

Hey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:QVanillaQ, If you'd do your research, read Fukuoka's writings, as I've read all his english translated books (but perhaps one 1940's one), read the Fukuoka_Farming yahoo group, as I have constantly & contributed some, then you would know that those links I put up there are nothing irrelevant at all. In detail:

- Fukuoka-sensei recieved a *Magsaysay award* ('the eastern world's Noble prize').
- You'd know that Fukuoka-sensei wrote three books called (in romaji) *"Mu I", "Mu II", & "Mu III"* (Mu in the Japanese buddhist sense).
- And you'd know that the formative experience of the whole of the rest of his life was when he had an experience of *satori* at age 25.
- And finally a reference to him in an anime movie is a very clear piece of evidence of how substantially well known he is at least in some well informed circles in Japan itself.

Sorry I didn't have time to format this talk up properly - I's doing other things & paying for it in an internet cafe when I saw this removal herein.

J. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macropneuma (talk • contribs) 13:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

major page updates

Major page updates have happened in the last two weeks since Aug 3rd. --Macropneuma (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, which have added some more detail. I think there is still some work needed to tidy up the English and bring it in-line with Manual of Style, and I'm not sure if we need the Japanese version of each book title.--Salix (talk): 14:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please find the best citation(s) for "was one of the pioneers of no-till grain cultivation.", then i presume we can remove the citations required banner. Yes, thx, there's lots more work to do, and in progress. None of his writing was published in English, only by translation, so of course the original titles are in Japanese. See Japanese example author pages: Haruki_Murakami, Matsuo_Bashō, Jun'ichirō_Tanizaki, Ryū_Murakami. Standard style seems these tables; If i have time i can construct a table of the books like those standard style tables. It'd probably be best to list all Fukuoka Masanobu's 10+ Japanese books somewhere in the references at least, with their English translations. But more urgently important i understand for bringing it in line with the Wikipedia Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) specifically, within the Manual of Style, are citation templates, which have at the moment a pain because there's currently no citation template parameter for the translators eg. Chris Pearce, Tsune Kurosawa & Larry Korn, and the internal referencing making editing really difficult to read needs to be moved into List Defined References at the bottom, presumably under the notes section, making editing much easier to read... .--Macropneuma (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've had a go with using {{cite book}} which does allow for a translated title. Only done first two books

Masanobu, Fukuoka (1984) [1947]. MU I: kami no kakumei (無 I: 神の革命) (in Japanese). {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |separator=, |laysummary=, |month=, and |lastauthoramp= (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) translated by Alfred Birnbaum 1964^[1]^[2]

Masanobu, Fukuoka (1975). shizen nōhō-wara ippon no kakumei (自然農法-わら一本の革命). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) translated by Chris Pearce, Tsune Kurosawa & Larry Korn. English pref. by Wendell Berry. Rodale Press. 30 yr anniv. ed. 2009 NYRB.

I'd sugest [1] as a better link from Amazon as it has more publication details.--Salix (talk): 12:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, i'm having a learn about & read of {{citebook}}...; now, read some of it: yer translated title makes a good start, still no translators' parameters...; You did well with just-doing-it in the little question of just putting the translators after the template and everything that should get rendered after them in turn after them, also outside the template, like the publishers, etc.; reading more... .

I asked the wikipedia IRC help the other day about this, one good suggestion they had was request that citation templates have translators' parameters added, i still haven't got around to that request yet, but it should be done for all editors needs IMHO!

And yer, that's a point i still muse a little over it briefly -about whether to use the full Amazon page for "The God Revolution" or just their picture page; My intent was just the picture to prove it, in the sense of seeing the book's photo is believing, for readers (some previous doubters elsewhere, in my mind), but the full Amazon page will not do any harm, i suppose. I daren't link directly to the JPG/GIF of the book image! :) --Jase 13:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(Dear Walter Ralt), Please discuss major changes before implementing as we have done, here in Masanobu Fukuoka. Please respect the efforts of others, including humble me, and discuss the serious reasoning we have before going and removing our considered, reasoned work. Consider adding to the page first please, and we'll see how we go working together. Rather than 'cutting it down'. Thank you for making efforts, at all, please keep doing that, and discussing. We, some of us have been editing here, in Masanobu Fukuoka, since at least 2006. Terraquaculture sounds interesting, i like to know more about it, but i don't have the reference you cite: Tane, Haikai. The Crucial Roles of Willows in Sustainable River Management. Watershed Foundation (Aotearoa New Zealand) (2010) Please write a page on that topic, too. Cheers --Jase 12:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Masanobu Fukuoka's experiences and lessons on the subject of Pruning Fruit Trees

User:TadewiGomda had added some long text (below) into a very brief list item near the top of the life story writing; Quote:

He notes that he ended up killing many trees as part of his early experiments when he simply let them go without pruning which resulted in convoluted and tangled, and thus unhealthy, branch patterns. He concluded that the trees should be raised all their lives without pruning which would allow them to form healthy and efficient branch patterns following their natural inclination.

Please User:TadewiGomda add a new paragraph if you feel like it, to the Nature Farming section, about Mr. Fukuoka's pruning of fruit trees experiences and lessons. If you would like to then I presume that you would like to add the new paragraph after the paragraph that describes the orchard. --Jase 14:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of red links

Short note. I removed a number of red links as the individuals named to not appear to have reached standards of notability for biographies and had few references, if any, mentioning them in the real world. Most are still living. --Iyo-farm 14:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I tentatively agree with this. Red links aren't inherently bad, but if it's unlikely there will ever be an article on the topics linked then it seems reasonable to de-link them. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Chronology

Is it really necessary and worthwhile to have such chronology as is current included?

It does not appear to be of any great importance, nor many of the events that notable in themselves.

I propose cutting it all down to a simple paragraph mentioning his activities. --Iyo-farm 14:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As a timeline the information is formatted as a list, which I believe is generally frowned upon. The content should be reworked as prose with inline citations where necessary. Again, I'm not well versed in the subject but I suspect that where he went to high school probably has very little relevance to what he is notable for - data like that shouldn't be included, or at best should be glossed over as a single point of information in a broader paragraph about his youth. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've made a cursory effort to merge key information from the chronology into the main 'Life' section in the biography. I haven't done any fact/cite-checking on the information and I've left the chronology section as-is. If someone could verify my edit to ensure its accuracy and relevance, that'd be great.

I've also added one cite tag to the list of awards Fukuoka has received, though having now submitted the change I see there are some cites available in the Awards section. In hindsight there seems to be enough material in that section to warrant it being separate, so I'll cut down the awards line in the main body to a brief mention and remove the cite tag. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Misuse and multiplication of references

I did a little bit more hacking away at the undergrowth to get to the grain of this topic and have discovered that what appears to be going in is a misuse of references to include vast amount of largely unimportant content and quotations much of which is duplicated.

Ditto, there appear to be numerous duplications of a reference to One-straw Revolution and Natural Farming. Cannot all of these just be reduced to one single reference and people go and read it there if they want? Basically, no claims have actually been refuted. Why does the topic need so many references?

Doesn't One-straw Revolution count as original research and don't we really require references from other sources? --Iyo-farm (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand, primary sources are acceptable but secondary sources are much preferred. If possible, we should be including references to sources that mention One-Straw Revolution and Natural Farming rather than simply referring to those sources directly. The reason is that if they're not discussed by secondary sources, it will be difficult to establish their notability, and without notability it will be difficult to include them in Wikipedia. If the subject and his works are indeed notable, it shouldn't be difficult to find secondary sources for his works. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

External Links section

The External Links section seems to be full of blogspot links etc.

I suppose it should be cut down to a minimum, shouldn't it?

Anyone care to sort out any decent articles and drop the rest? --Iyo-farm (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe blogs should be included in the external links section; if there are any there, they should be stripped altogether. For someone as apparently notable as this in the farming community, I'm sure there are more reputable links available. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Earth Council award

I cannot find any references to an Earth Council Award. Actually, I cannot find any mention of an Earth Council Award existing without a reference to Fukuoka.

The fact that it and Earth Council or Earth Council Alliance all do not have wikipedia pages makes me wonder.

I actually do not doubt Fukuoka got given something but I have no idea what it really was. Jase, do you have any specific references? Was it a one off, or was it called something else?

Thank you --Iyo-farm (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Natural Farming versus Nature Farming

Listen guys, I appreciate this is all very obscure and you might not be interested but there seems to be something else very strange going on; a blurring, or dare I say 'land grab' of the terms "Nature Farming" versus "Natural Farming".

Looking at a broad survey of the documents, Fukuoka's ideas seem to largely addressed as 'Natural Farming' and Okada's as 'Nature Farming' with 'Kyusei Nature Farming' additionally credited to Teruo Higa. Kyusei Nature Farming turns up many scholarly papers.

Looking at the Fukuoka topic, we find many hidden links "Natural farming" to "nature farming". Looking at the Nature Farming topic, we find Macropneuma's finger prints all over it and, as with this topic, a tendency towards references not really saying what is claimed for them.

I think we need some clarity to this and given the citations, it would seem to me to clearly come down, in English, to Fukuoka's method being 'Natural Farming' and Okada's 'Nature Farming'.

Does anyone else care to take a brief look into this? --Iyo-farm (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

More weirdness on this front. The topic reported Fukuoka visited Washington State to speak at a Nature Farming Conference. Turns out it was a "Permaculture" Conference instead. Funny how the expert did not notice that.

Or perhaps no so remarkable given this comment, here. --Iyo-farm (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no subject matter expertise on this area whatsoever. I did a quick Google comparison and found Fukuoka's name was more associated with "Natural Farming" and Okada's name was more associated with "Nature Farming" but I wouldn't consider that a reliable indicator. Do you have reliable sources that can help clarify this? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside Fukuoka's own use of "natural" in his famous book, which I take did not set out to actually name the method but describe it, the one I went with in the end was from the US Dept Agric. which was unequivocal, and also added "Kyusei Nature Farming" which remains red linked. My suspicion is that that Jason's insistence of nature farming, along with the kanji, was based on his own chosen translation of the Japanese rather than common use, which certainly leans towards "natural". --Iyo-farm (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Evidently wrong – diametrically so!, POV and more gratuitous attempts at belittling, personal attacks, above (of my well evidence based positions); No really reliable sources –that really stack up together with all the reliable sources – that one source given above is just a lazy glossary source having quotes and citations of a very incomplete mix of sources. Not a scholarly analysis source. Not reliable, it just un-representatively quotes and cites other sources without fact checking, critical analysis or thinking, which put together don't make up a collective reliable source at all! Real third party, scholarly or critically fact-checked reliable sources are the best sources, not the easiest, laziest to obtain sources.

Translation books have got mistakes. Duh!–inevitable, from translation processes, i translate and i make mistakes. It's hard work and i need Japanese people to check mine. Translations have some mistakes which ramified into more mistakes.

Anyway, A quotation from page 343 of "The Road Back to Nature: Regaining the Paradise Lost", a 1987 English translation by Frederic P. Metraud of Masanobu Fukuoka's 1984 shizen ni kaeru (自然に還る):

America Revisited

-----------------

As I was wondering if there wasn't something that could be done, I received a very polite letter from a high-ranking tribal Indian chief in America inviting me to come establish a natural farm on an Indian reservation in the American grasslands. I answered that I was interested, and later received formal invitations from two West Coast colleges asking me to attend international conferences on natural farming as a guest speaker. The letters said that if I were to come, a schedule of about two months would be drawn up for me with people active in natural farming serving as my guides and interpreters.

...

I'm not an expert even, so what does that make ... .

Authors like Masanobu Fukuoka write their original words in their own language, Japanese in this case, not in English. Multiple scholarly sources for his Japanese clearly show the best and the nearest to correct translation: Nature Farming. See above also.

Evidently wrong –diametrically so!– according to reliable sources, including those cited within: 自然農法, 福岡正信, etc.;

And according to the extensive 168 page: Hui-Lian Xu (2001) "NATURE FARMING In Japan" Research Signpost, T. C. 37/661(2), Fort Post Office, Trivandrum - 695023, Kerala, India.

–a partly–scholarly monograph/book, providing, much detailed, sourced, relevant, history, language clarifications and evidence, at least. Hence re-corrected, evidently a gross POV!, and an entirely–unheeding, unilateral one at that! – for what real motives it was done, the rest of us cannot be knowing for sure.

Books and articles

Jase, can you sort out which of the Article section are books and attribute them to MF, particularly those in Japanese?

Are these books or pamphlets? Thanks. --Iyo-farm (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Buddhist books/journals

Question, are all those Buddhist books or journals listed actually related to Fukuoka or are they just in there to support some theoretical point of view relating to his philosophical ideas and terminology.

If the latter, then I think they should go. --Iyo-farm (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Copy Editing

I've done some minor copy editing of the Life section, but one of the sentences doesn't flow very well:

"He also retained the hillside citrus orchards which his son had taken over before the war, but found his non-interventionist methods had led to disaster."

This sentence is unclear - which person found the methods led to disaster, Fukuoka or his father? What kind of disaster had occurred? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've read the source (I swear it was different when I first looked at it!) and the line seems to be referring to when Fukuoka first took over the citrus orchards from his father before the war. I've moved the line and cite to an earlier paragraph and added some clarification about what the disaster he experienced was. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Photos edits

See WP:OI

--en:User:Macropneuma 05:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Natural vs Nature Farming (again)

The sources seem clear that there is a distinction between natural farming and nature farming, the former being Fukuoka's style. See [2], as well as any number of Google Scholar results. The title of Fukuoka's first book is Natural Farming and the subtitle of his second book is 'An introduction to natural farming'. Please don't revert these changes without discussion and reliable sources to the contrary - Macropneuma, quoting a post you wrote yourself on Yahoo Groups does not constitute a reliable source by any stretch. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong! Read the reliable sources already provided and a J-E dictionary on 自然農法.

"Natural Farming" first book? – no source provided!, (POV), and which every insider knows is "Mu Kami no kakumei" ((in Japanese) One example ref. of many... by Mutsumi Shojaku, Kyoto University)

Also, -- Mr. Masanobu Fukuoka himself mentions this Japanese book he published very early - paraphrasing him: 40 years ago (he wrote in about 1992-1987): -

He mentions it in writing in his Japanese recapitulation 1992 book; Quoting here from its 1996 translation to English, "The Ultimatum of God Nature The One–Straw Revolution A Recapitulation" –page 170:

"... Forty years ago I wrote about this and the hereafter in *Mu I*"

He also mentions it in his book, in English translation in "The Road Back to Nature" 1987.

About this supposed first book "Natural Farming", have you anything to add about it???

Here, the most reliable sources count, not opinions (yours nor mine nor SalixAlba's) at all.

The word 'permaculture' is not English, made up word like so many other brand names Orica or Safeway or RadioShack. --en:User:Macropneuma 02:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that source, which confirms that the term is 'natural farming' per quotes:

Society for the study of Natural Farming, Kyoto University

We practice natural farming in our university.

You're right, it wasn't his first book. The rest of your argument is semantic. The book I intended to reference is titled The Natural Way of Farming, which nevertheless confirms the translation of the term in English. Given your quoted source also confirms this spelling, I trust this is no longer an issue?

