Talk:Mottainai/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RFC on article versions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article reflect version A[1], version B[2], version C[3], or version E[4]? 21:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC) (Updated 02:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC). Version D[5] was not intended as a long-term alternative, but because it was mentioned there is disagreement over what to call the option here labeled "version E". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC))

Survey

• Version A, in my opinion, is a significant improvement because it has more information on the etymology of the term mottainai as a Buddhist concept and its cultural significance, citing a variety of peer-reviewed studies specifically relating to the concept. All the information included in Version A should be adopted, though the wording of the added text could still be tweaked of course for readability and clarity. In particular, the Buddhist origins of mottainai do not appear to be disputed by any scholars in the field.Martinthewriter (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  "The Buddhist origins of mottainai" are disputed by this source, a fact which you conveniently ignored when it was mentioned above.[6][7] In fact no reliable source has been cited that supports the content; the one that kinda-maybe does was written by a Japanese ex-pat psychiatrist with professional membership in six scholarly associations, none of which have anything to do with linguistics, history, religion, or even environmentalism.[8] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Eiko Maruko Siniawer does not dispute the Buddhist origins of mottainai. She clearly affirms them. However, as you can see from that one passage, she does find it problematic (not outright factually incorrect mind you) but problematic that some have argued that mottainai is "pure and unchanging". Currently, the Wikipedia article says nothing about whether or not mottainai is "pure and unchanging". That's a debate that can be added later. But there is no dispute that mottainai has Buddhist origins. When a certain belief is so universally widespread among leading scholars, it's inevitable that it will be disputed by at least a few people if there are any grounds to dispute it. The fact that no one disputes it means that, for our purposes, it is indeed a fact at least for now. The Genpei Josuiki is a similar matter. Essentially, we are required to trust the scholarly community rather than imposing our own spin on the original texts. However, I personally have no problem with adding more information on its etymology, as you did.Martinthewriter (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Eiko Maruko Siniawer does not dispute the Buddhist origins of mottainai. Stop it. You have been told multiple times that mottainai has a religious sense and a secular sense, and the two are semantically quite different. You are currently arguing for the sourced discussion of the difference to be removed from the article, clearly implying that "there was a pure and unchanging Buddhist idea of mottainai which predated modern life", the exact opposite of what Siniawer says. Currently, the Wikipedia article says nothing about whether or not mottainai is "pure and unchanging". Yes, because yesterday I added a large volume of text proving that it had changed substantially. The "wasteful" sense has nothing to do with religion, and the only people who could not see this after it is pointed out to them would be paid editors with a vested interest in spreading misinformation. That's a debate that can be added later. No, it's there now. And in fact it's the debate you and I have been having for the last few days; so far the only people you have been able to convince are those who really don't like me -- what does that tell you? The fact that no one disputes it means that, for our purposes, it is indeed a fact at least for now. The Genpei Josuiki is a similar matter. So, you are not going to read the messages I leave on this talk page? If you are not willing to discuss, and instead intend to revert indefinitely, I am going to request that you be blocked. It has already been thoroughly demonstrated that the Jōsuiki narrative is not the one you quoted in the article, and that the narrative you quoted has nothing to do with mottainai. Our reliable sources on the matter (Taylor contradicts himself, therefore can't be reliable) all say one thing, and the unreliable sources you have been relying on say something completely different. There doesn't need to be a source written by a specialist that explicitly argues against the claims of non-specialists; we just cite the specialists and ignore the non-specialists. Essentially, we are required to trust the scholarly community rather than imposing our own spin on the original texts. However, I personally have no problem with adding more information on its etymology, as you did. "the scholarly community" is pretty big. It includes specialists, like the ones I have been citing (kinda -- I'll admit Hasegawa was a philosopher by training and not a historian or a linguist, but he certainly knew his stuff, and he cited specialists in the field who didn't appear to contradict him), and non-specialists, like the ones you have been citing. Again, you have been attributing a statement about Japanese religious history to two people whose training is in child psychology and (kindergarten) pedagogy! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  You appear to be misreading the articles. When we talk about wastefulness, that meaning is very clearly conflated with the religious sense as well. Again, the journals are written by experts and they do unambiguously link the two. However, this is quite a different matter from whether mottainai is "pure and unchanging", a theory which was never mentioned in any version of this article. But even though we disagree, there's no need for personal attacks here. Plenty of other people also support Version A, because it is backed by the latest and best scholarship, so you can disagree with that version while still acknowledging the legitimacy of our position. I'm sure that Lightburst, Francis Schonken, and IvoryTower123 have nothing against you personally. I know you have strong personal opinions, but I still maintain that the scholarship of academics like Siniawer and Taylor is superior to anything we can invent on our own.Martinthewriter (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  You appear to be misreading the articles. I would say it is you who are misreading the articles; you have not yet acknowledged that Taylor, for instance, is contradicted not only by his own cited source (or, rather, his footnote contradicts his main text) but also by other, more reliable, specialist sources like Hasegawa, which implies either (a) you haven't yet read Hasegawa or (b) you read Hasegawa but misunderstood him.

  Plenty of other people also support Version A, because it is backed by the latest and best scholarship, so you can disagree with that version while still acknowledging the legitimacy of our position. I'm sure that Lightburst, Francis Schonken, and IvoryTower123 have nothing against you personally. Then you clearly haven't been paying attention. If Francis didn't have some bone to pick with me, don't you think he would actually read my comments and respond to them rather than search for some different thing that he could deliberately misinterpret me as saying? On the other hand, neither SMcCandlish nor Nishidani have any past history with you or reason to show up and !vote against you for "revenge"; they looked at the content and decided that this RFC was a bad-faith mess designed to undermine standard editing and consensus-building procedures.

  I know you have strong personal opinions That's it. You have said that about four too many times. Once WAM is over and I have a bit more free time to deal with drahma, I will be requesting that you be blocked for your repeated, unprovoked personal attacks.

  Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Version A. It is a big improvement and better supported by the existing scholarship. Lightburst (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Version B The content is obviously not supported by scholarship, as demonstrated above. Quotes are taken out of context, with random sources being Googled up in the hopes that they support the flimsy content that was already on Wikipedia. Moreover, Version A changes the focus of the article; there was wide agreement in the discussion that took place last February that the article was about environmentalism and that inclusion of lengthy, poorly-sourced discussion of the Genpei Seisuiki (or the Tale of the Heike -- the cited source contradicts itself on this point), Shinto, Buddhism, and nihonjinron watered that discussion down and misled the reader. A detailed history of the word mottainai belongs at Wiktionary, where, in two years, none of the editors arguing that it is supported by scholarship have bothered to add it, because the purpose is not to inform readers of the best scholarship but rather to mislead them on the origins of a 21st century environmentalist movement. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It's also worth noting that User:Nishidani's view is different still from my own; he would probably be more favourable to B than A, but still prefer something like version C[9] except going even further. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Neither I've put too much work into expanding and improving this article (more work than any other single editor, it seems, since hardly any of Martin's text was not already present in the article when he created his account) at this point to accept it getting blanked in favour of some highly dubious conflation of different medieval texts, some of which don't even use the word in question. This RFC, which was tendentiously opened to undermine ongoing attempts to resolve disputes by discussion and resolve all the problems of the article, should be closed before it causes any more damage and wastes any more of valuable editor time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Moreover, even though I find Version C preferable to any of the other "concrete" proposals on the table here, I do not think I as the primary author of the article as it exists now should be obliged to throw out my own editorial authority over my own work. If I decided, in good faith, that something closer to version B would be better and that the etymological work belonged on Wiktionary, I want to be able to have that discussion with Nishidani, SMcCandlish, and anyone else who would be willing to engage in good-faith discussion. Obviously we can't put version A in the mainspace now that it has been proven to contain errors and misrepresentation of sources, and establishing "consensus" for one Hijiri88 version (C) over the other (B) is clearly not the intent of this RFC nor of any of the bad faith "A" !votes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Version A, per OP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Being pinged to take a new look at versions C and E, I can only confirm my original !vote for version A. Version C has the "Etymology, usage, and translation" section start with a DICDEF, moreover a DICDEF that lists three meanings, of which only one has relevance to the article. Version E has the "Etymology and modern usage" section start with the same, which causes the same problem for me. Version A did not have this problem. Version E is even worse, while the "Etymology and modern usage" section title promises some etymological explanation, and in that version the paragraph with the etymological explanation has been removed (that is the paragraph starting with "The word nai in mottainai resembles a Japanese negative ..."). I'd rather keep a summary of the Kevin Taylor material than being invited to participate in WP:OR as exhibited below in the #"Genpei Jōsuiki" section: the OP of that section admits they don't really understand what the WP:PRIMARY sources say ("My classical Japanese is not great, and my wakan-konkō is even worse..."),* and then invites everybody to participate in some original research on such hardly understandable primary sources. Sorry, no deal for me. So I can only reconfirm my original !vote for version A. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  * OP now intimates that their "My classical Japanese is not great, and my wakan-konkō is even worse..." was intended as a sort of joke ([10]) – I mention this here on their request. This does however not change the gist of my comment above: The OP of the #"Genpei Jōsuiki" section below invited to participate in WP:OR on WP:PRIMARY sources, in which I do not wish to participate for obvious policy reasons. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