In any case, please refrain from unfounded accusations and remember to assume good faith. The oversight in my post above was one of sequence, not POV as you have claimed. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding permaculture, your assertion that it's a 'made up word' is irrelevant. All words were 'made up' at some point, and English is not a dead language. The word appears in the dictionary and appears to have widespread acceptance. If you want to justify putting scare quotes around the word, provide sources to support your claim that it's not a real word. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Often incomprehensible reply and misuse of reliable sourcing policies when the link is obviously providing a Japanese language reliable source from a scholar who speaks Japanese, on the point here of what his first book was - Read the Japanese page. Translation books got the translations wrong in places. Want some examples?? This isn't unusual it's inevitable. The Natural Way of Farming was not his first book. Duh! Assume good faith until one's assuming gets proved wrong as above monstrous WP:NPA... .

The person who wrote the page you linked has provided English and Japanese both. The English sections clearly indicate the term in use is 'natural'. You appear to be implying that the person who wrote the page is incapable of correctly translating his own words, which is unfounded. In addition, the vast majority of scholarly references, including two official English translations for Fukuoka's books, use the term 'natural' to refer to Fukuoka's style. On what basis do you believe that all of these sources are collectively wrong?

Once more, please refrain from making accusations about fellow editors. I have not personally attacked you at any point in discourse here. Once more, please remember to assume good faith. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

All explained in plain and simple long-hand English above. Read the Japanese – Mutsumi Shojaku has provided, a long page with some scholarly Japanese on his bibliography; With a brief introductory three paragraphs English, which are obviously not intended nor are they scholarly reliable English sources, obviously just a basic English introduction. This Mutsumi Shojaku's page is a reliable source for his first book (and some more); Obviously not for Japanese to English translations which require scholarly reliable dictionaries and more explanatory detail translation sources – which Hui Lian Xu (2006) above provides a little more of – Read above talk here.. Masanobu Fukuoka wrote 自然農法. People have been translating that one phrase different ways. Which way is the scholarly, best translation relating Masanobu Fukuoka's message – His overall message which he gave in Japanese in his corpus of works. Obviously Nature Farming, based on the reading of his corpus of primary sources and on third party scholarly reliable sources and dictionaries. Not based on wack'n' WP:GYNOT which was wrongly previously done here above or on known translation imperfections, no blame to Larry Korn or Chris Pearce or anyone, just to loses of meaning in translation. Inevitable. To infer that the translation was or is perfect has less foundation than anything. Read [example above here] WP:HEAR--en:User:Macropneuma 04:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I did read the section you linked to. In it you provide two sources. One is Nature Farming in Japan, which makes two references to Fukuoka in citation notes and only one in the main body of its 170 pages. Okada is mentioned 112 times, however, and it seems that the paper is related to Okada's style rather than Fukuoka's. Nevertheless, Hu-lian Xu does make the argument that the widely accepted translation does not need to be modified from 'nature' to 'natural'. We can consider that one source in your favour. The other source you linked to was a Google Groups post written by yourself quoting text from the first source. Since we can't use your personally written forum post, we have one source that makes the argument from a literal translation perspective.

On the other hand, we have multiple academic sources including the official translations of Fukuoka's books that all make use of the word 'natural'. We also have the argument, as made by a previous editor on this talk page, that there are fundamental differences between Okada's style and Fukuoka's style.

This is a simple case of verifiability. We have an overwhelming number of sources confirming the English translation as 'natural'. We have widespread real world use of the word 'natural' by English speakers in reference to Fukuoka's work. In dissent, we have a single paper in sometimes poorly-written English by one author from 2006, decades after the English translation of 'natural' has been well and truly established.

With due respect, I'm inclined to give weighting to the dominant use in practice and in multiple translations compiled by different professional translators over the opinion of a single senior agricultural researcher. My understanding is that this is also Wikipedia's standard, which preferences verifiability over truth. I am not implying the translation 'natural' or 'nature' is wrong (both are reasonable translations of the original Japanese, because of language differences - one being language-natural and the other being literal), but it is plainly verifiable that the translation 'natural' is the dominant term used in a multitude of official and unofficial sources of high reliable quality. There's no compelling reason that I can see to change our article to reflect differently. You asked "which way is the scholarly, best translation relating Masanobu Fukuoka's message"; the correct answer is what the official translations and high quality reliable sources report. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

...How many secondary sources are you talking about, one! The one i gave you all, above. You've ignored the additional secondary sources, which immediately above i've given encouragement to you to use. Abusing me by ignoring them and replying here above as if you've unilaterally decided already here and edited so, based not on having availed yourself of those secondary sources. Don't edit till there's consensus. No WP:CONS. Opting, you did, instead from primary sources—For numerical weight of primary sources.

Quoting policies:

Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers:

Not all websites are reliable sources

A Google search may produce hundreds, thousands, even millions of hits bearing the exact title of the article or other pages on the subject derived from key words. But only sites qualifying as reliable sources can be used to render a subject notable and to verify the accuracy of information. Most others do not qualify as permissible external links, let alone references.

Indentifying reliable sources: Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources:

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research.

You need to think this through in all its implications, with all the best sources available. I notice you're missing many of the implications of this translating of 自然農法... Over several years with dialogue with the practitioner community i have done this; And sometimes with translators including Larry Korn.—common sense and the rest, consensus & Wikipedia does not have firm rules... .

Are you reading any of the Japanese? –including the originals?

It's never about numerical quantities of articles, as is well known many articles are not good articles let alone featured articles, per your bad edit, quoting: "...common standard across the majority of articles" –that's complete rubbish in this Wikipedia reality of major backlogs of required quality editing to articles. Always about quality! Of course!--en:User:Macropneuma 05:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources entirely in Japanese will not help shed light on whether or not the term is 'natural' or 'nature' in English, since both English words are acceptable translations of the same original Japanese term - we must rely on English or mixed language sources to verify this. I have not used Google itself as any sort of evidence, I've used a Google Scholar search as a convenient way to communicate a list of reliable sources to you. If you want me to go through the results and individually list for your convenience every single one of the 300 results that identify Fukuoka with 'natural farming' then let me know and I'll have them listed fully for you. The Scholar results as well as the USDA link I provided you with above constitute a handful of primary sources along with a significant majority of secondary sources. Please review the results instead of dismissing them out of hand, or ask me to list them individually.

With respect to you, 'dialogue' with the practitioner community and personal conversations with Larry Korn or anyone else constitute original research. Once more, Wikipedia is based on verifiability. Your personal experiences, while undoubtedly valuable to you, are not verifiable. You're not a verified authority on the subject and as such we can't use anything you vouch for or publish yourself on Wikipedia. It is a verifiable fact that we have numerous reliable sources confirming the translation in English as 'natural'. It is a verifiable fact that the official translations of Fukuoka's books refer to his style as 'natural farming'. These English sources have more weight than the single English source you've provided with a dissenting view. You're right; it's not about the numbers. The official translations have significant weight, and the many academic sources I indicated in the Scholar search are of high quality and broad real-world acceptance. On the other hand, your dissenting article has numerous English language flaws and does nothing to indicate that it represents anything broader than the sole views of the author. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Since it seems clear that neither of us are likely to persuade the other on which is the appropriate path with regards to these terms, would you be willing to abide by the result of a Third Opinion request on this matter? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If the term can have multiple translations then it would seem appropriate to include the original Japanese and note that there are various translations of the term. The talk page is getting rather long no and it would be helpful to repeat a reliable source showing that the term has been translated as "nature farming". --Salix (talk): 08:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being mentioned as an alternative translation in the article. I just think that since 'natural farming' is the dominant English translation that it should take precedence through the rest of the article beyond the translation notes. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've boldly added a paragraph to the Natural Farming section indicating the widespread English translation "natural farming" and also referencing the alternative translation "nature farming", citing Macropneuma's 'Nature Farming in Japan' reference. I hope this strikes a reasonable balance in representing both points of view. If not, please feel free to revert and discuss here. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

In reply only to SalixAlba's nearest message immediately above, i have consensus with that expression of the following, quoting SalixAlba: "If the term can have multiple translations then it would seem appropriate to include the original Japanese and note that there are various translations of the term." SalixAlba, implement that in practise to show me it, please.--en:User:Macropneuma 05:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected some misleading text in the recent refurb of the translation paragraph. The paragraph implied that the term "natural farming" had been used in English since One-Straw Revolution had been translated to English in 1978. The source provided makes no such indication and it would be misleading to imply a start date that isn't backed up by sources. As such I've reworded the sentence to make no implications about when the English translation first came into effect. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

1978 is the first known English translation, according to reliable sources, and according to any sources and to any original research done by many including me. Misleading most of all, is your implied mislead that something exists before 1978, in the text's word "including"; When in fact nothing of any published translations exists before that according to any sources, any reliable sources nor to any original research by done by many including me. Evidently and obviosuly you have been misleading yourself by your self. Undo you own wrong, "misleading" undo–edit.--en:User:Macropneuma 05:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not true. From 1976, [3]. From 1975, [4]. We don't have an exact date for when "natural farming" first entered English use in reference to Fukuoka's works, but it most certainly was prior to 1978 as you claim. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You've shared here some little successful bit of real superficial research showing a three year difference.

Thank you. Half joke—Can't take you ??? lot seriously. One of those now–1975 onwards English References has value for non–superficial, much more important, globally, reasons, in my bigger research project.

Here however, so merely defending –what?–; From your evident sides defending and taking, presumably your wish to mislead the general interested learning but not expert reader's impression, to become the impression that it has been translated into English as "natural farming" since decades before 1978 –mislead reader's to, since 1947 perhaps??? For what. For your evident sides taking with WP:NPA, here. Is sides–taking here more valued to you than Wikipedia and than his article. All the circumstances of your editing Masanobu Fukuoka suggest so, especially now with the first real new evidence you've shared. Wrong evident above factions for whatever motive i don't care.

Non-misleading would now with your little research, be say "since 1975", "since about 1978" or "since the mid 1970s"; But is that the impression you want to lead people to for whatever your reasons. —Huh?--en:User:Macropneuma 06:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If we analyse the sources we have available to synthesise a date we assert as being the first translation, that's original research and it's not allowed in the article. The simple version of the reasoning is that there may well be sources we simply don't know about yet that show earlier translations. This is evident by the fact that I was able to provide you with a source that you yourself didn't know about, and I'm certainly not infallible either. This is why we prefer secondary sources to report things like this for us. Because of this we can't say 'since'. Using the word 'including' puts no implication of a start or end date to the period and simply says that there are multiple sources that use the translation, 'including' the official English translations of Fukuoka's books. Wording it that way doesn't say 'there are translations earlier' or 'there are translations later' because his books may well be the first (though we have evidence against this now) or last translations and still be 'included' in the range of sources that use that translation. Using this wording is more vague, but in my opinion it's more appropriate to the information we actually have available from the source material.

As for your word use ('little', 'superficial') and your comment about taking a joke, I don't find your approach funny. I've sought advice elsewhere on how best to work with you because my appeals here seem to have gone nowhere. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Relevant here about shizen, and a link here into about the much more important than here, Japan situation... .--en:User:Macropneuma 07:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What is consensus on this? "Natural farming" or "Natural Farming" or "natural farming"? I prefer "Natural Farming" because it is something new and unique, and not generic. The use "natural farming" suggests it objectively is natural farming when, of course, there is no such thing. All farming is unnatural. What do you say Techno? It needs to be consistent all the way through.

I am also dead against the WP:OR of pushing "Nature Farming". Now I understand what his repeated use of the Japanese was trying to prove. The balance of citations are clear; Fukuoka = Natural, Okada = Nature. Iyo-farm (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute tag

I'm removing this tag per WP:DRIVEBY - I can't see any clear discussion on this talk page of what specific areas are in question in terms of neutrality. Please remember to discuss concerns on the talk page and use mainspace tags sparingly. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong! Complete rubbish about driveby! Superficial reading doesn't count. Read this talk page. Duh!–tired of this bald bias poving.--en:User:Macropneuma 03:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Quoted from WP:DRIVEBY:

The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies

Once again, please reference specific issues in the article that are actionable within the content policies. Simply dropping the WP:NPOV link at every opportunity is not sufficient to justify the tag being on the article. Please use this section to detail your concerns specifically. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Read this talk page, and while you're at it the RfC—WP:HEAR.--en:User:Macropneuma 03:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I can tell, you seem to be labelling anything and everything you disagree with as POV. Once again, please provide specific examples. I will remove the tag from the article in 24 hours if you're unable to do so. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA wrong! Many specific examples are provided in this talk page.

I have not made any personal attacks against you. Please stop making accusations and assume good faith. This is the third time I have requested this of you.

For the sake of reader clarity, please list specific issues you have with the neutrality of this article here. I am having significant difficulty separating your neutrality concerns from the rest of your commentary. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, what is really getting Macropneuma's organic goat is my removal of Fukuoka's "enlightenment" experience. My feeling is that it is pretty impossible to independently verify whether "enlightenment" and so, therefore, I suggest we just leave it as he or his supporters "claimed" it was enlightenment or satori. To the best of my knowledge, no religious tradition acknowledged his enlightened state per se.

The fact is he was also hugely ill from stress, trauma and disease, and did behave rather oddly, so knows what it really was ... a nervous breakdown or what. "Claimed" is safest. The Wikipedia is not a fan site. Iyo-farm (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

References section(s)

Macropneuma, the guideline you're looking for is at WP:REF. From that guideline:

This is usually called the Notes or References section.
A full citation is then added in a "References" section.
The full citation (Smith, John. Name of Book. Cambridge University Press, 2010) is then added in alphabetical order, according to the authors' surnames, at the end of the article in a "References" section.
General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a References section.

Refer also to WP:CITEVAR which states that on the list of "To be avoided unless there is consensus" is "Changing the section heading to or from References, Notes, etc.". You changed the title away from References without consensus. Please do not change the section titles without consensus, per the guideline. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This being said, 'Other references' is awkward and I'd love to have that title changed or, ideally, the section moved into a more relevant section like References. Is there any objection to including the list of citations you've provided that have not been used inline (as the current References section citations have) below the inline citations in the References section itself? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously wrong, no consensus, hypocritical of your edit until after doing the damage, and evidently out of your policy depth, bureaucratically misusing off-topic policies at me.--en:User:Macropneuma 06:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

...You changed the section headings without consensus with me, as did ?Iyo-farm? documentarily do blanking and do everything without consensus... ... . It's all above. You're not 'the boss' Don't tell me what i'm looking for. When i've already found and provided it WP:FNNR. You didn't provide it, nor get consensus here, nor start this talk section until after your wrong edits. "Other references" ignores even more WP:FNNR policy and others—rhetoric of "normal WP style" has no meaning just abuse, quoting you "Retitled. Please find a way to incorporate these in normal WP style." from 23:58, 8 March 2011 Edit

Where is the primary relevance of WP:REF to reference section headings? Where in the WP:REF page does reference section headings get covered as a primary section? It's not covered there as primary policy. That page one whole page Wikipedia:Citing sources is about the contents of the sections, about Citing sources. You are factually wrong again including your undoing my corrective edits per WP:LAYOUT—WP:FNNR. How many times to i have to cite WP:LAYOUT—WP:FNNR; Which is right!—A primary policy! Quoting:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. The overall main Guidelines manual. WP:SNOW? Don't WP:SNOW.