So ... you're not going to strike your personal attack? I made it quite clear that I understood well enough that the quoted passage obviously makes no reference to mottainashi (the word is instead asamashi), which is all that matters: are you just too lazy to look for a pre-2008 source that verifies the content? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't see my willingness (or even ability) to translate several long pieces of medieval, hybrid Sino-Japanese text as being remotely relevant to this discussion. Francis's apparent willingness to engage in circular sourcing, on the other hand, should be grounds for dismissing his !vote and that of everyone else who supports version A as presented. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• It even strengthens that point while, apparently "Most professional scholars of Japanese literature and linguistics (even in Japan) will tell you that wakan-konkō is a pain." – no Wikipedia editor should be invited to do original research on such primary sources, as even for *professional scholars* it does not seem too straightforward to interpret such sources. Consequently, I suggest the #"Genpei Jōsuiki" section be closed for WP:NOR reasons (or at least, for inviting fellow-editors to participate in WP:OR). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

It is never WP:OR to remove article content for any reason. This is very basic Wikipedia editing policy, and I should not have to explain it to someone who has been around as long as you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• PS: imho the article should give a good summary of the main points of Siniawer's analyses. Siniawer seems a decent author on the topic. As, however, in all versions proposed in this RfC, this author is treated in a similar insufficient way, this did, understandably, not influence my choice for the version I prefer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  PS2: the policy-based reason for my rejection of versions B to E is WP:NOT#DICTIONARY (which is the policy upon which the WP:DICDEF guidance is based). Below someone suggests I didn't offer a policy-based reason for my preference, accidentally the same person who moved my policy-based reason away from my original !vote. Afaics I was the first to offer a policy-based reason for my preference. The person who moved that policy-based reason for my !vote elsewhere, and then says there was none, is apparently not very straightforward (to put it mildly). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Reconfirming my preference for version A: even if the so-called "F" were considered a version in its own right (which I strongly contest), it still falls far below version A, for excessive dictionary definition, and too much emphasis in that dictionary definition on obsolete meanings (which have relevance in a dictionary, but less in an encyclopedia article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• Version C as here. Hijiri is basically correct, and the only reason I can see votes for the other proposals is that he has an extremely annoying profligacy of arguments, caused mainly by the failure, however, of his interlocutors to listen to those arguments on their first version.

  'Mottainai' as now used has all the characteristics of a modern tendency to sell products, ideas or whatever by asserting they are referred to, or embody, some archaic or traditional quintessentially 'Japanese' value. It's a universal tendency of course in advertising agencies that package things/ideas as marginally more sellable if they cater to traditionalist nostalgia. As early as 1934 we have evidence of a Buddhist scholar using it to try and put over the idea that it is a 'value' (our excellent secondary source Christopher Ives calls it a 'putative' value) grounded in Buddhism, something being made contextually in a battle over what values the proto-Fascist order should be based on. As an encyclopedia aiming at detached coverage, Wikipedia can't allow itself to be sucked into the game of promoting ideas that are thinly grounded in competent secondary sources. We have one detailed article by Hasegawa which outlines the history of the word, and, given the pretensions surrounding the term in recent times, the reader who comes here for clarity, should be informed of the historical uses of the word. That said, the passage on usage should be tidied up and simplified with a view to quick intelligibility by the readership.Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Version C; this is basically a bogus RfC that presents a false "A-or-B" dichotomy. The "A" text appears to be WP:OR and cherrypicking, while as Hijiri88 and Nishidani have objected, the "B" text does a hatchet-job on a lot of proper content (and seems to have been selected as a diff just to make "A" look better).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Version A of course. The other version listed leaves out fundamental facts, purely on the basis of flagrant original research. Yuko Kawanishi, a sociologist at Tokyo Gakugei University, notes the Buddhist roots of mottainai in this news article. [11] IvoryTower123 (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)​

  @IvoryTower123: Stop trolling. Version A is the version that leaves out fundamental facts based on flagrant WP:SYNTH. It conflates a religious and a secular use of a word when such an assertion is not directly supported by any specialist source except those trying to push an agenda, and even conflates two separate medieval texts, one of which uses mottainai but doesn't contain the story that we claim is about mottainai, the other of which contains the story but doesn't use the word. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Version A (updated !vote to Version E, below). The content about the supposed Buddhist origins of the word seems to be properly sourced to multiple academic journals. I agree Version C is too WP:DICDEF. Version B erases the supposed Buddhist origin of the word completely. That's not WP:NPOV. I'm not sure if the "Buddhist origin theory" is the dominant view, but it's at the least a significant minority view (per the sources cited), and should be presented in the article. The basis for excluding this content altogether as in B appears to be editors' original research about the origins of the word or the expertise of the authors of the cited sources. At bottom, it doesn't matter if the word is or is not actually of Buddhist origin; it matters only if reliable sources think it is. If editors have some proof that the reliable sources are wrong, then the editors should write a journal article about it that can be cited in the Wikipedia article, rather than excluding a significant RS viewpoint from the Wikipedia article. However, this doesn't mean that Version A is sacrosanct. It may be WP:DUE to add text to the body noting the doubts around the Buddhist origin of the word (assuming RSes can be found to support those doubts), and it may be that the lead needs to be modified to highlight those doubts. It may be that we shouldn't say it in Wikivoice. But taking A as "include the content" and B as "exclude the content", I'm think A. – Levivich 17:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It's unwise to walk into an article without a fair to middling grasp of the issues. You don't appear to be familiar with what you take to be academic sources. The following, Shuto Toshimoto (:ja:首藤敏元)’s paper Shuto, Toshimoto; Eriguna (2013). "Kindergarten Children's and Teachers' Cognitions of 'Mottainai' and Their Socio-Moral Judgments about Environmental Deviancy". Journal of Saitama University. Faculty of Education. 62 (1): 25–36. is methodologically flawed, like so much non-peer reviewed stuff from faculties. It uses a study of 51 children, from which it emerged that only 74.5% (36) had ever heard the word in question (mottainai). Of those 36 about 30-40% did not even know in what contexts it might be used. A variation of 30-40% means the results are not statistically reliable, while the sample concluded that from 15 to 20 out of the 51 had no clear awareness of its purported environment usages. From stuff like this vast conclusions are made about the perennial sense of aversion to waste in Japanese cultural history.

This is what you wish to reinsert while, in excluding C you are tossing out the only decent piece of specific mottainai analysis we have,ja:Hasegawa Kōhei's "Mottai-nashi Kō", Academic Bulletin of Nagano University, 1983 4 (3–4): 25–30. Hasegawa was well known in this sort of field, whereas Shuto is an unknown quantity, citing sources for mottainai's historical value whose status is questionable.You are throwing out quality for cliché.Nishidani (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Reading your reply (especially the first, second, and last sentences), made me think, "Mottainai!" Any fool, including myself, can type "mottainai" and "Buddhist" into Google Scholar and see that it's, at least, a significant minority view. As to Shuto, I'll take a study published by Saitama University over the original research of some guy on the internet. As to Kohei, whether that department bulletin is an WP:RS would be the subject of a separate discussion, but it's probably OK to include as an attributed statement. – Levivich 18:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Snide attempts at jabbing like that are not appropriate for people who aspire to gain administrative status. The guy on the internet did what Wikipedia editors are asked to do: read for relevant sources of quality and summarize them for inclusion. That is not WP:OR, nor is it some guy's personal research to note what deep familiarity with the cultural and discursive context can grasp in an instant, i.e. meme reproduction of a recentist fashion.