Rabindranath Tagore—Here's a featured article, more than just a good article; Having the following sections, all accepted by consensus according to policy: "

8 Corpus

9 Quotations

10 Notes

11 Citations

12 References

13 Further reading

14 External links"

No consensus!; And policy-wise factually wrong, and against good spirit of Wikipedia, good faith, and not a bureaucracy. A complete waste of a talk section heading here.--en:User:Macropneuma 06:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:CITE again - I quoted a number of references to the section being titled 'References'. Similarly, your quoted article Rabindranath Tagore, a featured article, calls the section 'References', not 'Reference Notes' or any other variation. References go in the References section. As for consensus, you didn't gain consensus before changing the section heading from the well-established 'References' to 'Reference Notes', per WP:CITEVAR. Note this is not an 'off-topic' policy, it's a guideline that expressly says to avoid renaming the References or Notes sections without consensus. You changed it without consensus, I reverted your change and you restored it without any talk page discussion. There is currently no consensus to change the section heading away from 'References'.

If you could please review and provide an answer to my question above regarding what best to do with the 'Other references' section, we can move forward with improving the article. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Before that 09:19, 6 February 2011 you or who you supported had no consensus before changing (or supporting) the change of the section heading from "Footnotes" – off-topic, for the spirit of Wikipedia here – bureaucratic pushing. Instead of the spirit which is for the benefit of the reading by the general interested reader – encyclopedically (based on reliable sources), of course.

I suggest for consensus the best for the page, for readers, the layout:

7 Works

8 Reference notes

9 References

10 External links

The numbering will change if other sections do, of course.

References is for the purpose of reliable third party scholarly source references used as the main basis for the article facts.--en:User:Macropneuma 06:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Works and External links (the L should be lowercase in Links, per the MoS). References typically refers to the section containing citations, usually inline, from the article body itself. I propose instead that section 8 be References, and section 9 be Further Reading. My reasoning on this is that the links in section 9 aren't directly referred to by the article itself - if they are, they should be in section 8 (References) along with the other inline citations. I believe 'Further Reading' is more appropriate because the sources in this section are relevant to the topic but aren't directly invoked by the rest of the article, implying that their content is useful for further reading on the subject. Do you have any objections to this? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Er, I meant 'Further reading' with a lowercase R. My apologies. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You've missed all the points i've made and primary policies that i've cited. OK "L"->"l" my typo here—fixed. Cannot have consensus until you read and get all... .--en:User:Macropneuma 06:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I notice you have changed the References section title without consensus yet again; you have now entered WP:3RR territory and if it continues I intend to report it. That I don't agree with your views doesn't mean I haven't read your arguments and the relevant policies and guidelines. The vast majority of articles call the section containing citations 'References'. There's no compelling reason why this article should not do the same. Do you disagree with my proposed names 'References' and 'Further reading'? If so, please revert your change back to 'References' and wait for consensus before continuing. If you agree that these names are suitable, please feel free to go ahead and make the change. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong use of policy again – WP:NPA threatening me – . I know well WP:3RR from real editing in practise, lots of close reading, from readying and dealing with real vandals and many times real POVers, in other pages. Serious editing stuff. Evident–sillyness. Not keeping it real. Legalistic. Get off of your silly bureaucratic bullying attempts of telling me what to do with no purpose, against the cooperative spirit, here. Stop the bureaucratic attempts 3RR Wikipedia:Wikilawyering here, as you wrote on my talk page you are in violation of the same 'rules'. Tell me about yourself on your user page or by contacting me offline via my email address on my user page for offline contact, and keep it real simply, about the spirit, cooperation, values, ..., here. (ref 1) (ref 2)

For example, see [5] recently by some bureaucratic fools warring over the tagging with the vague inline template —SalixAlba's 'page–baby'! Smile! So glad i have nothing of interest in that rubbish editing process. More importantly the spirit of the policy about edit warring and 3RR is what you must get. The spirit of all of Wikipedia here, of all policies here, of primarily cooperative, good faith, instead of your WP:HEAR.--en:User:Macropneuma 07:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you disagree, Macropneuma. I correctly applied the rules on WP:3RR by providing a warning on your talk page, something that I need to be able to prove with a diff when logging a 3RR report. You're welcome to take up your issues with the process on its talk page but complaining to me and accusing me of making personal attacks isn't going to achieve anything. The policy was followed correctly, and I told you I was in violation as well because I was. That doesn't change the fact that yes, you have been in violation of that policy and yes, I will report it if it happens again.

I am rapidly tiring of trying to assume good faith on your behalf with your constant accusations of POV and NPA. I will remind you, if you read WP:NPA clearly, that unfounded accusations are also a form of personal attack, and one which you have engaged in extensively on this talk page. I've asked you no less than five times to stop doing so. If you're unwilling to do so, I'll raise the matter through dispute resolution. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Then,

I suggest for consensus the best for the page, for readers, the layout:

7 Works

8 Footnotes

9 References

10 External links

According to the primary guideline policy of WP:FNNR, again!

The numbering will change if other sections do, of course.

As was the state of it."Footnotes", before it was broken without any consensus at all, see 09:19, 6 February 2011.

References is for the purpose of reliable third party scholarly source references used as the main basis for the article facts.

Of featured article Rabindranath Tagore, you've completely missed the points i made of, quoting: "

9 Quotations

10 Notes

11 Citations

12 References"

Read what the contents of those sections contain. Note the up to date formatting policy i've use when there's no disruptive editing of WP:LDR, as used in the contents of those sections.--en:User:Macropneuma 07:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it appears I misread the article. While I have a strong preference for References as the section title containing citations due to it being by far the preference across articles here (the WP:FNNR even says as much) and I'd really like to hear your reasoning on why References isn't an appropriate title for that section, in the interests of resolving this particular disagreement, I'll compromise to this proposal of section titles 'Citations' and 'References'.

This said, the first item in the second section is a duplicate of links from the citation list. There's no reason to duplicate external links so close together; do you have any objections to it being removed in favour of the separate citations (9 and 37 I think from memory) in the prior section? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes or Notes is what they are in the real world and in the best scholarly and popular many books i read and in featured and good scholarly articles here.

Again, "References", as per the real world word References, and Identifying reliable sources, is for the purpose of reliable third party scholarly source references used as the main basis for the article facts.

When time, readers' understanding shows it needs to be split into sources' sections which show:

scholarly third party reliable sources preferably secondary not tertiary sources and not primary sources by Mr. Fukuoka at all,
citations of (just) his works which are of course and because of this primary sources and first party mostly reliable sources, except for translation errors and so on, i know of like natural farming instead of nature farming,
important quotations cited from his works,
and in addition to the Works list of his titles, a list of the major references used by the article, mostly uncited in the background in the article as the major overall sources of the uncontested facts.

Suggest according to WP:FNNR, featured article Rabindranath Tagore and many Japanese biographies i've read here, according with the manual of style for Japanese articles and for biographies:

"Works" (or "Corpus" but that doesn't usually include films)

"Quotations" or "Important quotations"

"Works cited" (primary sources citations in very abbreviated form linking to "Works")

"Notes" (or "Footnotes" or for real world readers: "Reference notes" or perhaps "Citations" but this confuses it as per WP:FNNR and reasons of citations are more the scientific style of (Fukuoka 1947, 1972, 2009) and internally here the eg. ^[3] internal links. (secondary and if any tertiary sources citations)

"Base references" or "References" (naturally simply implying the base References) or "Third party major references" or better "Major references" or "Third party references" or "Third party sources" (see though below) or "Main References" or even "Sources" or "Base sources"

then if ever necessary, the definitively less necessary documents which may be listed as:

"Further reading"

as different from

"External links"

I've thought closely and deeply through all of these above, and starting implementing, in much editing alone prior to 'the bad faith, no–consensus, ambush'. None of which has been acknowledged here. (Very much in evidence in hindsight now, grossly) ungrateful and warring TEs.

Quoting the same policy again:

Notes and References

Shortcut

WP:FNNR

Contents: These sections present (1) citations that verify the information in the article, and (2) explanatory notes that would be awkward in the body text. :Some articles divide this type of information into two or more separate sections; others combine it into a single section. There is no consensus establishing a :particular structure when footnotes and the works cited in those footnotes are placed in separate sections.

Title: The most frequent choice is "References"; other articles use "Notes", "Footnotes", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity). Several alternate :titles ("Sources", "Citations", "Bibliography") may also be used, although each is problematic: "Sources" may be confused with source code in computer related :articles; "Citations" may be confused with official awards or a summons to court; "Bibliography" may be confused with a list of printed works by the subject of a :biography. With the exception of "Bibliography," the heading should be plural even if it lists only a single item.

.--en:User:Macropneuma 08:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm still not clear on why, as per FNNR's suggestion in the area you quoted, 'References' can't be used for the section containing citations. You want to use that for a small section of external sources that aren't actually referenced in the article itself. Surely this qualifies them as further reading? Yes, citations can cause confusion but as you indicated yourself, the featured article you linked uses the word Citations for the section containing those citations. My original proposal was 'References' and 'Further reading'. I offered a compromise to 'Citations' and 'References' per the featured article you mentioned. I don't support 'Footnotes' since there's a difference between citations, which reference external sources, and notes or footnotes, which are bits of explanatory text that don't fit into the main article itself. The 'References' section typically includes both citations and notes, but calling the section 'Notes' or 'Footnotes' when in this article it only contains citations would be misleading. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, you misconstrued what i wrote, clearly above. Superficial reading? Close reading? Evident –WP:HEAR.

I've got many better people to engage with...(evidently), really genuinely better processes here, and better activities to do generally than ever getting drawn in to playing games of trivial pursuit in Wikipedia here? No consensus!... No to rubbish!... No superficial rubbish!... . –Not interested generally here, in anyone's brutal misconstruing or any kind of misconstruing.--en:User:Macropneuma 03:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. From WP:HEAR, 'do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you'. You said 'References is for the purpose of reliable third party scholarly source references used as the main basis for the article facts', and I agree with this, but this isn't consistent with your proposal - in this article, the third party source references used as the main basis for the article facts are all done in inline citation style, in a section you're proposing we call 'Reference notes' or 'Footnotes'.

Sigh! In the preliminary, that is just wrong misconstruing; –A newly taken approach recognising something i actually did write by quoting it, but above clearly misconstruing it by selectively taking it out of the rest of what i said. Read and WP:HEAR obviously. Meh.--en:User:Macropneuma 06:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking you, so far without success, to help rationalise this disconnect between your own words and to explain why you might support calling the section containing the automatically generated list of inline citations something other than 'References', as it is called in most other articles on Wikipedia and supported by the wording of WP:FNNR which says 'the most frequent choice is "References"'. I'm curious to know why you believe this isn't a suitable term given its prevalence across the project both from observation and as confirmed by FNNR, and why you believe an alternative term is necessary?

I'm not opposed to changing the title of the section away from References, as demonstrated by my offered compromise above in line with the featured article you used to support your position, which it appears you've now rejected. I am opposed to changing the title away from the most frequently used title on Wikipedia arbitrarily - I want you to explain your reasoning on why you think it's an appropriate change. That's not an unreasonable thing to ask, but instead I'm met with undue accusations of POV bias or personal attacks, along with your own veiled personal attacks such as having 'better people' to engage with.

You've explained what you believe the 'real world' word References means, and I haven't contested your belief in that meaning. What I haven't been able to glean from your responses, and what I'm trying to learn at the moment is why you believe the existing most frequently used term on Wikipedia is inappropriate for this article. I can't know if I agree or disagree with your reasoning on that point until you state it. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

After incorporating Fukuoka's response to the Magsaysay Award into the Awards section of the article and removing some duplicate references, the second References section only had two lines left. I've moved them into the External links section and removed the duplicate References section. This is in line with Iyo-farm's earlier cleanup efforts which I agreed with at the time and continue to agree with now. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Take a read of Isaac Newton.--en:User:Macropneuma 05:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I could similarly refer you to Blaise Pascal, Michael Jordan, The Beatles or William Shakespeare, all of which are top-class featured articles that use 'References' to hold inline citations. I'm sure articles that differ from this achieved that difference through consensus, which we don't currently have. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Take a read of Jane_Austen but you can't edit it.--en:User:Macropneuma 05:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Where the idea of "works" fail is that, unlike Jane Austen, those works are not all Fukuoka's. Return it to how it was Thank you. Iyo-farm (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

TechnoSymbiosis Take a read of Harold Pinter.--en:User:Macropneuma 00:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Topic Ban of Macropneuma

Macropneuma most certainly does not have any consensus whatsoever to clutter up and return the topic to the garbage it was before. All the needless duplications of Japanese, all the other duplications, all the quirky laying out, all the obsessiveness.

I am sorry but no.

Macropneuma, this is not your own personal, romantic memorial to Fukuoka. I am sorry but you obviously have good knowledge but no idea how to compose a topic page.

I genuinely encourage you again to start your own WIki on Masanobu Fukuoka on, say, Wikia. Unfortunately, you misunderstand entirely the nature of a Wikipedia topic page.

I am proposing we move to a topic ban on Macropneuma. There is really no reason why the rest of the community ought be burden with this kind of problem. Iyo-farm (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Evident, again, attempts to gratuitously, viciously personally attack, completely wrong on the evidence of me, my Wikipedia composition practises, and my reliably sourced evidences of the biography of Masanobu Fukuoka.--en:User:Macropneuma 23:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

One does not take wrongs, threats, more attempts to gratuitously personal attack, nor goading... .--en:User:Macropneuma 23:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you or do you not know the Japanese language?--en:User:Macropneuma 07:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

So what point are you trying to make Macropneuma? What is NPOV about the topic?

Look at the topic for Jesus. Now quite a few people believe he is God or the Son of God. His more notable than Masanobu. But you cannot say IS on the Wikipedia. You can say claimed, venerated as etc but you cannot make definitive statements about stuff like that. Many people having nervous breakdowns turn their lifes around, many hit the bottom and transform etc. It is a good think BUT you cannot deify someone on the basis of his claims.

What point are you make about Japanese? I am against this topic being littered with Japanese, because it adds nothing, and I am against it being turned into a liturgy in memory of Fukuoka. It is a English language encyclopedia. A well written 'less' is more.

As for the farm, you have snap out of your denial, Macropneuma. The family don't farm Fukuoka style. They farm in neat rows covered in black plastic. The hill is neglected and overgrown. It is roped off and they don't show it to strangers. The pagoda and huts are all falling to pieces, many have already died. I know that, I took the pictures.