Shuto's paper is, like Hasegawa's, not peer-reviewed: both are faculty bulletins, but Hasegawa had several decades of professorial work, editing in major publishing houses, and writing experience. Calling for attribution for one means the other paper requires attribution as well, if it, with all of its clumsy inferences from a sampling of 51 kiddies in a Tokyo kindergarten allows an extrapolation to assert a cultural norm for over 126 million. Noting that Shuto screws up is something anyone with an elementary education can spot, and it's fair game when editors actually read the content of papers, rather than looking at the institute publishing them to gauge whether or not they pass RS. What your googling fails to note is the severe thinness of quality sources predating 2010 for these assertions, whereas the guy or guys bringing light to bear on this, cite from scholarly works predating the post 2005 vogue, that question the accuracy and historicity embedded in these late texts. Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey I've been called a lot of things, but wanna-admin is a low blow. Please stick to profanity and avoid vulgarity. – Levivich 21:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I gotta say, being accused of OR and called "some guy on the internet" by someone right after I went out of my way to support them elsewhere on the project hurts. But I've got a walk to go on and then articles to write the first coffee shop I see when I get tired, so I'm going to be removing myself from this page for the next few days. Hopefully anyone who is still arguing about "Buddhist origins" as though that had anything to do with this dispute will come to their senses by then. (Hint to get the ball rolling: the religious origins of the word are entirely separate from its use by contemporary environmentalists, as demonstrated by the "NOTDIC" content of version C. The conflation is supported by non-specialist sources that get a lot of the relevant details wrong, and given the evidence below there is simply no way our article can continue to claim that the bow narrative in the Genpei Seisuiki is a notable usage of this word.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I did notice and appreciate your support elsewhere on the project Hijiri, and the "some guy on the internet" comment wasn't aimed at you; it was aimed at Nishidani, who replied to my !vote by saying that I came here "without a fair to middling grasp of the issues". Having someone reply to my !vote in an RfC by suggesting I'm stupid or ignorant because of my viewpoint is just the best part of Wikipedia. But I digress.

Version A doesn't use the best sources available and spends too much time on the bow story. Version B totally omits the Buddhist origin of the word, so it's definitely out for me. Version C spends too much time on the etymology, although some of it should be combined with Version A, like Ives/Totsudo. I also think Etsuko Kinefuchi's chapter "Wangai Maathai and Mottainai: Gifting 'Cultural Appropriation' with Cultural Empowerment" in a book published by Rowman & Littlefield in 2018 could be used as a source, esp. Page 138: Mottai is said to have its origin in Buddhism ... and Page 139: It is not clear when mottainai was first used. But a widely used Japanese dictionary, Daijirin, notes that i appeared in Genpeiseisuiki ... This suggests that the word mottainai is likely to be at least eight hundred years old ... The contemporary use of the word is different from its origin, but, as we see below, it retains its original meaning at its core. – Levivich 06:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thank you for clarifying! :D

Anyway, how about Version D, which contains the statement supported by Hasegawa, Kojien, etc. that the original sense of the word is inexpedient or reprehensible towards a god, buddha, noble or the like but that modern Japanese usage tends to use it as meaning "wasteful, without covering the more detailed discussion of the etymology of the word, its early usage, etc.? This wouldn't omit the Buddhist origin of the word, but would sidestep the messy problem of implying that the religious origin of the word means that a despisal of wastefulness is an intrinsically Buddhist doctrine and/or a part of "the Japanese character". (There are indeed sources that say that, but, per Ives, they are apparently the quasi-fascist writings of pre-WW2 Buddhist apologists seeking to accommodate Buddhism to the powers-that-be of that time, who were not entirely friendly to traditional Japanese Buddhism.) The detailed etymological study could then be trans-wikied to wikt:勿体無い.

I would be amenable to such a compromise, assuming your only problem with version B is its omission of the Buddhist origins of the word.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes to transwiking the etymology–preserve and all that. Yes to a Version D being proposed. Generally-speaking, when explaining something to our readers, if there's some aspect of the subject that is a myth or misconception, we should address that and dispel it head-on, rather than omitting it (which is like ignoring it) provided that the myth or misconception is significant (not necessarily notable in the WP:N sense, but not trivial or fringe). If something thought to be history is actually folklore, we should say that. So the Buddhist origins or Buddhist connection is, in my view, definitely significant, because it's written about widely enough, even if it's not accurate. I was able to find a half dozen examples from scholars in less than an hour of searching. Most are brief mentions, but Iwatsuki is one such example. I think it's worth relaying what Ives has to say about that. I think the distinction between the contemporary use of the word and its origin (e.g., Kinefuchi in the link above) is also worth relaying to the reader. I think the Genpei thing may be a myth or misconception... it seems if Daijirin said it, then it's "significant"... but if it's actually doubtful, we should tell the reader that. But I think the entire controversy is but a small part of what the overall article should be. I'm thinking like one sentence on Genpei and one or maybe two paragraphs on the entire Buddhist origin, including all debunking/explaining/distinction-making. – Levivich 07:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, the word definitely appears in Genpei (see my original "research" below: the passage cited by Hasegawa, and one other place). The problem is that any sources saying the dropped bow narrative is where it is used are definitely wrong, as the word used there is either asamashi (in the Jōsuiki) or kuchi-oshi (in the Heike). I have no problem including the narrative in which mottainashi actually appears, but it would need to be cited to a source that didn't get the relevant details wrong.

Anyway: Version D?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

For clarity: "option D[12]" (as discussed below) appears to be different from the newly defined "Version D" (difference between both D versions) – my comments below are on the first of these two D options/versions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm good with Version D E which I think is in summary style and gives due weight to the etymology in relation to the rest of the article. – Levivich 21:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

*Version A It gives the best and most relevant information.HAL333 00:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@HAL333: Could you please clarify? It seems to me having read (almost?) all the cited sources and discussion that the content of Version A is based on questionable sources and gives dubious information that isn't even verified in those sources, while Version C is based on generally superior sources (written by scholars specialized in the relevant fields and familiar with the primary source data), and Versions B and E at least doesn't include the demonstrably false content of Version A. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Version C I appreciate the expanded information on the word itself.HAL333 20:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• Version E or Version B or Version C (omitting the final paragraph of the Etymology section). As previously discussed at length, the sourcing for "originated as a Buddhist term" is not good. Childhood education & psychology experts are wonderful in the fields of childhood education & psychology; far less reliable outside those fields; additionally the background section of non-peer reviewed sources is not reliable.(Shuto & Eriguna) - Ryk72 ^talk 06:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC) Inclusion of the content attributed to Yamaori Tetsuo (quoted by Siniawer 2014, which I have read in toto) is bewildering - the source covers 22 pages, largely about the "rebranding" of Mottainai in millennial Japan (a view articulated by Nishidani on this Talk page). It is astounding that we would cherrypick a seemingly contrary or minor view from this source and not include the main crux. - Ryk72 ^talk 08:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Version A per Francis Schonken. Version A is concise and well-sourced, and still provides the best balance overall. It puts the focus where it should be on the leading scholarly theories. Challenger.rebecca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

It should be noted that Challenger.rebecca's interest in this article is apparently rooted in her grudge against me for this. Given all the disruption (misrepresentation of sources, OR, nationalist POV, circular sourcing and outright false content) that was already demonstrated before she arrived, I would say there is no way she actually read the discussion and came to the good-faith conclusion that version A was acceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I expressed my concerns earlier about the POV issues and original research that are inherent in version C. It has already been said before, but the best sources in version C are all ridiculously tagged with factually inaccurate tags based on no reliable sources whatsoever. When it comes to the core issues of neutrality and verifiability that are essential Wikipedia policies, I feel that we really are left with version A as the best option, so Version A it is. Krow750 (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krow750: What is your opinion on the use of Taylor in version A, when he is contradicted by both Hasegawa and McCullough? That content is the only true "original research" in any of the proposed versions, as it was added to Wikipedia based on original speculation, and later included by Taylor apparently based on our article. Also, would you agree that the most generally-reputable specialist sources in English that have been cited in any version are Rüttermann and Ives (the former writing in the Journal of the International Research Center for Japanese Studies and the latter in the Japanese Journal of Religious Studies) and that the most thorough and relevant source is Hasegawa (a six-page paper specifically devoted to the etymology of the word), followed by Siniawer (who gives much of the same info in a truncated form, written for an audience who probably mostly don't read Japanese)?

Of these four sources, none are tagged as "factually inaccurate" in version C, while only one (Siniawer) is cited -- the other three being dismissed -- in version A. (Version A also cites Siniawer to draw a conclusion that, in context, Siniawer is actually disagreeing with.)