The other hill you mention where the fruit is grown is elsewhere, a drive away. I've been there too. Mostly it is too steep to farm anything but at the top and around the edges one of Fukuoka's old students keeps up a little of the old ways. This is not for inclusion on the Wiki, just a personal note. I find it sad that all the money taken from the sale of books goes to a way of farming that is different (I guess it is what bought the grandson his farm). The old house is unlived too and looks like it has not been cleaned since Larry Korn was there. Iyo-farm (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you or do you not know the Japanese language?--macropneuma 00:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

One does not take wrongs, threats, more attempts to gratuitously personal attack, nor goading (see above)--macropneuma 01:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

People influenced

Regarding the list of people influenced, I think that it's apparent that Fukuoka has influenced a great number of people and that we clearly can't list all of them. My suggestion would be to limit the list to between 3 and 5 particularly notable people, leaving the paragraph clear that it's not a full list with phrasing along the lines of 'such as', 'including' or 'and others'. The last one is probably least preferred as it could be seen as vague or weasel-ish. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I know far more notable individuals he has influenced but, unfortunately, most are unreferenced. The problem is, most of the ones Macropneuma lists are non-notable. Unless they can make a Wikipedia topic of their own, I cannot see how they can be included.Iyo-farm (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Clean up

Hi.

I would like help from individuals with Wikipedia experience to clean up this article according to Wikipedian standards. I apologize when I write that despite years of attention the article really is in a little bit of a mess and purely from a literary point of view, is difficult to read.

Is anyone going to take great offence if I start copyediting it?

I have to say that I agree with others comments regarding its lack of encyclopedic style, and that the Wikipedia is not the place for such a personal article about Fukuoka.

I would like to see a wonderful, professional article about Fukuoka that reflects fully his positive influence. --Iyo-farm (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Specifics requested please, for consensus before blanking work

Details, please, on each of the above points you wrote, as feedback for us or for me please, including as you have no user page nor given any identity; who you are and what basis have you in information, more-than-English-language skills, experience and knowledge of late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu –this subject–? (ref 1) (ref 2), ... (more refs for profound issues related to this anonymity can be provided at your request); As this subject has been plagued for many years in the past by misinformation and myths about him and his works... (etc.) . I already know of more and certain copyedits that need doing to clean this article page up even more than has been done already.

I'm hoping for the best, 'professional' people like me or better than me to write & edit this more, meanwhile you newly come here and implicitly make a claim without providing any of your own user page at all, of any backing evidence for your "wonderful, professional article" writing claim –ie. without basis here, and by presumptuously so calling your user name here User:Iyo-farm. We have had very bad experiences here in Wikipedia with power tripping ratbags, sock puppets and other corrupt manipulative types playing mind games with pages, with their user names, with talk discussion pages and more. I want to have confidence in you and all in-team doing edits here, based on verifiable evidence for that confidence. Etiquette has great importance, value and means a lot. Assume good faith has great importance, value and means a lot, but you have already stretched that good faith beyond reason by newly coming here without giving any identity and not yet creating any user page at all at the same time as so calling yourself Iyo-farm. I sincerely hope you are someone who has a personal association with late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu and can verify such, and hence can legitimately claim the use of the user name Iyo-farm with all its implicit claims and connotations in late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's context –Verifiability–. One of Wikipedia's many rules that it says explicitly is that it, Wikipedia can be wrong in its own rules, so change and improve Wikipedia itself –Fifth Pillar: WP:IAR, ... (etc.). A few more amongst many rules and guidelines that may benefit you are: Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), Verifiability eg. references for most claims, Neutral point of view, etcetera.

How about: You please write from scratch the section Re-Greening Deserts, at the moment empty, including adding all necessary references, as per your claim of wanting and doing a wonderful, professional article; This should (preferably) be a summary of a separate article devoted to just this subject of re-greening man made deserts, as can be found in the Japanese Wikipedia as linked to the Japanese Wikipedia article page for late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu.

How about: You please write from scratch the sorely needed article page Akinori Kimura (as he's getting increasingly famous worldwide, and was inspired by late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu sensei).

Then we will all verifiably and clearly see how you go with your good proposal of "wonderful, professional" writing, implicitly criticising the current article as less than professional, and hence we will all have confidence in your editing, rather than just have your baseless implicit claim above to "wonderful, professional" writing.

Discuss first, in detail, edits of others hard work and still in-progress work (incl. cleaning up), please. That's fair, isn't it! Please compare it now to before i started editing in 2006 and started again since 3rd Aug 2010. If you know something about late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu from personal experience please own up to it and share who you are, and we should then all get along well; then i'll be only too happy welcoming you, because i have a person to welcome rather than just an anonymous and seemingly presumptuous user name, and working 'in team' with you as i've hoped for, for a long while now; If you have personal connections with him, then perhaps you may have copy–rights to an excellent happy photo of him, to upload to Wikipedia generally, within the laws of copyright – placing it as the introductory photo at the top of this, his page, for enlightening everyone! (For one example of what you may do if you have personal connections with him). Anonymous people, having something to hide, are naturally suspect in such a has-been mob-rule environment (ref 1) (ref 2), as this –that Wikipedia has been. Especially anonymous people with presumptuous user names, like User:Iyo-farm on this subject when they have no track record of good edits of their own, in new articles (or sections) from scratch, no identity owned up to here in Wikipedia and no user page describing their user name and engendering confidence in fellow editors.

Cleaning up here, makes an ongoing process for me here – along with the many many hours of work i've done here building it up from next to nothing, of which you have not yet expressed acknowledgement. Thanks--en:User:Macropneuma 10:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Macropneuma,

What I have written at RfC, and will take through any admin page you wish to argue it on, is that you need to take your 'obsessiveness' about with Fukuoka elsewhere. For example, start a Fukuoka Wiki all of your own at Wikia.com where you can go into each element in detail.

I mean this positively and sincerely.

You obviously have a lot of knowledge and many references but you cannot write in plain and simple English.

Your article was so difficult to understand and follow. It is layered with unnecessary duplication.

I think you are also using wiki-formatting in a very strange and unique way which makes the topic very hard to sort. --Iyo-farm (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

see also: Requests for comment / Masanobu Fukuoka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyo-farm (talk • contribs) 16:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Confidence requested of your editing intentions and good faith, for consensus

Complete rubbish about my personal qualities above. A gratuitous, attempted personal attack.

Identify yourself User:Iyo-farm –Seemingly evident Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, especially Avoiding scrutiny, WP:GHBH, WP:SOCK#NOTIFY – an absolute newcomer who has some evident Wikipedia experience (elsewhere?) –which begs only to start the process of asking the questions, not then yet the conclusion; Then with seemingly evident mixture of both good faith and of bad faith together; Then in editing actions and in writing above: dismissive and gratuitously abusive words towards me without citing any specifics of examples of any evidence and without acknowledging my successful extensive editings' expansion of the page since the previous 2010 state of it: [6], nor of my various earlier 2006 critical corrections of serious errors, referencing and expansions of it: 2006 before and 2006 after then 2006 before and 2006 after, then a few more edits in 2009, etc., talking above at cross–purposes, unresponsiveness, uncooperative, rather than constructive and cooperative in an editing team together with me;

For two examples, evidently & objectively gratuitously wrong, willful attempts to offend me, and to grossly exaggerate negativity, quoting from above:

...you cannot write in plain and simple English...

...you need to take your 'obsessiveness' about with Fukuoka elsewhere...

–and see the rest above; Never have i had such crassly rude, wrong, abusive and ignorant, flouting of Wikipedia's civility, assume good faith, and etiquette rules and guidelines, directed at me, who has done so much successful, referenced & appreciated work here [7] according to many associates of the man himself and many nature farmers; Absurdly, without so much as a scintilla of established dialogue beforehand. Do you have an axe to grind. Did you in fact actually rhetorically ask "...Is anyone going to take great offence if I start copyediting it..." because you had already made your plans, intent on uncivilly deliberately offending the one person?, me, who you even associated with an (quote:) "anyone" in that sentence –rudely as an absent third person–, me, who has done nearly all the editing for practical purposes alone for the last six months; How about 'learning the ropes' of this article, of some of its history of editing and editors, of its vandals, of its 'semi-vandals' –those superficially veiled detractors of the man himself–, establishing dialogue and then consensus, and then being bold by adding value to the article, as Wikipedia policy requires. - It's understandable and fair enough, that as i know i have, i've got into a rut being stuck on my own editing alone and batting off vandals for six months, including having somewhat followed the 'even deeper rut' which i also know about, of the previous way many edits by others had been worded before i started editing on Aug 3rd 2010 [8] as 120.156.57.75 before renewing and re-registering my old login again; I require team work not loose-cannon abusers; And because, had you also already made plans to offend those worldwide who accept and appreciate late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu by your writing about him dismissively, of his internationally accepted experiences and messages? Also, by your editing which broke the page formatting [9] and which diminished this biography to the simplistic point of a so called 'for dummies' page???;

Here's four examples of proper main English Wikipedia (rather than simple English Wikipedia) encyclopaedic biographies about people from non-English speaking backgrounds: Indian: Rabindranath Tagore, Japanese: Haruki_Murakami, Matsuo_Bashō, Jun'ichirō_Tanizaki – hence the conventions of biographies of people from non-English speaking backgrounds –see Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), MOS:; Here's one biography from an English speaking and Jewish background: Noam Chomsky; – Some of all of these with some of the up to date formatting conventions, especially on refs and citations: Rabindranath Tagore, and including team work by some apparently well informed editors. These people articles also have similar levels of world-wide influence and hence importance, as late Mr Fukuoka Masanobu does have for example in India, Greece, Thailand and Spain. This page and i need assistance, in that i've been expanding & editing this page almost entirely on my own because of lack of help by well enough informed people.

Late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu wrote in Japanese in internationally accepted scholarly journals and in scholarly terms in his own many Japanese books and papers published by both himself and the most renowned publishers appropriate to his subject matters, such as Jiji Press Co., Hakujusha co., Shunjusha co., NHK national public broadcaster, etcetera.

– Furthermore of my speculation about anonymous personally abusive User:Iyo-farm: –perhaps a person or persons i don't know who, who're personally angry at me for some undisclosed reason from my personal life outside Wikipedia, trolling directly at my work here in Wikipedia??? –I don't know, (don't care for trolls) and i refuse to become paranoid! It seems most likely on the small proportion of other English speaking people i know who understand his messages, that a person who finds this page "difficult to read", finds it so because of lack of 'awareness and brightness' on their own part, as has proven inescapably necessary for appreciating late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's own influential messages which have ramified outwards from the few 'Westerners' who clearly do appreciate them, his:

necessarily deep (complex to write up) philosophical writings about reality,
deep philosophical messages meant for the whole world to hear,
explicitly ineffable philosophical messages,
words not having any single words or single phrases translations in the 'Western' idiom(s),
his explicitly stated purposes of his whole life

All of which are required as minimal for if here would be a truly representative encyclopaedic article – I have met many more 'western' people, a larger proportion, who have in their own systemic biases felt too scared by those true deep messages he has made about life and reality, some of my own family included, and haven't wanted to admit them at all – which of course is not a reason to not write up his full and true messages here in an encyclopaedic article, not a reason to understate his worldwide credibility with those experts in his subject fields, in fact if that is the motivating issue here behind the words of abuse and bad editing and so on, it would be a perversion of Wikipedia reasoning –see Wikipedia:Systemic bias; –Especially as evident in their gratuitous deleting of the quotations of his own ultimate goal in life and his ultimate goal in farming, quoted in the top of the page in the introduction [10]:

The quotations of his biographically and personally most important goals deleted without any explanation

“

My ultimate dream is to sow seeds in the desert. To revegetate the deserts is to sow seed in people's hearts.

The greening of the desert means sowing seeds in people's hearts and creating a green paradise of peace on earth.

”

— Masanobu Fukuoka, 1984 自然に還る English translation 1987 The Road Back to Nature -page 360
1992 わら一本の革命・総括編「神と自然と人の革命」 English translation 1996 The Ultimatum of God Nature•The One-Straw Revolution•A Recapitulation -page 203

“

...The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings.

”

— Masanobu Fukuoka, 1975 自然農法-わら一本の革命 English translation 1978 The One-Straw Revolution -page 119

An edit history alone or with consensus, last example 09:19, 6 February 2011; Diff's example; And Editing in progress history item 07:51, 9 February 2011. An attempt re-start the process of continuing editing according to consensus processes, after using rvv to recover damage done without consensus. Never was any consensus for blanking nor my accepting of any above WP:NPA –clearly evident–perverseness.

(only copyedit heading for links citation rendering – --macropneuma 06:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC) )

Accepted by the most reliable sources is: His "kaigo" changed his whole life leading to his influence

Wikipedia:CLAIM—Especially as evident from the edit to what did previously read (at 09:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)), quoting:

In 1937 at about "age 25": "In an instant I had become a different person "[† 3]; experiencing liberation from impediments to reaching enlightenment[† 4][r 2]

–which is internationally accepted by reputable international organisations appreciating these philosophical norms, such as Indian Government & many universities, Japanese government and universities, Japanese national public broadcaster television station NHK, the Philippines government and their organisation awarding the 'Asian Nobel Prize' to him in 1988 (The Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation one major example ref. of many), the United Nations, etcetera.

The article after their first edit (14:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)), and their edits (02:34, 7 February 2011 till now (UTC)) reads dismissively, factually–wrongly and negatively (not positively at all), quoting:

In 1937, he claimed to have had a profound spiritual experience which transformed him and his world view [3] likening it to a satori. [4][5]

(his "kaigo" forms one of several forms of actual satori experience and a more specific in meaning synonym of satori (which has a more overarching general meaning), not a likeness or mere claim of it); Satori, he did experience at age 24-5, this is accepted worldwide in much evidence by those people who do accept the meaning of the word satori; this changed his whole life and led to his influence throughout the world today, which must get emphasied in any unbiased biography of him -References: Wikipedia:Systemic bias, (ref 1) (ref 2).

The above noted gross factual error and its impression to readers of disregard for and discredit of late Mr. Masanobu Fukuoka was, after my previous efforts specifically tagging it and explaining it as errors which were created against consensus and against all reliable sources (diff), soon corrected with consensus (diff), including the then appropriate removal of those tags that i put there, by another editor's response.

This gross factual error and its impression to readers of disregard for and discredit of Mr. Masanobu Fukuoka, has again now, after correction with consensus and explanation, been re–edited in (diff), with further talk constituting more blatant offensiveness attempts towards me, by the same user who first originated these errors (diff. scroll down to the Life section). This gross factual error has been directly rewritten twice now without consent against all reliable sources—four times if indirect rvv–general–corrections to the large number of evident gross factual errors are included (an example, of one rvv process diff, with one POV tag recovery edit in between after it'd been unilaterally deleted and their first edit after that rvv diff, with my one small copyedit correction in between). Furthermore in talk about that process itself again blatantly attempting to attack me and trying to put hurt–words into my mouth again.

So, again now, this requires correction so that the page does not defame the late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu—again on the basis of verifiable reliable sources.– --en:User:Macropneuma 03:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC) (—Copyedit here, giving more Diffs for clarification—of the corrective edits which were consensually accepted and now having been removed without consent.)

More evidence of not good edits and on gratuitous attempts at personal attacks—hard trying to keep good faith

An anonymous person, evidently having some limited previous Wikipedia editing experience, while evidently also lacking awareness of some of the up-to-date formatting Wikipedia-conventions which i used, gratuitously abused me about accusing me about my "wiki-formatting" without providing any specific examples of evidence nor any discussion prior to their editing; Which saying it again in this context: now has really broken the page formatting [11] –quoting their above gratuitous and unspecified 'negativity' towards me:

wiki-formatting in a very strange and unique way

–Especially negative, as evident in their comments above in the context of their edits now made, which have broken the page and really messed it up specifically for ref citations and wrecked it to the point of making it non-encyclopaedic for many other aspects –for those other editors and admins reading this talk – for refs citations i use as up to date instructions and formatting conventions from the following manual pages, see: Wikipedia Manual of Style (footnotes) #List-defined references, Template Reflist, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes) (in general the whole page's advice), Help Footnotes, Wikipedia:Citing sources|, WP:IBID, etcetera;

They're hiding behind anonymity here and have refused to respond and directly discuss with me or act constructively here, rather gratuitously abusing, talking at cross purposes and attempting to blame me for their own lack of knowledge of "wiki-formatting" up-to-date conventions, especially again those refs citations.

Yes, i am a successful nature farmer and a professional field ecologist and IT professional, including successfully doing professional writing, while i appreciate also, ineffable meanings. If foolishness is at play here, I don't suffer fools gladly and am personally well known for not doing so – having no regrets about that.

I'm in progress of making it more readable as i have been busy expanding and updating the formatting for many a long working time. This, late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's biography & i need help with the many hours of work i've done here already, not gratuitous abuse and obscrurantism of his life, his biography. Don't pretend that your opinions are any more than your opinions, that is why everything i appear to opine is in fact documented in his references, in Wikipedia manuals for conventions, and in writings by many of his supporters, associates, family and experts. I'm left with no other option than to suspect you, that you have issues and ulterior motives, which you're hiding behind your above abuse and unwillingness to come out of secret anonymity (not merely anonymity alone, obviously), eg. perhaps as has been typical of many wrong editors here in this Wikipedia page, have you come gratuitously out of greed for money from selling one of late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's English translation books, in his own descriptions of them: simplistic English translation of his Japanese writings, some of them inserting their own, translator's opinions, in an un-scholarly way (Reference: his section about this "The Road Back To Nature") – into what he, late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu has written in his own literature. Alternatively, perhaps are you someone who thinks they know more about late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu than everyone else and has been caught out by this page demonstrating with evidence that you don't actually know as much about him biographically as you thought you did, and claimed to others that you did, and that you cant take credit for having taken the time to write this page up properly, nor have you actually done a research project on his life and works, by which you can learn properly about his life, his biography. A scholarly, professional but unpaid research project on Masanobu Fukuoka, I actually have done in the last six months with assistance of professional Japanese scholars and of scholarly writing generally, of which this article page which is still in progress, is but one form of my 'produce'! – --en:User:Macropneuma 00:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC) (immediate response,) and updated at: --en:User:Macropneuma 07:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. Macropneuma, you mentioned WP:AGF in your earlier post but you've yet to show any towards Iyo-farm. Leveling accusations of sock-puppetry at this point is absurd, the user hasn't shown any signs that I can see at all of being a sock-puppet and hasn't been editing disruptively. Consider reading WP:NOASSUMESOCK and remember that unfounded accusations are often rude and insulting, and perhaps re-read WP:AGF. Asserting that Iyo-farm has 'stretched good faith' by coming to this article's talk page 'without giving any identity and not yet creating any user page at all' is completely unfounded and unreasonable.

You make assertions that he needs to verify himself in some fashion before you'll accept his criticisms, but verifiability relates to article content and has nothing to do with users. Similarly, Iyo-farm really doesn't need to identify himself. I don't see any conflict of interest and his username is innocuous enough. He's not obliged to have a userpage detailing his personal life or expertise and indeed he's not obliged to have an account at all - this is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, after all. He doesn't need a userpage to assert that the quality of this article is poor, that much is plainly obvious from a brief glance - case in point, out of the entire lede, not one sentence would be considered correct in standard English. The rest of the article is little better.

Please focus on improving the article, instead of attacking your fellow editors. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to improve the language in the lede. There are a few statements that should be sourced that I've added cite tags to - if the citations exist lower in the article they should be moved or duplicated to the lede. I can't vouch for the content of the lede itself as I'm not familiar with the subject, so if others could verify that it summarises the article appropriately, that'd be great. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you TechnoSymbiosis.

I think you see the problem but if, after years of attention, this article is the best he can produce - and his best defence is to attack me - then I cannot see Macropneuma solving the problem. In short, he is the problem.

If one takes the very last sentence of his diatribe, "A scholarly, professional but unpaid research project on Masanobu Fukuoka, I actually have done in the last six months with assistance of professional Japanese scholars and of scholarly writing generally, of which this article page which is still in progress, is but one form of my 'produce'!" you see the problems. It is not written English.

I am sorry but

a) No, it is not by any stretch of imagination scholarly. No faculty on earth would allow such a article to go to publication.

b) The Wikipedia is presumably not the place for a full length research project.

What we need is a relatively simple, clear, attractively written topic that, hopefully, inspired interested individuals to learn more about the subject and some links and references for them do so. The topic was none of that.

I am genuinely sincere when I encourage you, Macropneuma, to to and start a Fukuoka dedicated wiki at www.wikia.com. It would be a wonderful thing to do and give you the ability to go into the depth of your research over many pages, and attract supporters to help you.

What do I need to say about myself? Over the last 3 years I have had contract with two separate universities, I have tutored at post-graduate level about the presentation of ideas, know something about this topic and would like to see it reflect positively on the subject. Funnily enough, what I am thinking about is highly pertinent information which is not even contained in it. --Iyo-farm (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

On the gratuitous, attempted personal attacks ... hard trying to keep the good faith

Evident reactionary prejudice in vainly seeming to try to 'press my personal buttons' and with loaded words of more personal attacks. Rubbish patronising advice–abuse... given with added abuse of pointedly re-emphasised pretend false–sincerity. Put up your very best, here, according to the time you have available;

How dare you run around here abusing me while doing little good, as if you have, like, some holy grail exclusively possessed by you and as if everyone else who is in the process of delivering the goods deserves your abuse. If it is, metaphorically, that you're "a dog in a manger", then if you are that for too long, with your hype claims of "highly pertinent information which is not even contained in it", then you'll end up getting eaten up by your own self/selves (alike to the proverbial crabs in a bucket) together with the rest of the contents of the manger (the contents are the staff of life –grain); If that's your real issue, you'd better get over it fast –get over the island like manger wall or bucket top! On the other hand, if you're vainly trying to provoke me in order to entrap me in arguing and making myself appear bad with your negativity, then i'm not going to believe in that and you've set only yourself up for a fall – i'm not falling, not failing and refuse to become paranoid.

Put up your best effort or don't! If i was so 'hyped' as your words suggest you are then i'd have to be going around saying i've got highly pertinent information coming out of my ears, based on all the evidence related to this article's greater subject area which i've uncovered over the years, much of which can't fit in here! – but that is all useless hyped claims until it materialises instead of supposedly just sitting only in your head – When you let go your grasp of it, our communities will be the judge of whether or not it really is "highly pertinent information".

What's your agenda beneath the tokenistic words above? - anything more than to come here to complain, vainly try to lay blame & blame–shift, vainly try to verbal and vainly try to provoke? How come you haven't bothered to come here earlier to work editing, assisting in teamwork editing – while above you vainly complain: "I apologize when I write that despite years of attention the article really is in a little bit of a mess and purely from a literary point of view, is difficult to read." Have you been coming here reading the article for years and whinging in your apologies about it in your writing about it, without delivering for all those years any effort at all to assist editing it?

I did a few sets of small edits of critical–corrections, links & critical–referencing in 2006, each set of edits over a period of only one day or so which was all the time i had available in 2006, working in government. Adding some key corrections and substance to the page, nearly all those edits were accepted (particularly–except the notable anime movie reference to him), by a large community of editors and incorporated since then, were accepted by most of the translator–editors of the non–English Wikipedia pages in their many language pages, since then. You're hardly in a position to personally criticise me either for the very substantial writing i have done in 2010 since Aug., nor for what i haven't done earlier than that –your evident, incoherent and personal criticisms. As for you, put up your very best. All complaining hype talk and no delivery? I nature farm, I work in national, state & local governments at times, i work with universities' and research institutes' various researchers & scientists, communicate with and deliver sustainability-intelligence-help responses to requests from people around the world through the internet, and too much more to mention –I'm 'a little busy', and at the moment often on more practical than this Wikipedia, important nature/food growing work and direct sustainability advice/dialogue. What's your excuse for complaining and abusing and not delivering here. Lose the evident gross perversity.

I don't find any evidence of any sense of humour either in your words in admin pages' complaining, or in words here. Behaviour like yours here i don't want to know about.

On the subject of English here, this well known saying has a relevant edifying quality: "In a land of the blind the one eyed man is king" –and for explaining this saying's depth of meaning in regards to education conducted in English, a reference: –a classic from my work 20 years ago on education, school and university from distinguished professor...: [12]; And another appropriate edifying saying "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing."

If you don't accept and don't like Wikipedia's Five Pillars you will have no choice but to choose to go elsewhere, or buy out the whole organisation, heh!, if that were even possible. You write above as if you've made a judgement that you're bigger in role & smarter than everyone else around you and here, when in fact your belated admissions of a little introductory info about yourself illustrate that you are not bigger nor smarter, just going well, 'up–and–coming', and with an evident pretension that no one is smarter here than you; –eg. i work and/or write with: some variety of professors; sometimes professional philosophers; sometimes a professional journalist in London and more elsewhere; sometimes notable authors; some Japanese scholars; Aboriginal, Tibetan and Japanese elders who speak advanced depth of 'second language' English; various professional scientists; occasionally some of late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's main translators and associates; – some of whom particularly vouch for and praise my English writing at times ... and so on, blah! blah!. Then just as much: farmers, tradesman workers, teenagers, children, and also many people learning English from non-English speaking backgrounds, all those with less English skills, giving me some level of balance and appreciation of 'representative global English' and of straightforward English, including for very difficult to write up philosophy; and all for up to 20 years now.

How about you find something relevant to tell me that i can find out together with you that i don't already know, that will humble and please me.

When i talk scholarly evidence i'm not talking about any particular university or particular journal's academic 'straight–jacket' editors rules, those are for a narrow set purpose, not for here. Of course i'm globally, very much globally, an active person. I'm talking about what many people of the whole globe accept as scholarly evidence in accordance with Wikipedia's global population breadth and with late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's wide international breadth –somewhat different from your stated above apparent personal–professional academic employment, scholarly academic employment writing rules;

So you've never known translator/writer Larry Korn.

Lose the evident violent language style, the evident judgemental style, learn non-violent non-judgemental language from Gandhi, from Buddha, from Masanobu Fukuoka, and the like, then you may go far –far further than you evidently think you have already. You've let yourself down here already with gratuitous personal attacks to the point of being out of order already, before having any track record of incorporated edits – that is, edits under the User:Iyo-farm name?. Appropriately read late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's section in "One-Straw Revolution" called "Fools Come Out Looking Smart". You're talking about your own talk posts here above when you use the non-objective, un-constructive, loaded–personal–criticism word, quote "diatribe"; –Hypocritically – evidently–; Hence: –perversely – evidently–.

Reading the intention from the combined meaning of all your words above –beyond the literal meaning of your words "plain and simple"- you talk as if you are an elitist about wanting to write an article for spoon feeding students as if they are all more stupid than you, and an article for 'Mr. Fukuoka–dummy readers' meaning those who don't really want to read about him but have been pushed to; An article for spoon feeding students belongs in your own university briefing papers not here, other than that if such an article belongs anywhere in Wikipedia it belongs in Simple English Wikipedia cf. main Wikipedia's biography of Rabindranath Tagore.

My talk, here is allowed to be playful with language, wordplay, by making a parting playful loose sentence in my previous post. Duh! this talk page is not an article, it is talk! Attitudinally: You don't & can't have copyright of this article, as if you could. Wikipedia isn't your personal English–language–prejudices soapbox Iyo-farm – Let's face it, if i dared to go a little towards using judgement, for 'your medicine', as you have so gratuitously been judgemental already, i'd say: You're a rookie or a sock puppet here in this Wikipedia, by simple logic and also by your history here only those two possibilities can exist, and you've come here bullishly. Now you've got yourself with a piece of porcelain china stuck in your nose (a metaphor for what you've done in editing the article, to the confidence in you of people here, like me);

Factual errors in both your and a few of TechnoSymbiosis points –eg. one technical one i can be bothered correcting here: WP:LEADCITE – quoting his error: "if the citations exist lower in the article they should be moved or duplicated to the lede." TechnoSymbiosis your personal point, quoting: "'Never was a fan of redlinks anyway." –naive!– they have real practical importance and are encouraged by Wikipedia, for encouraging the creation of necessary new article and category pages. You're entitled to personally not be a fan of course, but many policies and the process of building Wikipedia makes them really practically important to it. TechnoSymbiosis: wrong about signs of sock puppets, (re-)read Avoiding scrutiny, WP:SIGNS, WP:GHBH, WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, WP:DBQ, WP:SOC generally, WP:SPI, WP:BIAS, (ref 1), (ref 2), ... . –to get the clues or signs of it TechnoSymbiosis use your pattern recognition abilities which you'd surely know we were all born with, while we all wait for the emerging evidence to reach an evidence–based conclusion. I still hope he's not but at the same time the pattern of signs i recognise from experience doesn't give me optimism – BTW also, more widely in the sense of related to global earth issues, in turn related with late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's and my work: hope without optimism – realism based hope!

First you need to read all the Wikipedia:Five pillars, then, here's four relevant, key Wikipedia policy quotations for you:

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not – Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy)

Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Your efforts do not need to be perfect; prior versions are saved, so no damage is irreparable. (Wikipedia:Five pillars, namely the fifth pillar: Ignore all rules)

Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.

This principle is not as broadly endorsed for biographies of living persons. While such articles are also allowed and expected to be imperfect, any contentious unsubstantiated or patently biased information in such articles should be removed until verified or rewritten in a neutral manner. (Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required)

Be Bold!... ...but please be careful – Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that contributors take care of the common good and not edit recklessly. Of course, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, usually painlessly. It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further. But there are some significant changes that can be long-lasting and that are harder to fix if the need arises. If you're unsure of anything, just ask for advice. (Wikipedia:Be bold)

The place to write really simple, simplistic and simplified English is the simple English Wikipedia, quoting: "The Simple English Wikipedia is for everyone! That includes children and adults who are learning English."; Or as in the sense of those well known series of books, so called "For Dummies", writing about late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu for readers who aren't really seriously interested in him ie. so called dummy readers, for example the real world book: "Wikis for Dummies" or an imaginery: 'Masanobu Fukuoka for Dummies', also shown within the simple English Wikipedia, here: simple:For Dummies. Digitally fully encyclopaedic rather than simple is what this main English Wikipedia requires, in your words above you provide little but rhetoric and ignorance about encyclopaedic main English wikipedia, for example its up-to-date formatting conventions which i've used, especially for refs & citations, in: MOS:, Wikipedia Manual of Style (footnotes) #List-defined references, Template Reflist, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes) (in general the whole page's advice), Help Footnotes, Wikipedia:Citing sources|, etcetera.

With my tongue in –my little bit exasperated– cheek, Iyo-farm, how about, in your now evident attitude, you revert the article back to this 03:01, 3 August 2010 edit before i started major updates on Aug 3rd 2010, and write what you will from scratch from that without standing on my shoulders of my extensive writing expansion since then – we'll see how your above (seemingly hollow) claims come out, in even clearer evidence, then.