Did you mean to say you support version C?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Taylor doesn't contradict Hasegawa. They both appear to say that the word is mentioned in the Genpei Josuiki. And as for McCullough, that's a primary source, so I'd rather let the professionals interpret it. Ruttermann and Ives are rather poor sources for this purpose, since neither of them include even one full sentence on mottainai. Between the two of them, they have a half a sentence in total on mottainai. A real specialist source is one where the researcher focuses his research and his attention on the topic of mottainai. I do view the article by Siniawer as a good source, though probably the most reliable source is Mottainai: a Japanese sense of anima mundi. It's up-to-date and well-researched, but Version C tags the article without any real reason to do so. The parts cited to this article aren't at all in dispute. I don't agree with the tag on the article by Siniawer either, which also appears to be properly cited. Unequivocally, version A is what we must start with. Krow750 (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krow750: I don't agree with the tag on the article by Siniawer either, which also appears to be properly cited. Siniawer explicitly disagrees with the view version A cites her for! Taylor doesn't contradict Hasegawa. They both appear to say that the word is mentioned in the Genpei Josuiki. That is what is called WP:SYNTH: you are taking two sources that contradict each other, finding the one point they have in common, and assuming they both say the same thing (Ctrl+F this diff for "Rush Limbaugh" -- I can find a specific lecture where Ehrman says that, if you really want one). Hasegawa explicitly says that the passage in question discusses the night before the Battle of Ichinotani, while Taylor cites a passage that appears later in the text, dealing with an event of the Battle of Yashima a full year later. (This is made clear by his endnote, which cites McCullough.) And as for McCullough, that's a primary source, so I'd rather let the professionals interpret it. McCullough's notes are a reliable secondary source written by one of the foremost experts in Japanese classical literature the west has ever known, and they explicitly treat the Heike text, which she translated, as different from the Jōsuiki text, which she referred to on occasion.[13] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The material does come from Siniawer. I checked it myself. She doesn't appear to disagree with it. Also, when two sources say the same thing, you can cite either of them without doing synthesis. We have good secondary sources stating the fact that the word was used in an early form in the Genpei Josuiki. We could cite Taylor for that, and, to me, all the rest of what you are doing is pure WP:OR from primary sources. I'm just saying that we should start with version A because it's the best overall. It won't necessarily be the final answer, as there's always room for more editing, consensus willing. Krow750 (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krow750: Also, when two sources say the same thing, you can cite either of them without doing synthesis. You can't be serious...! They don't say the same thing at all! If your next edit to Wikipedia isn't a retraction of your support for restoring the CIRCULAR content in question, I will have to request that you be blocked from editing until you demonstrate that you understand our editing policies. The extremely poor understanding of WP:SYNTH you are continuing to show does not make you look good. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Version C

@Martinthewriter and IvoryTower123: Could you please comment on Version C, explaining whether you support or oppose it as a proposed solution? Also, if you oppose it, please provide a policy-based rationale (it can be assumed that if you support it it is for one or more of the same reasons given by Nishidani and SMcCandlish above; Francis Schonken opposed, but for a reason that was not backed by policy, as the policy he cited explicitly undermined his argument). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I still prefer Version A overall, but Version C is my second choice. Version E doesn't mention Buddhism anywhere, despite the important connection between Buddhism and regret over wastefulness in Japanese culture. As Levivich noted, the Buddhist connection to the modern use of mottainai is "properly sourced to multiple academic journals", so it's perplexing that Version E completely eliminates all the best scholarship in favor of third-rate sources. Version C is somewhat better, but I don't know why the best sources in that version are tagged. Singling out only the best and most reliable sources for tagging makes no sense. Without the inappropriate tagging, I can definitely say that Version C, which includes outstanding material from Eiko Maruko Siniawer and Yuriko Sato, is the second best version, after the properly sourced Version A. Martinthewriter (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

despite the important connection between Buddhism and regret over wastefulness in Japanese culture How many times do you have to be told that expressing dismay over anything, wastefulness or otherwise, is the opposite of the core principles of Buddhism? The popular association of cleanliness and purity with religion in general (Shinto and Buddhism) is not really relevant, and Version E very clearly specifies that the original meaning of the word was inexpedient or reprehensible towards a god, buddha, noble or the like (emphasis added). Also, "the best sources" is clearly not supported by the fact that (a) one of them is being misquoted in opposition to what she actually says and (b) the other is a scholar working in a completely unrelated field. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@HAL333: I'm sorry, but could you please comment on Version C specifically? It looks like you !voted based on the "A or B" dichotomy that was presented in the original (biased, deceptive, misleading) RFC question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response and thanks for pointing out the nature of this RFC. B was highly misleading But after reviewing this, I appreciate the information on the etymology of Mottainai present in C and the larger amount of information on the topic. I have struck through my previous comment and lend my support to C.HAL333 20:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• A closer should probably note that, however disingenuous Martin's comment above might be, he did say version C would be his second choice after version A. Clearly there is no substantial opposition to version C, while everyone who openly prefers version C to version A is in agreement that version A is completely unacceptable, as its misrepresentation of sources has been thoroughly demonstrated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Version E

@Martinthewriter, Francis Schonken, Nishidani, SMcCandlish, and IvoryTower123: Could you please comment on Version E, explaining whether you support or oppose it as a proposed solution? Also, if you oppose it, please provide a policy-based rationale (it can be assumed that if you support it it is for the same reason given by Levivich above). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent on it, and prefer C, but don't have a massive objection to E. I don't like that material with at least some sourcing is being removed in such massive quantities. While A and B are extremes, C is a good compromise, and E isn't much different from one of the extremes. If we do go with E, I trust that some of what's in C, and is well sourced, can be worked back in after the drama dies down.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I trust that some of what's in C, and is well sourced, can be worked back in after the drama dies down. Well, without speculating on the cause and timing of the recent drama, that seems to have already happened. Both Martin and IvoryTower seem to have lost interest in the article as soon as Version C became a thing, and no reasonable closer would take as valid their !votes and any others that either predate, don't seem to acknowledge, Version C.

In case it wasn't clear, I would still list Version C as my 1st choice, B as 2nd, and E as 3rd, ironically for the reason that the "Etymology and modern usage" section thereof is too much like a dictionary entry, which is exactly the complaint Francis had about C. (Although it honestly looks like he didn't actually read it, since he accused it of having "too much of a WP:DICDEF content" despite less than 12% of the "Etymology, usage, and translation" section being devote to a dictionary definition.) Version A would remove maintenance tags despite no justification having yet been made for their removal except that they look ugly (which would be a clear violation of policy and standard procedure) and re-add already-disproved content (the bow narrative), and D would not actually resolve anything.

I would also probably favour removing the second-to-last paragraph of C in the long term, since it contains misleading content and content that misrepresents its cited sources, and no attempt has apparently been made during the past two weeks to rewrite it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• My evaluation of Version E can be found above, appended to my original !vote. I think it worse than the versions I already rejected, for reasons explained there, so I remain with my original support: version A seems best. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Moved the following into a separate section. More than two or three messages really shouldn't be in a single back-and forth under the "Survey" heading. The first comment below was posted by me in response to Francis Schonken's first comment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that the above editor has a history of hounding me, disagreeing with me for apparently no reason other than the heck of it, and generally undermining me. He almost certainly did not respond to this RFC in good faith, as that would be a nearly-incredible coincidence given his previous involvement; more likely, he watchlisted the page and waited for an opportunity to jump in and undermine me at the expense of our verifiability policy (a policy he has worked to weaken in the past[14]) and good encyclopedic writing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri88, I don't think your apparent WP:BLUDGEONing is particularly helpful in this RfC. I referred to the rationale of the OP: that rationale is on content (not ad hominem like your last one), and the OP has no "history of hounding" whatsoever. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

No rational examination of the content would lead you to favour the poorly-sourced, OR-filled WP:COATRACK mess that is option A. Furthermore, you ignored the fact that this is not a binary distinction: there is also option C[15] which includes all the reliably sourced etymological detail that can be found (including speculation on why the word's meaning changed) without cherry-picking sources that imply definitions (1) and (3) are the same thing and ignore definition (2) entirely, and I have already agreed to option D[16] pending discussion (which Martin has refused to engage in). At this point, you and anyone else who argues for option A over option C is arguing for the removal of a large amount of sourced text in favour of unsourced OR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Version C has too much of a WP:DICDEF content IMHO, and it carries a few {{dubious}} tags. Also Version D has such tags: I don't think there's much use in this RfC if we can't reach a point where there are neither WP:DICDEF nor {{dubious}} issues. For these reasons, and for the OP's rationale, version A seems most promising thus far. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

But option A is contains the same dubious content, just with the tags removed...? Just to be clear, I did not agree to this RFC being opened (nor did either of the other editors who were involved); it is a unilateral action by Martin, intended to garner !votes to remove the maintenance tags and restore content that had already been removed as unsourced.