Iyo-farm, you first arrived here with (metaphorically now referring to your first talk post above) seemingly now, a pretend–mild pretend–polite poisonous knife pointed at me, without giving me any assistance with this article page, without giving me dialogue by which i have the chance to explain the current state of this real work in progress. Talk is for that, consensus, not for your personal prejudices' summary dismissals. If your university tenure is dog–eat–dog competitiveness, don't bring that here to constitutionally–cooperatively edited Wikipedia; Leave that at the entrance gateway.

Your claimed wishes were for positivity, but wishes aren't enough; Hard work is required, as you've now, too late, discovered; And evident now, you've in fact practised in your article writing here a great deal of negativity, and of ignorance of late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's recorded and accepted accomplishments.

My good English writing sentences you have not acknowledged even while you've copied many of them and re-arranged them in your edits, meanwhile attempting to crucify me for the article's poor English sentences, which depending on which specific ones you actually mean may or may not be written by me, rather by previous editor's writing still there, in turn which may well be my work in progress to improve. If mine then, which may well be my tired poor writing in previous editing, or alternatively now which may be your poor wording from your recent editing.

All work in progress! As i said above "...of which this article page which is still in progress, is but one form of my 'produce'!" – in simplifying that English this page is one small product of the many products of my research project, i did not say it is the main product, which it is not at all, just a sideline, and very much still a work in progress –duh!– how many times do i have to say "work in progress", as well as it is in the banner across the top of the page for the last several months. Wikipedia etiquette precludes me from saying what you have now led me to think of your words, claims and abusive attitude. It's not so difficult nor so challenging, you just have to know what you're doing before you do it and know your basic subject matter before you read complex philosophical subject matter!

My glass is half full. In your gratuitous personal abuse talk here, evidently now, your glass has been negatively, unnecessarily, melodramatically, half empty.

If i do any other internet material i'll be doing much better material than wikia.com and than Wikipedia! Meanwhile learn what you're talking about before your speak here, for example have a look at all the interrelated pages for Noam Chomsky here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Noam_Chomsky – this is how eventual expansion of originally single article pages works here in Wikipedia, evidently it seems you didn't realise that at all. How about you take your own advice given so gratuitously-negatively towards me, and go and write your claimed "wonderful, professional article about Fukuoka that reflects fully his positive influence." in your own, advised www.wikia.com, and show me and us all. Your words, now seem just rhetorical hot air, hyperbole, for effect, (actual) ad hominem and for literally abusing me, without your having delivered anything remotely going towards the direction of a "wonderful, professional article", having taken the article way way backwards now to the broken down state, with simplistic understanding of Wikipedia styles of wording, and profoundly ignorant of his internationally accepted and recorded (biographical) accomplishments – a mere page. My hope springs eternal! --en:User:Macropneuma 07:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you but I am sorry. The article was unreadable, for too many reasons to go into here, and uneditable by others. I hope to return it to a state where it is both. Too much manure, too over-worked. You need to learn to stand back and let nature's little workers do their job.

I have no idea what the connection is between Fukuoka and Noam Chomsky. Chomsky is in a different league from Fukuoka. However, I will pass on your regards to the family if you want as they are near neighbors (you took time to question and insult my user name, and cast all sorts of allegations).

If you saw the state of the hill you would weep. They are neither concerned and apparently disinterested by it all. Most of all by the various nutcases that turn up to distract them from their work. --Iyo-farm 14:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

According to reliable sources: A seriously wrong Point Of View above, without a source. Disparaging his family's continuing nature farming

... I have seen the "state of the hill" in photos by an international journalist friendly to the community who visited and photographed it in late 2010 – just some months ago – looking really good! Reliable journalist source links herein.

Who do you think anonymously–you are kidding – eg. Are we supposed to not notice that these two below quotations from different talk post words of yours above seem are suited to your argumentation at that time you're making that post and yet when juxtaposed near enough to impossible to both be true – nearly impossible belonging in the one person. Either you're an Iyo farmer near neighbour (Iyo city: small city which late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu was born and bred in, and his family's farm is in, –a little remote from Iyo city, inland up a valley where the hills are largely forested; Meanwhile it's within the district of Iyo, and for Japan relatively further away from big cities – the nearest big city being Matsuyama), or you're a university post-graduate level tutor who's into the "presentation of ideas", merely "knows something about this topic" Masanobu Fukuoka, or you're neither of them instead just anonymously playing upon hype words, on the other hand are you, quoting: "Prof. Kato", or are you SalixAlba's sock puppet, another hack i know of '2Bob' from outside Wikipedia, or someone else from my many international activities outside of Wikipedia, who has in the past been proven wrong by my provision of evidence against their un-evidenced negativity or prejudices, and still not having gotten over it?:

What do I need to say about myself? Over the last 3 years I have had contract with two separate universities, I have tutored at post-graduate level about the presentation of ideas, know something about this topic and would like to see it reflect positively on the subject. Funnily enough, what I am thinking about is highly pertinent information which is not even contained in it.

However, I will pass on your regards to the family if you want as they are near neighbors (you took time to question and insult my user name, and cast all sorts of allegations).

Not to mention that they obviously don't ring true at all, especially after all the falseness, it's evident that you don't read Japanese from the fact that you haven't recognised his Japanese books in now, your bibliography and references list of my edits–work on his many and different Japanese books (everyone read the Japanese Wikipedia page for him), and WP:NPA, because if you had nothing to hide you would of course be up front at introducing your first edits to this page and to Wikipedia about who you are and what your contribution has in it, especially here in talk – desisting from all WP:NPA.

You say of late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu and Noam Chomsky, quoting: "Chomsky is in a different league from Fukuoka." based on what? Opinion with ignorance? On merely that you, quoting: "knows something about this topic", evidence from scholarly research i have actually done, some substance of which was cited in the article, evidences that Masanobu Fukuoka has globally and demographically much more influence, and popularly, globally much more well known than Noam Chomsky (leaving aside Systemic bias); In general population and media famous throughout India & Thailand (see the many hundreds of newspaper articles in global news search systems, especially Indian, Thai, Japanese and Philippines news); Famous in certain circles including ecological sustainability, sustainable farming, some parts of NHK and other media, and broad philosophy in Japan; Popular in certain circles including broad ecological sustainability and sustainable farming in Greece, Italy, France, USA, Australia (here), etcetera. Anecdotally by my various Indian associates and one of my Australian–Thai non-farming national library librarians for two examples, i'm advised that quote "everyone" in those two nations knows him and he's very famous. India has a large increasingly influential population using Hindi and English as their lingua francas across their many languages. The scholarly evidence appears that colonialist–derived countries and their peoples have lacked real appreciation of his profound criticisms of them (of us) ie. a critical Systemic Bias. --en:User:Macropneuma 02:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

First off I think it is high time that this article has had some view from other editors. It has for since August last year been the entirely controlled by a single editor. A classic case of WP:OWNERSHIP. There have been numerous deviations from the Manual of style. Perhaps the largest problem is one of Undue weight whilst the influence of Fukuoka on the alternative farming community is clear, the impact of his more philosophical writings is less clear. There does need to be some mention of this but it needs more balance.

I hope that a way of working on the article can be acheived, But that will require everyone to refrain from personal attacks.--Salix (talk): 19:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

On more gratuitous, perverse now, attempted personal attacks from another historical editor ... hard trying to keep the good faith

Wrong again SalixAlba, another perverting slander, a thinly veiled but against the history evidence base gratuitous personal attack – high time indeed but not for your above personal gratuitous attack derived perversion of reasons – near complete absence of constructive editors assisting the article and me extensively editing it does not constitute WP:OWNERSHIP –a perverse personal attack from you who evidently refused to constructively edit according the recorded history and my calling you out on it and suggesting in talk above, edits that need to be made, ie. more of your history of personal condescention towards me and un-constructive edits and talk. Evidence in the history since 2006 and further up this talk page shows i welcome a variety of editors who are evidently constructive, who came, and who come, to edit what they know about, and didn't come from evident ignorance and WP:BIAS; While batting off several detractors of the man himself, evident obscurantists of a page here about him and his full calibre, some vandals and some spammers. Then there's your edits at times SalixAlba evident from the history and interactions above in this talk, took a legalistic view of rules against the five pillars policies and evidently had ulterior editing motives to keep the article biased, limited, narrowly focused to your personal world "views", and towards permaculture

Evident above, you three (or two?), talk and edit as if you're Wikipedia and Masanobu Fukuoka experts while a mass of edit history and above talk evidences that you are not. On the other hand edit history and my talk evidences above evidence that i do a real lot of widely accepted editing work, meanwhile don't pretend to be, nor claim to be, nor am i ultimately any expert, either on Wikipedia or on Masanobu Fukuoka – modesty rewards me in my motivations to keep learning; Even while i'm (evidently) very much a member of and really well informed by the nature farming and Masanobu Fukuoka globally active community. You 3 (or 2?) don't seem to let the truth (evidence) get in the way of various good or moreso bad fictitious stories – science, meaning verifiable human knowledge rewards me in always approaching life with verifiable and verified confidence and information--en:User:Macropneuma 02:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

Macropneuma, you seem to have strong personal attachment to this article for reasons that aren't clear to me. I'm not going to reply to comments you've made about me directly (such as my talk page comment which was there solely to make sure my talk link wasn't red) because they're not relevant to improving the article here. You've attacked other editors, made accusations of ignorance and sock-puppetry and written a veritable essay in response to honest criticism of the article quality that you seem to have taken as a personal insult. Please, again, remember the assume good faith and remember that we're all here to improve the article. If other editors commenting on and working on the article bothers you, please consider taking a step back to get some fresh perspective. As Salix pointed out, it seems like you feel you own the article, and that's not conducive to good collaborative editing. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

On silly denialism of obvious–above, attempts at personal attacks ... hard trying to keep the good faith

Oh Dear! Without much or any constructive, non-attacking, non-offensive, non-insulting, non-poisonous, good-faith assistance I've done a lot, hundreds, of successful edits of it. Which would already be clear to you, except it is not clear to you, for some reason that isn't clear to me. Where it was still at that point very much a work in progress. So much editing, almost always alone, in effect isolated from good–faith, constructive, not systematically biased, well enough informed about Masanobu Fukuoka and about Wikipedia, editors. Without any constructive second opinions, feedback, proof readers or my own various communities assisting in editing at all... read the rest of my writing above for the rest this story. SalixAlba (means White Willow) has in the past here proved really biased, wrong and personally attacking of me – now having in that politically correct way and wrong way gloated just above here about someone else personally attacking me, hypocritically and Wikipedia–politically correctly saying, quoting: "But that will require everyone to refrain from personal attacks." – SalixAlba 'fine sentiments', if only they weren't hollow.

i do my research! ...

Previously you sided, unheedingly, with ?Iyo-farm?, gratuitously, judgementally attacking me, one quotation: "...you cannot write in plain and simple English..."; For what motive?; For what justification? None! Now you say, quoting: "You've ... written a veritable essay..." to me. Both cannot be true. From gratuitously, viciously, personally attacked with nonsense judgementalism, of supposed inability to write English, to writing a veritable essay! Discussing here an article sentence as, quoting: "...an example sentence...", is not plain and simple English, makes a good faith talk criticism (which i welcome). Saying gratuitous personal judgemental attacks here makes nothing of any meaning, only bad faith for some different (?political?) agenda, attempted personal attacks. ?Iyo-farms? personal attack words above do not make anything but bad faith and wrong – emerging into attempted Wikipedia:Griefing terms now, as well as still emerging sock puppetry.

User:TechnoSymbiosis you stop giving me gratuitous, unheeding, out of context, condescending advice. You remember!, the starting point that no assumption of good faith was assumed of me from ?Iyo-farm?, in the context of my very many successful good English language wording edits. Extreme exaggerations, gross ignorance and judgementalisms instead were targeted at me. Of course you wouldn't get the ?Iyo-farm? gibe, thinking it innocuous, because quoting you: "I'm not familiar with the subject". Later now, for your edification, late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu was born and bred in Iyo-district, his family of many generations over thousands of years, from there.

For ?User Iyo-farm's? issues, here's two Wikipedia policy quotations:

This page in a nutshell:

* Don't get stressed out while editing; defuse stress when possible.

* Edit while you are at your best, not while angry, scared, or intoxicated.

* Be considerate of others in the community.

The fight-or-flight response developed by our pre-human ancestors may have helped them escape from angry mastodons, but it isn't constructive in an online encyclopedia.[1] Wikipedia collaboration occurs between geographically isolated people in cyberspace. Nonetheless, sometimes editors get angry and feel a natural urge to fire off an immediate retort ("fight"). The urge is accompanied by a rapid heart rate, dilated pupils, and other physiological changes associated with the body's release of epinephrine. Or, they get scared or peeved or weary and just log off ("flight").

One of the best experiences at Wikipedia happens among editors with deep differences. People don't have to agree about a topic to collaborate on a great article. All it takes is mutual respect and a willingness to abide by referenced sources and site policy. If you think you're right, dig up the very best evidence you can find and put that in the article. Let the other side's best evidence be a challenge to raise your own standards and always bear the big picture in mind: we're here to provide information for nonspecialists.

There are several informal ways to de-escalate conflicts and defuse disputes. (lead at WP:NAM)

Wikipedia editors are generally expected to edit using only one (preferably registered) account. Using a single account maintains editing continuity, improves accountability, and increases community trust, which helps to build long-term stability for the encyclopedia. While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts on the project, the use of multiple accounts to deceive other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards – sock puppetry – is forbidden. (my emphasis added once, from lead at WP:SOC)

There's been so many loaded, graceless words started by others than me, and attempts to 'press my buttons' in euphemistic or 'politically correct' words... . Unlike that of ?User Iyo-farm's? evident approach since starting editing this article, i'm so very happy working in teams with people, including people like me and people very different from me. One-upmanship, etcetera, is not in accord with Wikipedia five pillars, constitution, other policies, nor with anywhere working cooperatively more widely in our Earth. The most highly pertinent information is: –A few references: Wikipedia:Systemic bias, (ref 1) (ref 2)

(Small copyedits updated - --en:User:Macropneuma 03:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC) )

Macropneuma,

in essence, you've been trying to turn this topic page into a shrine for all things Fukuoka and it has become choked. To a degree, I think you have idolized the "Japaneseness" element, a common issue with Fukuoka adherents. Unfortunately, this is an English language encyclopedia, and English language references are largely good enough.

On more gratuitous attempts to offend and judge me ... hard trying to keep the good faith

More gratuitous attempts to offend (put a fence towards) and judge me. You don't and can't possibly 'know me from a bar of soap', not personally nor in any way. Quoting you:

To a degree, I think you have idolized the "Japaneseness" element, a common issue with Fukuoka adherents.

Obviously you just entirely made that 'thought' up, that above sentence's, quoting it: "I think"; The evident only possible reason is because of your own previously also evident, thinking issues! – as you can't possibly know who i am personally at all – not personally nor in any way, nor anything about me. My depth of and my quality of my Japanese experiences, not to mention my Earth cultures experiences from many people from around our Earth, nor anything else at all. What are you hiding? What are you hiding behind? No–identity anonymity? Ha! If you have nothing to hide then own your personal name (here in Wikipedia) and your identity description (here in Wikipedia). Oh! you might lose your own supposition of omniscience; But then you cannot possibly ever have omniscience at all, in any way, anyway.