Anyway, have you read the discussion above? Do you agree that the Taylor source is insufficient for the material it is cited for in that it contradicts itself on the key point?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, and afaics it is, the problem is in the tagging, not so much the tagged content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, that turns Wikipedia policy on its head. If content is dubious, it gets removed or tagged. I was reverted when I tried to remove it, so I tagged it. Martin can't remove the tags himself without seeming like he is editing tendentiously, so he is opening an RFC to ask uninformed third parties which version of the article looks better. Of course a version of the article with no maintenance tags is going to look better than one with tags, but Wikipedia policy, which is not subject to compromise or being overruled by "consensus" (per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) is that unsourced or dubiously sourced content is not allowed if it has been challenged. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

There are more options than "tags-or-notags", e.g. "...the wording of the added text could still be tweaked of course for readability and clarity...", as it is in the OP's rationale. Also, more appropriate references could be found: not dictionary definitions (per the WP:DICDEF rationale I mentioned above), nor simplifications in the sense of "The Buddhist origins of mottainai are disputed by this source" (that's not what that source says: it sees the "pure and unchanging" connotation as problematic, not the origin of the word as such). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Version A contains the following problems that I do not think could be solved by tweaking the wording:

• A quotation in the lead that is clearly "problematic" (to quote Siniawer 2018) and not supported by the article body, cited to an essay jointly written by a kindergarten teacher and a specialist in child psychology.
• A narrative supposedly derived from the early medieval Sino-Japanese text Genpei Jōsuiki, whose source is confused about whether it actually comes from that work or the more famous Heike Monogatari. (Its inline text says the former but its endnote and cited source say the latter.)
• A conflation of two separate, seemingly contradictory definitions of the word in question with no explanation of the relation between the two, and without any elaboration on what the former (older, religious) sense actually was. It actually claims the word is Buddhist in origin, but the Genpei story is clearly using it in the secular sense that is more common today.
• A citation of a source (Siniawer 2014) to support a claim that its author herself calls "problematic".

The above is just what's already beenmdemonstrated: I suspect there might be more wrong where it cites sources I haven't been able to check. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your first bullet: the quote in the lead which you seem to refer to:

Mottainai has been referred to as "a part of the Japanese religious and cultural heritage."

Siniawer 2014 has:

[This essay] suggests that this idea of mottainai reflected ... principles and beliefs that were thought to define what it meant to be Japanese ...

... hard to see where Siniawer would contradict the first quote, or in what sense that would not be a quote from a reliable source (Journal of Saitama University). Your reference to Siniawer 2018 seems a dud: I see no such reference in the article.

Regarding your 4th point: the Maathai quote is referenced to the PDF of the actual UN document, not to Siniawer 2014, who apparently quoted the same. The "author" of the source is Maathai (who doesn't call it "problematic"), and Siniawer's observations (if they would indeed be contradictory) can not be referenced to the UN document.

I didn't look at your two other bullets: seen the problems with the two bullets I analysed (and your Buddhist origin misrepresentation above) I suppose them to be non-issues as well. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your reference to Siniawer 2018 seems a dud: I see no such reference in the article. Please read further up this page. You are weighing in a discussion without having read it. Siniawer 2014 is behind a paywall, so it seems unlikely that you have been able to access the full text, but the quotation we attribute to her appears verbatim in the GBooks preview of a book she published four years later, where it is shortly thereafter followed by the "problematic" bit.[17]

Regarding your 4th point: the Maathai quote is referenced to the PDF of the actual UN document, not to Siniawer 2014, who apparently quoted the same. The "author" of the source is Maathai (who doesn't call it "problematic"), and Siniawer's observations (if they would indeed be contradictory) can not be referenced to the UN document. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. My fourth bullet point was referencing the text According to historian Yamaori Tetsuo, mottainai is "inseparable from Buddhist ideas about the transience and evanescence of life". I see now that actually Siniawer 2014 is also cited for another piece of text further down the article that is unchanged in all the proposed versions, and is not disputed. Were you looking at B instead of A?

I didn't look at your two other bullets: seen the problems with the two bullets I analysed I suppose them to be non-issues as well. You claim that you analyzed two of my bullet points and found them to be problematic, but you appear to have completely misunderstood both of these points.

and your Buddhist origin misrepresentation above Umm ... what!?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I already commented (above) on your misrepresentation of the Buddhist origin quote you linked to in Siniawer 2018. Nothing but misrepresentations, non-issues exploded into misgivings, and whatnot. I think we're done here: I fail to see a single credible argumentation in your objections, so I stay with my original opinion: Version A would work best, for the time being. Not as if further WP:BLUDGEONing would make me change my mind. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This blatantly disruptive talk page behaviour is completely unacceptable. I will be requesting that your previous one-year block be reinstated, this time indefinitely, if I see you engaging in it again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Note Okay, so per #"Genpei Jōsuiki", one of the sources Googled up by Martin and others appears to have confused two different texts: one (Heike) that gives the narrative of Yoshitsune and the dropped bow but doesn't use the word mottainai in any form, and another (Jōsuiki) that uses the word but does not contain the narrative in a completely different context to that claimed by our "reliable sources". Moreover, a quick Googling of "弓流" with any of the variants of "勿体無し" should quickly make one very skeptical that the two are associated with each other in Japanese, since not many hits show up, and those that do seem to be using mottainai in a very general modern sense, not quoting the medieval text. And if the Heike, Japan's national epic and something every Japanese secondary school student is required to memorize at least one passage from, contained a legitimate instance of the word mottainashi, why would any sources, Japanese or English, attribute it to a more obscure variant text? This may not be enough to merit completely throwing that essay out as a source on modern environmentalism, but it can't be used as a source for discussion of the Heike or the Jōsuiki. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC) (modified 02:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC))

Moved from above:

• I would encourage anyone reviewing this survey to examine Francis Schonken's comments in the "Discussion" section below. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Moved from above:

So, you're doubling down on your revenge-trolling? It's been thoroughly demonstrated that version A is not viable (it contains patently false content cited to an unreliable source), and the only reason I can guess that you don't care is that you are actually only here as revenge for myself and Nishidani/SMcCandlish having questioned you in the past. (Your stated rationale doesn't bear any clear relationship to the actual content of the RFC, since hardly any of the information in versions B, C, or E is more DICDEF-esque than what's in version A.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

the "Etymology and modern usage" section title promises some etymological explanation, and in that version the paragraph with the etymological explanation has been removed (that is the paragraph starting with "The word nai in mottainai resembles a Japanese negative ...") You also clearly misunderstood both the detailed and bare-bones etymology. Saying Word X has three meanings, (i), (ii) and (iii), of which (i) is the oldest but (iii) is the one most commonly invoked today provides both etymological and modern usage information. Its not including the more detailed breakdown of the elements of the compound and what each part means has no bearing on whether an etymology of more detail than one normally expects from a Japanese dictionary entry is still present. That being said, I would of course prefer either B or C, and you have yet to elaborate on why you think A is better than B, since all of your comments have focused almost exclusively on either C or the shortened version present in E. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: please stop ammending my !vote in the survey section above with your comments. See [18]: you started to section off what followed my !vote – that does not give you permission to revert when I continue what you started. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

(1) Please respect my wikibreak and stop pinging me.

(2) "ammending" isn't a word. If I had emended your comment that would have violated WP:TPO, but appending a note to your comment that your further "clarification" invalidated it by proving you had not actually read the relevant sources or even talk page discussion is perfectly valid; your (re)moving/decontextualizing my note is a violation of TPO, though.

Just leave me alone already. It's obvious you have no interest in this article or fixing its problem. If you want to keep commenting here, that's fine, but don't do so in such a deliberately antagonistic fashion, and don't ping me.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Typo corrected: I meant amend, as in "to alter by modification or addition". That means, no more WP:REFACTORing, and if you have to reply to something I said you can do that elsewhere than immediately under my !vote in the survey area (you were the one who started to section off the discussion that followed my !vote), e.g. in this Discussion section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Consensus?

The following was originally opened as a separate section when the RFC template expired with no formal close. I assumed that no close would be coming because of the circumstances of the RFC essentially making one unnecessary. It has since come to my attention that there is a live ANRFC entry. At the risk of someone closing without seeing the post-expiration discussion, I've merged the sections. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

So, I finally got a copy of the issue of the JOAS Siniawer 2014 article in which that quote allegedly appeared. It was apparently nowhere to be found, as the quote actually came from Siniawer's 2018 book. Moreover, the quote actually contradicts the main thrust of the article (that mottainai is a word used by environmentalists to refer to waste and how it's bad, but Buddhist transience says that everything is temporary anyway). Siniawer 2014 actually does refer to Yamaori's view on page 172 of her article, and says something quite different (apparently Yamaori felt that the word inasaku's gradual replacement since the 1940s with komezukuri reflected how the Japanese people's consciousness of wastefulness was changing from what it had been 1,500 years ago -- which seems like a somewhat arbitrary date given that rice-cultivation was introduced to Japan well over 2,000 years ago). Not to say that these two sources contradict each other (it is the same author summarizing the views expressed by a different author in a single interview), but the fact that MTW claimed to have read Siniawer 2014 and summarized what she said, when she actually said nothing of the sort in the source cited (and even repeatedly put "heart and soul [of the Japanese people]" in scare-quotes, clearly disagreeing with the main thrust of what MTW was writing) shows clear tendentious misrepresentation and evasion.