Unless you're SalixAlba's sock puppet, then he has, more generally in Wikipedia, one slightly redeeming point about him compared to his evident past attitude here in this article, and compared to your 'anonymity attitude '. Namely, his open, identified, informative–about–him, user page: SalixAlba. Why would i ever personally help out of their problems a personal attacker, rejecting–of–me, especially, doubly, one who even when requested to, obviously hasn't come out of, and want's to hide in, the shadows. Perhaps take your own gratuitous advice including your own gratuitous personally attacking rejecting–advice. It comes from you, and evidence in your now (evidently often bad...) article writing edits, evidences the fact that that supposed advice towards me is just all about you anyway. Who are hyped–up–you, anyway? How can you hype your personal self up, as a newcomer anonymous editor here, without any backing up of that hype with anything at all—any substance, any evidence, any confidence, at all; Meanwhile attempting abuse and attacking of me. Just a gratuitous, superficial, you–take–over-all, play by you? A conquer–and–dominate–pretentious silly–game play?--en:User:Macropneuma 07:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(Small copyedits, updated - --en:User:Macropneuma 03:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC) )

Question, is it OK with you to capitalize the Japanese book titles?

I suppose if you wanted, you could make a separate page for List of Masanobu Fukuoka Publications or List of Natural Farming Publications and see how you get on. I would not certainly object to that. If they wont let you do it as a main topic, why not make it as a subsidiary resource to this page to help others?

The rest does not require responding to but there are a few references you could help us with if you care.

Thank you. --Iyo-farm (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Two asides,

a) I was always unsure whether Fukuoka had had a "satori experience" or whether he just had some kind of a mental/nervous breakdown. It is always difficult to tell with folks that "go religious". He was probably one step away from karōshi when he stepped off the salary man wheel. I am happy to go with the folk legend reading of it but wanted to explain why I toned that down. It must have been a wonderful experience to go wandering around the countryside of Japan at that time, a Japan since destroyed.

b) If you want to establish the notability of Eiichi Kurosawa, then I think there is the material to do so but it wont be something I will do. Ditto for Yoshikazu Kawaguchi and Akinori Kimura. --Iyo-farm (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

After so many above gratuitous attempts to personally attack me ... You care? Want me to serve you? Good faith?

Aah, if you care! Read all of what i've written in the edits, the mass of history, the talks above... . When do you stop pretending to be the authoriser of what can and can't get established, completely having ignored the fact that i did all that checking already, according to Wikipedia policies of referenced sources. Somewhere back up there above in the talk, you were gratuitously abusing me for too many references – evidently your bad, your blanking—deletion and rejection attitude! – logically can't be anyone else's! Nearly all the English writing you in your edits have now kept, was written by me, and much of what you have blanked was written by editors editing before me – so called: 'can't write plain and simple English', huh! Gratuitously, violently trying to put out a fence towards me, for edits. ???

Learn all about that stuff and a lot more besides, which you say above: "I suppose..." about, before you come hack editing and personally attacking editors. Duh! Consensus!!!? For so many meanings on so many fronts, you have now made the page so very factually wrong (also on so many fronts) – really broken and broken the evidence base of required referenced sources – according to so much scholarly evidence i have, some of which i used in the page, and much of that which you have, for now, destroyed. Who the WP:NPAer do you think you are. Redeem yourself with me, to my satisfaction, towards Wikipedia's–requirement, policy of consensus with me, before vainly trying to turning on a dime asking me to personally help you with your (evident so far often bad...) edits – too many examples to bother with, eg. one silly example, you don't even have clear in your so called thought his birth date. I could tell you his correct birth date in my sleep nowadays.--en:User:Macropneuma 07:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(Small copyedits, updating for readability, welcoming new editors - --en:User:Macropneuma 04:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC) )

I am sorry. I read an article and it said the Wikipedia was an encyclopedia anyone can edit.

It was the first time I ever made one of those boxes. I copied from elsewhere and obvious did not get it right.

It is fixed now and improves the topic.

You misunderstand me. To say, "I suppose" is just politeness to show I consider what you say but I see [[13]] you erased all the work the rest of us did.

More importantly, what do you say to the claim that Mokichi Okada is actually the founding father of Natural Farming, rather than Fukuoka, and that he published 20 years before him? Perhaps we need to add some kind of qualification?

I think the reference to Okada is a little misleading at present as the Okada topic mentions nothing about his farming and only his spiritualistic activities. Can you work its farming aspect, Macropneuma? No mention of Janong or Yamagishi Miyozo Natural Farming aspects in the Wikipedia either. --Iyo-farm (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

After the fact of their ignoring of their own, above, gratuitous attempts to personally attack me, tokenistically trying good faith? For real?

My internet allowance was used up just at the right time for me to no longer access any more here, your words full of gratuitous personal attacks, such as those above. – A mere saying: 'The cosmos's great spirit works in mysterious ways, to humans'. I knew this, my internet allowance would run out and i didn't feel any need to renew it as I'm a–good–kind–of–busy in my tens of acres with many years in my experience, 自然農園 (nature farm)!–Huh! Busy in my practise which you abusively, back stab-ingly wrote here in Wikipedia you don't know about (Ref.). Of course you don't know about it, how could you – suits me fine now – enough of my having been gratuitously ignored and gratuitously personally attacked, etcetera by the most uncooperative ... i've encountered. ... . I have never had anything to prove in relation to my philosophy and practise of this sustainability subject. My writing is backed by verified and verifiable reliable sources, as is my personal practises and philosophies. I don't have to say "I think" about them because i have evidence in writing, in photos, in many friend's direct observations, etcetera. Just because you don't know me, that doesn't have any meaning. It's just that you don't know me and that's all.

A few evidently–appropriate, simple English philosophy and science quotations for beginners

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! (eg. by Dr. Gott)—more evidently–appropriate here for one is: Your evident–ignorance of evidence is not absence of evidence.

It's no secret that a liar won't believe anyone else! (eg. by pop band U2)

A problem cannot get solved by people with the same mindset as those that created that problem. (simplified paraphrase of eg. Einstein)

Smoke and mirrors! (everyone knows this)

All the chit you givin' us is fertilizer! (Michael Franti and Spearhead in the track Yell Fire! on the Yell Fire! album.)

Take the scales from your eyes. (well known, originally said by whom?)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. (widely known..., originally said by whom?)

Wise folks count their blessings! Fools count their problems! (Michael Franti and Spearhead in the track All i want is you in the All Rebel Rockers album)

(Small copyedits and a few additions of more of these simple quotations, for clarity, for readability—for effectively welcoming different editors. - --en:User:Macropneuma 01:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC) ) (Clarification update by adding one very much plainer English clause to an existing above sentence. --en:User:Macropneuma 03:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC) )

Baseless, un-evidenced and grossly–ignorant–of–me casting of aspersions towards me just bounces them off the smoke and mirrors you've anonymously put out and up all around yourself in words here, reflecting back on you extraordinarily badly... . (evident now Straw man... . Consensus and policy respect, with you 3 or 2 or even 1, now absolutely requires this... :) .)

Masanobu Fukuoka's nature farming and parallel movements of Mokichi Okada and others

Merely one minor reference of many hundreds there, quoting for you directly here, with extra clarifying and simplifying words added for you, is:

There's no difference in the Japanese words for Nature Farming: 自然農法, and for Natural Farming: 自然農法, where written by late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu & his Japanese supporters and by late Mr. Okada Mokichi & his followers. (eg. see 福岡正信 and 自然農法.)

There are evident real differences in the philosophies, evident significant differences in the defining principles, and evident very big differences in the practises, since 1935 until today; Eg. no tillage versus tillage in Masanobu Fukuoka vs. Mokichi Okada farming, respectively. (One of many many available citations, this one is just a citation of citations.)

Check the reliable dictionaries' sources yourself if you care! – The evidences of the most reliable dictionaries' sources are of course cited where necessary as footnotes in my recent edits of the page! Eg. Kenkyusha's dictionary. Look up this Japanese, in a dictionary: 自然の農法。!

I do my research and check my sources beforehand, in my professional second–nature. That so called claim in ?Iyo-farm's? talk immediately above about late Mr. Okada Mokichi is just a so called 'land grab'– Lies! Again without any evidence or substance provided. Mokichi Okada's organisations today, in their own nature farming (collective) research institute's book by Xu, Hui-lian (2006) "Nature Farming in Japan" ISBN: 81-308-0119-1, which i referenced in my edits:

Describes both late Mr. Okada Mokichi and late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu, and additionally all people who describe themselves in Japanese as practising "自然農法 (shizen nōhō)", as practising nature farming, in correct English translation from that Japanese "自然農法 (shizen nōhō)", especially on pages 10 to 12 and 134 to 140, etc., ;
Extensively confirms the truth of the history about late Mr. Okada Mokichi, especially in the detailed chronology of his spiritual and practise history, on pages 130 to 134, and about late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's history but in a very incomplete half way, on pages 134 and 138 to 140; Describing his background and life biography only from the 1978 starting point of the references which only include his book translations to English, totally ignoring his original own Japanese books, scientific papers, conceptions starting from 1937 onwards, and ignoring especially what he initiated practically from 1938;
Confirms the correct translation of late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's original and still current "自然農法 (shizen nōhō)" as "nature farming" – as late Mr. Okada Mokichi changed his farming's name to much later in 1950.

Specifically, two quotations with copyedits for simplifying them, including by expanding and punctuating them more (–more or less arbitrary decisions), into somewhat long-hand spelled-out–language for you:

1) He [Masanobu Fukuoka] began his work career in 1934 as a biological and agricultural research scientist specialising in plant pathology. In 1937 at about "age 25" he says: "In an instant I had become a different person",[q 3] experiencing liberation from impediments to reaching enlightenment;[q 4][w 2] Then therefore profound doubt of modern 'Western' agricultural-science. Immediately, the next day, he resigned from his research scientist and plant quarantine job; Returning to his family's farm in the island of Shikoku in southern Japan in 1938 to demonstrate his enlightenment experience in practise by its implementation in his family's farm; Initially with some of his father's organic citrus orchard. He says that from 1937 he consciously began devoting the rest of his life to expressing his enlightenment experience, including his at once practical and philosophical natural way of farming;[w 3][5][6][7] In 1938 initiating doing "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)". ... From this 1937 time onwards he began writing up "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)". Over several years between 1937 and 1947 he wrote farming advice columns in Shikoku's local newspapers, including Ehime's newspaper(s) [i must check which years and which newspaper titles later], while he worked at the neighbouring Kochi prefecture agricultural experimental testing station. In 1947 after the end of the war and his return home to full time in his family farm, he further defined "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)"; In 1947 he says he "established" "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)". He wrote his first book "無　神の革命 (mu : kami no kakumei, Mu : The [universal or nature (kami)] god revolution)" in 1947, as he reminds us in writing in his later books. He has later again written reminding us that, in 1947 he "wholeheartedly devoted himself"^{[Ref. –his Japanese below]} to "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)" (—a nearer–to–correct translation to English from his Japanese 自然農法;[10][w 4][q 5]) Also deftly and variously titled natural, "do-nothing", Wú wéi, "no-action" or 'not doing' farming.

2) The timing and circumstances of his [Masanobu Fukuoka's] going beyond modern 'Western' agricultural science, parallels the new movements, in Japan by leader Mokichi Okada from 1935 to "Fertilizer-free Agriculture" –no fertilizers, no pesticides and no animal manures–, changed-in-name to nature farming in 1950.[w 4] ...

Ref. for "wholeheartedly devoted himself" –his Japanese, a quotation:

　大正２（1913）年、伊子市大平で生まれる。1933年に岐阜高等農林卒業後、横浜税関に勤務。25歳の春、後に自然農法実践の哲学となる　「人智・人為ー切無」の天啓を得て、退職。西日本放浪を経て帰郷。無の哲学を米と蜜柑作りを通じて実現するため、終戦の日以降、自然農法ー筋の百姓に打ち込む。

　そしてついに1950年、米麦連続不耕起栽培技術を完成、自然農法を確立。25年後の1975年、『自然農法　わら一本革命』として世に問い、アメリカなど11ヶ国で翻訳。世界中で読者を得、民間人おして世界で最もよく知られる日本人となった。

—from p. 265 of his book:

2001 (in Japanese) わら一本の革命　総括編　—粘土団子の旅— (wara ippon no kakumei sōkatsuhen -nendo dango no tabi-, [The One Straw Revolution Recapitulation –Journeying [around Earth] with Clay Seed Balls–]); Self-published by 自然樹園 (小心舎) (Shizenjuen (Shou Shin Sha), –one of his own self-publishing-publisher-names), in 2001 May; More than 950 captioned photographs from his travels all around Earth and his farm, many reproduced drawings and diagrams, and a full book of text pages also; 271p A4 30x21cm ISBN 978-4-938743-02-4; Re-published in 2010 April by Shunjūsha (春秋社) 272p A4, in print ISBN 978-4-393-74151-1. Japanese only, not translated (yet).

–added later edit – the promised Japanese text update edit – --en:User:Macropneuma 03:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

–later small copyedit of formatting for readability.--macropneuma 01:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

'I think' 2 years is different to quoting you "20 years"!!! 'I think', much more significantly that late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's 1937–onwards initiated "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)" is very different from late Mr. Okada Mokichi's 1950 name change to "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)". 'I think' that late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's 1947 written up and "established" "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)" is very different from late Mr. Okada Mokichi's 1950 name change to "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)". 'I think' significant is that late Mr. Okada Mokichi's 1935 till 1950 officially titled in Japanese "[i'll check up that Japanese text later], Fertilizer-free Agriculture [as translated to English]", is very different from late Mr. Okada Mokichi's later 1950–onwards defined "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)", based on my reliable evidence sources, available on request, eg. Xu, Hui-lian (2006) "Nature Farming in Japan" -pp. 10 – 12, 134 – 140, etc. ISBN: 81-308-0119-1 which i've actually read! 'I think' that late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's fully proven in practise accomplishment of "Rice & Barley continuous succession no-till farming" from 1950–onwards, is very different from late Mr. Okada Mokichi's 1950–onwards name change to "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)". (example ref.: 1985 "The Natural Way of Farming" eg. p. 177) (Longer detailed references supplied on request, of course).