So now all four of the sources cited by MTW last month have been shown to have been misrepresented or not useful for our purposes (Shuto/Eriguna were writing for a faculty bulletin about kindergarten teaching and made a single off-handed remark that we quoted out of context;[19][20][21] Taylor was just plain wrong as he apparently got his information from Wikipedia;[22] and Sato is a psychiatrist with no apparent authority when it comes to Japanese religious/philosophical history[23][24]), and the RFC template has been removed after only one new editor had !voted in over three weeks with the following results:

• 4 favouring version A, which is MTW's version that cites the above sources unquestioningly despite the Genpei source at least having been discredited before the RFC opened (of these four, at least three apparently were not editing in good faith, with either no interest in the article otherwise or a flagrant refusal to read the cited sources -- MTW is the only one to whom this doesn't apply, but MTW is the same editor who repeatedly claimed to have read and accurately summarized Siniawer 2014, etc., thus wasting everyone's time);
• 3 favouring version C;
• 1 favouring version E; and
• 1 (me) favouring something like version C, but with its primary author (again me) maintaining the authority to amend, expand on, or even remove the content without being bound by a "consensus" to include specific wording born out of a tendentious RFC.

Now, I am sure Nishidani (talk · contribs), SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) and HAL333 (talk · contribs) would, if asked to clarify again, agree with me regarding whether the above qualifies as a binding "consensus for version C" with me as version C's primary author giving up the right to reexamine my own work based on a consensus to include it that was only formed as a result of a tendentious RFC opened by someone who didn't want to include it in the first place and was apparently only interested in pushing some kind of nihonjin-ron or other agenda regardless of what all the sources said.

So can we put this whole thing to rest now?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I can see only one editor here who has diligently checked all the original sources, and noted some glaring inaccuracies in the way they have been represented. That is hijiri (not favouritism - he knows how harsh I have been at times). It is not that fluency in Japanese holds more weight: but area competence here is important in deciding which text to adopt. C fits that, with some slight modifications. The others don't.

Unless someone disagreeing with his results can show cause for justifying the retention of those inaccuracies, common sense dictates that we agree on C, perhaps as Hijiri modified it. Ultimately, editing Wikipedia is about going an extra mile to ascertain beyond dispute the correctness of our transcriptions of sources.Nishidani (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Works for me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I see below that this sourcing has been verified down to the page number, so that question is no longer open.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I'm not sure if you intended to post this elsewhere on this page, but are you referring to the content of version A, or specifically the fact that the quotation appears on page 175 of Siniawer 2014? Most of the content of my message from two weeks ago was about misrepresentation of sources in version A in general, and even though I had missed the spot where the text appeared, when I looked at it in context it was clearly still a misrepresentation of the source (Yamaori said that in an interview for a popular magazine, and Siniawer in an article for the Journal of Asian Studies disagreed, but version A presents Yamaori's view without Siniawer's criticism). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm referring to "It comes from p.175 of Siniawer's 2014 article", below, and my struck "Works for me" response above, to Nishidani's suggestion above it. It doesn't pertain to anything else on the page, and was placed exactly where intended. Way below, I've commented that I think this RfC as a whole is a bust, largely because of the two-editor personality conflict that accounts for about 95% of the verbiage.  :-/  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani: <tongue-in-cheek> See, this is why you need to indent your comments properly! People will come along later and say "I agree" or "I disagree", and their comments will be variously interpreted as being in relation to yours (which they apparently were) or to the comment before yours! </tongue-in-cheek>

@SMcCandlish: Well, yeah -- but then, the personality conflict happened because, after well over a month and a half, no one had closed this RFC with the obvious consensus. There's a reason "95% of the verbiage" happened in about 5% of the runtime (aside from my high level of susceptibility to being trolled into filibustering myself).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, your material above Nishidani's post seems good, and "something like C" would also work for me. However, I have not managed to get through all of the material below this, and there seem to be multiple layers of arguments and counter-arguments about it. Maybe it would help if we started fresh with a clear proposal (as in "use this wording: [chunk of text here]" that accounts for all of the back-and-forth so far. But Francis may be right in his comment somewhere below that re-re-pinging people back to this discussion may be too much at this point. It may really be better for this to close, probably with no consensus, or with consensus for something very limited, and then re-open the matter with a fresh thread as a followup/clarification RfC. I didn't come here knowing much about this or caring much about it in particular (versus other topics), but have grown to care and to realize that this does need some experienced V/RS/NOR editorial eyes and minds on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, that sounds pretty reasonable, but why do we need another month-long RFC? Couldn't we get "some experienced V/RS/NOR editorial eyes and minds" at RSN or NORN? Heck, wouldn't that be better? (Note I'm not advocating for a thread on RSN to opened with the text "Is Siniawer 2014/Taylor 2015/Whosoever Whensoever a reliable source?" -- that would clearly bias the discussion as much as the original posted RFC question, and given that fact I would argue counts as disruptive/blockable repeat canvassing.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No, the quote did come from the article. It comes from p.175 of Siniawer's 2014 article. As I have told you before, and as Francis Schonken noted as well, this quote corresponds to Siniawer's research and you only thought otherwise because you misread what the source said. You really need to slow it down when you read articles and check them carefully so that you don't keep on misreading them. These are specialist scholars who have focused their research on the topic of mottainai, and that is the best kind of source we can possibly use on Wikipedia. I know that you have your own ideas on why mottainai is not connected to Buddhism, but we really need to move beyond personal opinion and focus on the scholarly consensus. Although you've occasionally been relying on subpar sources, mostly you've edited without any sources at all to back up your claims. The scholarly consensus is that mottainai is fundamentally a Buddhist concept connected to regret over waste. This fact is acknowledged in both version A, which is supported by a majority of Wikipedia users, and in Version C. Martinthewriter (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, my apologies. The text does appear on 175. That said, everything else in your above comment is wrong -- if the scholarly consensus were that mottainai is fundamentally a Buddhist concept connected to regret over waste then mottainai would appear in either the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism or Routledge's Encyclopedia of Buddhism -- and you would be able to find a reliable source that discusses the apparent discrepancy between specifically "regret over waste" and the core tenets of Buddhism. (A quick Googling of "Buddhist view of waste" brought this up, but it would be SYNTH to include it in our present article. There is of course a difference between "liv[ing] without producing waste"[25] and feeling/expressing regret over waste.) a majority of Wikipedia users is less than half (4/9) of the counted !votes, of whom several were clearly not acting in good faith as they made drive-by !votes apparently based more on their past interactions with one or more of the previously involved editors than on any sober analysis of the substance. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

How about we added something to the article like In a 2014 study of an apparent increase in interest in the idea of mottainai in early 21st-century Japan, historian Eiko Maruko Siniawer summarized the views of several Japanese writers who claimed that mottainai was a specifically Buddhist concept. (Siniawer 2014, p175) She also cited a number of views of Japanese authors who believed that it was a uniquely Japanese "contribution to the world", which views she characterized as mostly being "deeply rooted in cultural generalizations, essentialisms, and disdainful comparisons between countries". (Siniawer 2014, p176)? This seems like a much more reasonable summary of what Siniawer wrote on the matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: You said in a recent comment elsewhere that It doesn't seem too difficult to write a decent summary of Siniawer's views in the article, and [you] would volunteer to do so. Given your own history of misreading sources in the area of Christian religious history (apparently your own religious background) I would be reluctant to rely on your ability to summarize a scholarly article that discusses Japanese religion in The Journal of Asian Studies, but you also made the somewhat abrasive and inflammatory remark that no matter how long we wait, Hijiri88 is not going to remedy Wikipedia's article in that sense [by adding a reasonable summary of what Siniawer says on the topic]. How do you square this comment, made yesterday, with the fact that I had written the above comment more than a week earlier and you had failed to reply, and the fact that I have now implemented it? Will you retract your ANI comment now? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Still fails to summarize anything from Siniawer's 2018 book (ISBN 9781501725852).

As you keep insulting fellow editors (no, me "misreading sources in the area of Christian religious history" is incorrect, and just an attempt at unfounded base insult) I will withdraw nothing of the ANI report, instead I'll be asking there for a next step. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I haven't read Siniawer's 2018 book, and neither have you; it was only mentioned in this discussion as a preliminary substitute while I tried to get my hands on the 2014 article, and looking at the GBooks preview again now it seems to be redundant, as large chunks of Chapter 9 are essentially identical to the 2014 article. The discussion of Akasegawa and others' views on pages 255-256 of Siniawer 2018 is almost word-for-word identical to the corresponding passage on pages 175-176 of Siniawer 2014.