Late Mr. Okada Mokichi and late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu lived at home in Japan; Spoke Japanese and spoke Japanese idioms; Came from their culture, Japanese; Can get understood relatively simply, even with their deep philosophies, from any various, informed, "neutral", Japan–experienced–people's insider's views looking outwards (evidence); Comparatively however, they cannot get understood easily at all from a Japanese–outsider's view looking inwards (–especially their philosophies); – You don't like that??? (–as suggested by your gratuitously abusive negativity expressed towards so called "Japaneseness" above? –quoting you above: "...idolized the "Japaneseness" element...". Such a lot of rot!... Honest–robust communication, robust respect, correctness and reliable verified evidences, i respect as having so much value and importance, not your evidently–silly made–up so called 'Japaneseness' nor your gratuitous abuse of me of so called "idolized the..." anyone or anything. ...you don't have a clue who i am, not knowing me at all. Duh! Next, are you gonna tell me that you can read my mind—absurdly impossible! So much rot that i should not–ever have to come to all of this problem solving parenthetical–level – All obviously, your evidently–silly projections of images—imaginings—from your mind, onto 'pre–existing'–pre–'conceptions'—'pre-imaginings' which YOU so–clearly–wrongly imagine towards me; Wrong judgementalisms too, in other words.) Late Mr. Okada Mokichi and late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu! – Japanese people! They cannot be anyone else; Get used to it! Duh! Can you not cope with and respect fully people of Japanese nature, as suggested by your above words abusive of my respect? Duh! Is it some deep fear and loathing or whatever??? Dear o Dear! What the ... are you doing editing a biography of a Japanese person then, if you seemingly don't like the Japanese, or the insider's view of the Japanese?

That's what makes good subject matter editors in each respective article's subject matter here. In other words, editors who genuinely know their subject matter (from the inside outwards...), with reliable evidence sources – not with pretending, nor bias, nor mere hearsay, at all; – And not just Google wack'n' the subject!... –Not a reliable source per se at all –WP:GYNOT—approx. 275,000 en & approx. 39,300 ja Googles can only assist on the way to getting to the reliable sources and with the initial indications of notability for new articles, but it is not a reliable source in itself, nor a final test of notability, nor "to verify the accuracy of information" –there quoting from WP:GYNOT. Even Google scholar, Google books and Google news have a systemic bias with Japanese, such as missing hundreds of reliable news, citations of and scholarly articles about and by late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu and (his sense of) nature farming; While for editing biographies of Japanese people here in Wikipedia, Japanese–owned search engines, referencing about him in news, in scholarly journal writing, in books and in library holdings, prove up the reverse of that bias, by showing in total hundreds of reliable sources, millions of literature citations of him (in WebCatPlus), and of bibliographic listings of his scholarly journal writing and books. Evidently, you can't possibly have even tried these, nor even the imperfect–for–Japanese–people's–work English or Japanese Google scholar. –clearly apprehended WP:BIAS!

He only ever writes in Japanese! Of course! Translators and so on write the rest! Inevitable losses in translation processes!, especially of course, translations of idioms! Editors of formatting, mere proof readers, and so on, who are not subject to the need of subject matter expertise at all, can do great assistance–work in team work with any subject matter editors, obviously; If they have good faith and respect everyone, including themselves! Of course, (in the singular sense) there is no Wikipedia view nor end, specifically on each article's specific subject; Only general policies, not specific policies on only one individual article; Encyclopaedic policies, evidence from reliable sources, verifiable, neutrality, biography writing policies, Japan articles' policies, editor relations' & consensus policies, and all the rest of the policies, which in turn remain subject to change by consensus; No specific view nor end on Masanobu Fukuoka! at all – that's absurd, of course! Just neutrality on all article subject matters, according to reliable evidence sources, cited! Of course, Wikipedia provides not an end at all but (only) a means!

Wikipedia etiquette precludes one from saying here, what to me your edits' critically–evidence about your levels of respect, civilisation, language, listening, reading, knowledge, civility, consensus, co-operation, awareness, information, evidences, reliable sources, research, resources, Japanese respect & skills, references, etcetera – In this case here, on the subject of biography of 故福岡正信さん (late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu). Who the ... are you, rather than who you think you are?

For a wee little bit of your edification (WP:AGF), from a very little bit of this, my large research, (and practise and sustainable way of life); More than you personally evidently–above deserve (WP:AGF) from me after so much gratuitous personal abuse started by you, (separate from what general Wikipedia and us, it's general readers and editors, generally deserve, which is much more); Here's: Yamagishi movement and Janong Natural Farming, Korea, which derives from it –the Yamagishi 'cult¹ movement'. Note 1) Advisedly, I nickname it a 'cult movement' based on this quotation from that Wikipedia page: "The movement has been sued by former members seeking to recover their financial assets, which were required to be donated when they joined." and my reading of the Japanese media on it: eg. Ref 1.

I am correct to have called you out and closely scrutinised you on your presumptuous user name ?Iyo-farm? here, by my above asking politely for you to show due cause for such a presumptuous user name as ?Iyo-farm? in an editor of the article of late Mr. Masanobu Fukuoka – Who was born, bred and lived nearly all his life in Iyo (district), and who's family has lived there (ancestrally) for apparently 1,300 years or so, according to records; You still have not yet answered this – WP:SPA. The same would occur if, while extensively editing, restructuring and expanding the article Masanobu Fukuoka, i had presumptuously named my user name "Masanobu Fukuoka" or "shizen nouhou" or "Fukuoka-farm" or "Fukuoka-farmer" or similar.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia according to the policies, including respect, reliable sources, no copyright violations, consensus, etcetera; Not according, evidently, to unilateral decisions, personal attacks, and editorialising, etcetera... .

I never criticised your infobox per se; Read all of what i wrote extensively above; That one of many mistakes i wrote about above, was about his life's birth and death dates wherever they are written in your multiple edits at that time. Fixed now, i never had any worries about that per se, just the point! Saying a tokenistic sorry about a non-problem which i never addressed myself to, while not saying any substantial sorry about specific gross problems now on the page, doesn't make sufficient 'anything'. Not to mention about your gratuitous attacks towards my person. Where do you even get those of your evidently un-sourced and wrong personal opinions about late Mr. Masanobu Fukuoka, now on the page, from anyway; And also about ecological processes (rather than aesthetic opinions)?; And also about, what is now his family's farm? Your farm photos are selective and grossly unrepresentative –WP:BIAS, WP:W2W & WP:UNDUE etcetera ... – There are many different very recent photos which show very different impressions of different parts of the farm, the opposite of so called neglected; And especially continuing the key, influential, annual crops in straw mulched cropping areas. Anyway, nature grows itself in forests everywhere, with so called neglect; So called neglect, an appearance only, an aesthetic prejudice word towards its mere appearance (ref.); If the owner says they didn't want that to happen, says they've neglected it in not doing work they did intend to do and they say that harm has come from that; Then if, this owner's own words has a reliable and verifiable source, it would get published here with the source, for everyone to check it and learn from it for themselves. (Copyedit adding clarification from an independent same–scenario source, from a Reuters newspaper article source.—'neglect' appearance prejudice. – --en:User:Macropneuma 03:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC))

For one of several example sources, I respectfully access a series of public photos from Summer 2010, on a professional journalist's personal page—I already corrected you above mentioning this, my public source above—sufficiently for you but very briefly; All the same though, in time for you to not make the mistakes on the page which you have now grossly made; And in time for you to show an interest in those photos i mentioned, which you have not– (I have not yet got permission from him to cite here in Wikipedia his personal page, or an anticipatory–archive of it, nor yet asked him to publically release his professional photos into this, Wikipedia, as 'public domain' or fair use.); These include the professional journalist–photographer's English language descriptions of his invitation from the family, allowing him to spend a couple of days at the Fukuoka farms, of his meeting some of the family including 'the son', of his touring, of his doing farm work there in the citrus orchard for those days, and of his learning first hand about the workings of the farm from the family; Also of course of, photographing the farm and presenting his Japanese captioned photographs and Japanese descriptive text on his personal Japanese page.

Nothing you have said about me at all, rings true at all, or gets supported by evidence, or could be recognised by me as me, or by the many people who actually do personally know me. The page now has grossly wrong errors – the effects of evident–wrongheadedness WP:POV ...; And those gross errors of which do occur, do so against all reliable sources and/or many Wikipedia policies on those relevant particular editing aspects; – In overall biography impression, and inclusive of some key meanings there, now grossly erroneous ... .

... .

Quoting again from above my now–even–more–appropriate first words responding to you above, with a few simplifying copyedits

Details, please, on each of the above points you wrote, as feedback for us or for me please, including as you have no user page nor given any identity; who you are, what basis have you in information, in more-than-English-language skills, in experience and in knowledge of late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu –this article's subject–? (ref 1) (ref 2), ... (more refs for profound issues related to this anonymity can be provided at your request); As this subject, nowadays late Mr. Masanobu Fukuoka, has been plagued for many years in the past by misinformation and fallacies about him and his works... etcetera... . I already know of more, and certain copyedits, that need doing to clean this article page up, even more than has been done already.

I'm hoping for the best, 'professional' people like me or better than me to write & edit this more; Meanwhile you newly come here and implicitly make a claim without providing any of your own user page at all; Without providing any backing evidence—confidence—for your "wonderful, professional article" writing claim –ie. without basis here; And by presumptuously so calling your user name here ?Iyo-farm?. We have had very bad experiences here in Wikipedia with power tripping ratbags, sock puppets and other corrupt manipulative types playing mind games with pages, with their user names, with talk discussion pages, and with more. I want to have confidence in you and all in team, doing edits here, based on verifiable evidence for that confidence WP:AGF. Etiquette has great importance, value and means a lot. Assume good faith has great importance, value and means a lot, but you have already stretched that good faith beyond reason by newly coming here, and at once so calling yourself ?Iyo-farm? all without giving any personal introduction, any identity and not yet creating any user page at all (–WP:SPA How can i welcome you with nothing but empty–of–substance presumptuous user name). Sincerely, I hope you are someone who has a personal association with late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu, and can verify such; And hence can legitimately claim the use of the user name ?Iyo-farm? with all its implicit connotations and claims, in late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's, this article's context –Verifiability of reliable sources of your information (–not writing edits of saying hearsay!). One of Wikipedia's many rules that it says explicitly is that it, Wikipedia can be wrong in its own rules, so change and improve Wikipedia itself, by consensus of course –the Fifth Pillar: WP:IAR, ... etcetera... . Here's a few more amongst many rules and guidelines that may benefit you: Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), Verifiability eg. references for most claims, Neutral point of view, etcetera.

How about you?:–

Please write from scratch the section Re-Greening Deserts, at the moment empty; Including adding all necessary references; As per your claim of wanting and of doing a wonderful, professional article. This should (preferably) be a summary of a separate article devoted to just this subject of re-greening man made deserts, including all the various practitioners, as can already be found in the Japanese Wikipedia, as linked to the Japanese Wikipedia article page for late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu (which is of course linked to this article).

How about you?:–

Please write from scratch, the sorely needed article page Akinori Kimura, as he's getting increasingly famous worldwide, and was inspired by late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu sensei.

Then, we will all verifiably and clearly see how you go, with your good–mere–proposal of: "wonderful, professional" writing; Implicitly criticising the current article as less than professional and wonderful; Hence we will all have confidence in your editing, rather than just have your at–this–time baseless implicit–claim–hype above to, quoting you: "wonderful, professional" writing.

Discuss first in detail please, edits of others hard work and still–in-progress work (incl. cleaning up). That's fair!, isn't it? Please compare it now to before i started editing in 2006, and again to before i started again editing since 3rd Aug 2010. If you really know something about late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu from personal experience, please own up to it and share who you are, and we should then all get along well; Then i'll be only too happy welcoming you because i have a person to welcome, rather than just an anonymous and apparently presumptuous, but completely identity–less anonymous user name; Then, working in teamwork with you and i co-operating; As i've hoped for some more good fellow editors here, for a long while now. If you have personal connections with him, then perhaps you may have copy–rights to an excellent happy photo of him, to upload to Wikipedia generally – within the laws of copyright – placing it as the introductory photo at the top of this, his article, for enlightening everyone! (–for one example of what you may do if you have personal connections with him). Persistently completely anonymous people, having something to hide, are naturally suspect (obviously something fishy's going on), in such a has-been mob-rule environment (ref 1) (ref 2), as this; –That, as Wikipedia has been. Especially persistently, completely anonymous editors with such presumptuous user names like ?Iyo-farm?, on this subject of this article of Masanobu Fukuoka; Who was born, bred and has apparently 1,300 years of ancestors in that home location, in Iyo-district there; Including additionally, when they, ?Iyo-farm?, have no track record of good edits of their own in new articles (or sections) from scratch; No identity owned up to here in providing their own introduction, in this article's Wikipedia talk, nor any user page describing their user name engendering confidence in us, fellow editors.

Cleaning up here, makes an ongoing process for me here – along with the many many hours of work i've done here building it up from next to nothing (more or less nearly a stub), of which you have not yet expressed any acknowledgement or gratitude. ... Thanks. --en:User:Macropneuma 10:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

. Eg.: WP:DONOTDEMOLISH – WP:BUILDER – WP:POTENTIAL – WP:CHANCE – WP:NPOV – WP:IRS . --en:User:Macropneuma 11:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(Small copyedits, updated, for clarity, correcting some facts referenced and for readability—for effectively welcoming different editors. - --en:User:Macropneuma 07:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC) )

(Small copyedits, formatting on line into a heading for more readability, and regarding gratuitous & gross personal attacks attempts towards me. – --macropneuma 10:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC) )

[god's_farming_40s_book_Jean-Claude_Catry-1] "Jean-Claude Catry, 2003 Nov.: i have a copy of his first book written in the 40"s "the god's farming ". it is a dialog between him and a wise men from the mountain ( imaginery i assumed )"

[Mu_1-The_God_Revolution-2] Picture of: Fukuoka Masanobu 1964? "Mu 1-The God Revolution" translated by Alfred Birnbaum. Japan. -from Amazon.com

[1]

[2]

Untitled

tense of verb

achievements

Broken external link

arguing

Un-done edit (of claimed to be irrelevant Links) by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:QVanillaQ

major page updates

Categories

Masanobu Fukuoka's experiences and lessons on the subject of Pruning Fruit Trees

Removal of red links

Chronology

Misuse and multiplication of references

External Links section

Earth Council award

Natural Farming versus Nature Farming

Books and articles

Buddhist books/journals

Copy Editing

Photos edits

Natural vs Nature Farming (again)

NPOV dispute tag

References section(s)

Proposed Topic Ban of Macropneuma

People influenced

Clean up

Specifics requested please, for consensus before blanking work

Confidence requested of your editing intentions and good faith, for consensus

The quotations of his biographically and personally most important goals deleted without any explanation

Accepted by the most reliable sources is: His "kaigo" changed his whole life leading to his influence

More evidence of not good edits and on gratuitous attempts at personal attacks—hard trying to keep good faith

On the gratuitous, attempted personal attacks ... hard trying to keep the good faith

According to reliable sources: A seriously wrong Point Of View above, without a source. Disparaging his family's continuing nature farming

On more gratuitous, perverse now, attempted personal attacks from another historical editor ... hard trying to keep the good faith

On silly denialism of obvious–above, attempts at personal attacks ... hard trying to keep the good faith

On more gratuitous attempts to offend and judge me ... hard trying to keep the good faith

After so many above gratuitous attempts to personally attack me ... You care? Want me to serve you? Good faith?

After the fact of their ignoring of their own, above, gratuitous attempts to personally attack me, tokenistically trying good faith? For real?

A few evidently–appropriate, simple English philosophy and science quotations for beginners

Masanobu Fukuoka's nature farming and parallel movements of Mokichi Okada and others

Quoting again from above my now–even–more–appropriate first words responding to you above, with a few simplifying copyedits