Can you elaborate on what content from Siniawer 2018 that is not in Siniawer 2014 you would like to see summarized and included in our article?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Re. "...and neither have you" – says who? I read most of the 9th chapter of that book (referring to mottainai multiple times on most of its pages) over a month before this talk page section was initiated. So, indeed, please abandon your "I know all" attitude: you don't.

Please see my comment at ANI, and WP:STRIKE all your unjustified negative comments addressed at fellow-editors on this page. That might give a clearer view to get this discussion re-started on a right footing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I read most of the 9th chapter of that book (referring to mottainai multiple times on most of its pages) over a month before this talk page section was initiated. That seems implausible. This discussion, which began and ended with you expressing utter bewilderment at what I was talking about when I mentioned Siniawer 2018, took place one month and 14 hours before, and you never emended your comments or apologized for the misunderstanding. And again, if you have actually read both Siniawer 2018 and Siniawer 2014, please tell me what content from the former you want to see in the article.

Additionally, I have endeavoured throughout this discussion to focus on content rather than on contributors, although my patience with what looks very much like deliberate disruption has been strained, so I would appreciate if you would do the same and reply to my good-faith question, rather than making off-topic remarks about ANI "unjustified negative comments". Heck, I wouldn't even mind the off-topic stuff being in your comments as well as sincere responses, but you seem to be intent on ignoring me.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I read it mid-November (15 November to be exact), at the time of the first part of the #Discussion above, once I realised that the Siniawer reference (at the time) used in the article did not correspond with the Siniawer 2018 reference you had mentioned on this talk page (hence some initial confusion when replying to that). This talk page section was started 16 December, so, indeed over a month after I had read most of that chapter. So indeed, I repeat, "please abandon your "I know all" attitude: you don't"

Re. "I have endeavoured throughout this discussion to focus on content rather than on contributors" – if that is correct, striking your derogatory comments about fellow-editors on this talk page should not take too much effort. So, please proceed with that suggestion: it will, imho, make further discussion a lot easier. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

If you read Siniawer 2018 immediately after I told you it existed, why did you never respond to my request that you acknowledge its existence, and instead leave your bogus claim that my saying so constituted a "misrepresentation" live and unstricken for more than a month and counting?

I think you need to look up the word "endeavoured". I didn't say I was always successful, and demanding that I strike any potential lapses when your own comments were what strained my patience and as yet remain unstricken seems somewhat hypocritical.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

By the time I had finished reading the chapter in Siniawer's book you were on a WP:FORUMSHOP rampage. Disgusted, I decided to disengage for the time being. That's why I attach such importance to you striking ad hominems from the discussion above: you were effective in chasing me away with it (at the time). You giving such treatment to fellow-editors (I was of course not the only one) is not OK. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

But again, after more than a month, you are still refusing to focus on content. I asked you what was in Siniawer 2018, and you dodged the question twice before claiming that its opening paragraph had a definition that contradicted the most widely-used dictionary in Japan. I asked how it contradicted it, and despite posting on this talk page two or three times since you have yet to reply. This is the same evasive behaviour that, after days and days of it, can drive the patience of even the most polite and patient of editors. You are either doing it deliberately (i.e., trolling) or you simply lack the competence to engage in constructive, civil discussion with your fellow Wikipedians. I am wracking my brain trying to come up with a third explanation, but I just can't seem to, and while I have asked you multiple times to provide an explanation yourself, you have thus far completely ignored me.

But I don't even care. Please just provide the Siniawer 2018 quote and let's be done with this.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• For clarity: no, I utterly disagree with the OP's interpretation of the RfC outcome, for reasons explained elsewhere in this RfC (and subsections). Imho, a formal closure by an uninvolved party (as requested since 15 December, see below) would be best. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Version F

(edit conflict) E.g., I'd rather open the Mottainai#Etymology, usage, and translation section with definitions extracted from the first paragraph of the 9th chapter of Siniawer's recent book than with such definitions extracted from a mid-20th-century dictionary (however authoritative) while the latter is hardly aware of developments half a century after it was written. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but would you mind providing a quote from that paragraph? It's not available in the GBooks preview, but is it different from the first paragraph of the 2014 article? What do you feel is in there that contradicts Hasegawa?

Moreover, how would opening the etymology section with late 20th century developments improve the article? Shouldn't the etymology section be in roughly chronological order as it is now?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

As said, I volunteer to write the summary, while thus far this seems to be going nowhere, I mean, a decent summary of Siniawer's views on the topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that you never said that (the first time you publicly acknowledged the existence of Siniawer 2018 was a little over an hour ago, immediately above -- your earlier comment was about Siniawer 2014), that's good. Please post it on this talk page and seek outside opinions as I did. I am, naturally, skeptical that an article; you were talking about Siniawer 2014 back when I didn't have access to it, and now that it's one page of Siniawer 2018 that I can't access you are suddenly insisting there is some earth-shattering content that would blow Hasegawa out of the water on that one page, so it really looks like you are just trying to make this procedure as drawn out as possible so as to inconvenience me. I would therefore prefer that you just quote the relevant paragraph and let me, Nishidani, SMcCandlish, Ryk, etc. judge for ourselves, but if you are unwilling to do so... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll write the Siniawer summary once I've time for it (unless someone beats me to it): currently I'm too engaged in updating another article, and a detailed list in need of ref cleanup, to do this immediately. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

So, you're not going to the job that would be (a) more helpful, (b) more collegial and (c) easier, by just copy-pasting the exact quote? Maruko Siniawer 2018 (thank you Margin) is highly unlikely to disagree with the most widely used dictionary of the modern Japanese language. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Okay, so for whatever reason (maybe I accidentally did what you suggested two sections down without realizing it?) I can now see the page 241 in the GBooks preview. It agrees fully with Hasegawa: the word, when used in premodern Japanese (the source she cites is a popular kogo dictionary[26]), "suggested trouble, harm, impropriety, regret, disappointment, or graciousness", while "in modern usage the word could mean unworthy or undeserving, as well as impious irreverent, profane, or sacrilegious." She then states that from the mid-Showa period onward it has come to mean primarily "wasteful" (she also says "waste", but that's a noun, which is perfectly fine from a translation standpoint but probably isn't helpful -- indeed would perhaps be misleading -- to our readers in understanding usage of the Japanese adjective), and goes on to say that most people nowadays would probably assume it never meant anything else.

This is all pretty similar to what Hasegawa wrote and I summarized in English. I see nothing whatsoever that explicitly conflicts with Hasegawa 1983 or Hijiri 2019. The difference is that Hasegawa is much more detailed and less subject to misunderstanding by both our readers and our non-Japanese-speaking editors. For example, she uses the word "premodern" apparently as a translation of the Japanese 中世, which is normally translated as "medieval" -- see for example my Medieval Japanese literature article and its one substantial English source, the magnum opus of the late Donald Keene, Seeds in the Heart. (The word didn't exist in the Nara and Heian periods, and for reasons given below she seems to be excluding the Edo period.) When she says "modern usage", she appears to be referring to a shift in meaning that occurred in early modern Japanese: the meanings she lists are the ones apparently condemned by Motoori Norinaga in the 18th century, and, again the citation she gives at the end of that sentence is a dictionary of classical (i.e., pre-Meiji) Japanese. (Ōbunsha might contrast the medieval definition to that of specifically post-Meiji "modern" Japanese, but that's a stretch I'm not willing to make without good reason, especially after I went to all that trouble only to find out that McCullough made no reference to mottainai appearing in the Genpei text.) Moreover, revered authorities have used "premodern" to refer specifically to the 17th-through-19th centuries. She also lumps a large number of contextually possible and perfectly fine translations together, but with no elaboration on the connection between them like what we found in Hasegawa -- I can't imagine citing this material would be more helpful to our readers, and it would be almost impossible to paraphrase without distorting, which would be blatant copyvio when we already have a perfectly good paraphrase/summary of a more detailed source.

I do think it would be worthwhile adding to the end of the etymology section a citiation of Siniawer 2018 to the effect that in contemporary usage it overwhelmingly refers to waste, and that most people probably aren't aware that it ever meant anything else. This would save me some of the effort of finishing the job I promised to do here. What would you say to Since World War II, the "wasteful" sense of the word has, as noted above, become overwhelmingly prominent, and many people who use it simply assume that it has "always been associated with wastefulness and an ideal of waste consciousness".?

This would tie in well with the content already attributed to Siniawer 2014 in a later section (it could also be cited to the 2018 book, as the relevant passage is almost identical) to the effect that the "wastefulness" definition has been inaccurately cast in Japan's distant past and attributed to everything from Buddhism to Shinto to the unique-Japanese-and-inscrutable-to-Americans "spirit".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

References

TL;DR – Kōjien is a monolingual Japanese dictionary. Per the WP:RSUE policy "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance". Since Siniawer 2018, p. 241 (first page of 9th chapter) summarizes & translates what can be found in a 1994 Japanese dictionary (endnote 1 p. 343), that summary & translation should be preferred *as a source* (as it is in English) – especially as the meaning of the word apparently changed after 1955 (when the Kōjien was written). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Umm ... what? What does anything in your "TLDR" version have to do with my comment? Wikipedia prefers our summary and translation; it does not condone plagiarizing and/or "paraphrasing" (distorting) other authors' work. Both Kōjien and Ōbunsha are monolingual Japanese dictionaries, so that point is a non-sequitur (I am not advocating a direct citation of either dictionary), and we are discussing Hasegawa 1983 and Siniawer 2018, two sources which do no contradict each other despite your claim that they do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Updated my comment above with the "*as a source*" insert: of course that's what I meant in the first place. No, Wikipedia definitely prefers a translation in a reliable source over one produced by a Wikipedian, that is, when using such translation *as a source or reference*. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Umm ... again I must ask, what are you talking about? Are you saying that since citing Japanese-language sources on English Wikipedia involves a certain amount of "translation" on our part, that means that we should cite English-language sources instead even when those sources don't give enough information? That is not what Wikipedia:Verifiability#Quoting when it says Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. It really seems like you are dragging this conversation off on tangents just to waste my time.

You claimed that Siniawer 2018 contradicted Hasegawa and that we should cite the former because (this is a direct quote from you, just a few paragraphs up) as the meaning of the word apparently changed after 1955 (when the Kōjien was written). Not only does Siniawer not say that the meaning changed after 1955, but for another thing, Hasegawa would have likely had access in 1983 to the expanded/amended second edition, published 1976, so the publication date of the first edition is irrelevant, especially when I have verified in my copy of the seventh edition (published 2018) that his quoted text for (i) is identical to the current one, his quoted text for (ii) is missing the clarification "過分のことで[畏れ多い]" but is basically the same, and his copy apparently gives a version of (iii) that is slightly paraphrased but still substantially the same (not to the point where, as you claim, "the meaning changed", where a good dictionary would add a definition rather than replacing one of them -- as can be seen by the fact that it lists the historic definitions in basically chronological order). FWIW, Hasegawa's copy apparently read "むやみに費すのが惜しい" whereas mine has "そのものの値打ちが生かされず無駄になるのが惜しい" -- they essentially added the clarification "without the value of the thing itself being used".

If you like, we could add a footnote or an inline parenthetical to the effect that the 2018 7th edition of the KJE gives the definition "regrettable that the thing is wasted without its value being used" for (iii) instead of the one quoted by Hasegawa?

If not, what is you do want? Is it your intention to just cause me to waste my holiday arguing with you over nothing? Certainly it was Martin's intention to prevent me from winning WP:WAM this year by distracting me from that editathon (he was clearly aware of events last February, noticed that I didn't stand a chance in WAM 2018 -- real-world problems preventing -- and so decided that November 2019 would be the perfect time for this), and I was stupid enough to let him do that, but I'm not going to let you ruin my winter vacation. If your next comment is not relevant to this discussion, I'm just going to ignore you; if you try to disrupt the article content without engaging in talk page discussion, I will request that you be blocked.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

TL;DR – I suggest to follow the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Very surprised that this policy would need to be explained on this talk page. WP:CiR and all that. I'd refer to WT:V if the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy is unclear, or to WP:RSN if an assessment needs to be made whether or not Kōjien and/or Siniawer 2018, p. 241 (and 343) are most suitable as (a) source(s) for explaining the meaning of the word mottainai (with which the Mottainai#Etymology, usage, and translation section currently opens) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Siniawer 2014 & 2018 seem excellent sources; amongst the best that we have; with some real depth on the subject. Without going into the specifics of how & in what way, I agree with Francis Schonken's intimation at the head of this subsection, that we should make more use of these. - Ryk72 ^talk 08:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Currently the opening sentence of the section reads:

Kōjien lists three definitions for the word mottainai (classical Japanese terminal form mottainashi): (1) inexpedient or reprehensible towards a god, buddha, noble or the like; (2) awe-inspiring and unmerited/undeserved, used to express thanks; (3) an expression of regret at the full value of something not being put to good use. In contemporary Japanese, it is most commonly used to indicate that something is being discarded needlessly, or to express regret at such a fact.

References

From "Works cited" section

Hasegawa, Kōhei (1983). "Mottai-nashi Kō". Academic Bulletin of Nagano University. 4 (3–4): 25–30. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Thoughts:

1. Above, in the Survey and Discussion sections of this RfC, I objected to starting the "Etymology, usage, and translation" section of the article with a dictionary definition. I still think that would be best, and an independent assessment of the RfC outcome may yet confirm that.
2. *If* a dictionary definition is retained in that portion of the article it would be better to base it on the first paragraphs of the 9th chapter in Siniawer 2018, pp. 241–242 (and endnote p. 343), than on Hasegawa 1983:
   • Policy-based reason (WP:RSUE): Siniawer 2018 is in English, while Hasegawa 1983 is in Japanese (an English-language source should be preferred per the policy, that is, supposing that Siniawer 2018 and Hasegawa 1983 are of comparable "quality and relevance")
   • Guideline-based reason (WP:AGE MATTERS): Siniawer 2018 can be assumed to be more up-to-date than Hasegawa 1983. Siniawer 2018 says that the meaning of the word mottainai changed in the 1990s, of which Hasegawa 1983 could hardly have been aware: thus the more recent source should be used for the definition of the word: what mottainai means in the 21st century seems somewhat more relevant than what it meant before the 1990s.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, first off, thank you for finally explaining your position. Before we ask the others what they think, there are a few points I'd like to clarify:

1. Does this mean you are withdrawing your support for version A and instead proposing a new version ("F" or possibly "C3")?
2. The reason for giving the three dictionary definitions is that virtually the only thing most reliable sources will say about the etymologies of Japanese words is the relative ages of different senses of those words and historic examples in poetry and, in this case, prose. Without listing the definitions, talking of their relative ages (the focus of both Hasegawa and Siniawer['s opening paragraph]) would be impenetrable to our readers. Knowing this, are you in favour of removing (transwikiing) the etymology section entirely?
3. Could you point to where Siniawer says the meaning changed in the 1990s? You previously mentioned the first paragraph of chapter 9, but that says that since WWII the predominant meaning has been the "wasteful" one, the same as Hasegawa, and the same as Curly Turkey said last February.
4. Related to 3, I don't understand the point of comparing the relative citability of Hasegawa 1983 and Siniawer 2018 unless they directly contradict each other and we are deciding to "throw out" one or the other. Even if that is the case, NONENG applies when two sources say the same thing and we are deciding which would be better to cite for content that would not change either way, while AGEMATTERS would be a pretty weak reason as not only does Siniawer appear to say the same thing as Hasegawa but her cited source (OBS) says pretty much the same thing as Hasegawa's (KJE).
5. Assuming Siniawer does say somewhere that the meaning changed in the 1990s, wouldn't such recent developments belong at the end of the etymology section, not the beginning?

Thank you again for clarifying, and I hope we can work out the rest of these points so this RFC can finally be closed! :D

Cheers!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

This is more or less what I mean, i.e., less dwelling on obsolete meanings, more clarification of current meanings, or: more Siniawer 2018, less Hasegawa 1983. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Updated 16:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC) – see link to improved version below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'd rather keep my opinions on version F to myself for the moment. Do you mind if I ping everyone back for their thoughts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Re. "...Siniawer doesn't say "wasteful" wasn't the dominant meaning before the war..." ([27]): easily remedied by replacing "became" by "is", no reason to revert a version that imho is, apart from this detail, a vast improvement.

Re. "...version F..." – there is no "version F": this is only one paragraph updated and split in two paragraphs, and certainly not a finished, coherent version as a whole, nor even a "version" proposal as such.

Re. "I'd rather keep my opinions ... to myself for the moment. Do you mind if I ping everyone back..." – I'd rather you give your opinions on content on this talk page (and not in edit summaries), than pinging people who doubtlessly follow this (and if they are no longer interested should not be bothered by pings, canvassing, and whatnot, imho). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, is there a reason why this paragraph:

Since World War II, the "wasteful" sense of the word has, as noted above, become overwhelmingly prominent, and many people who use it simply assume that it has "always been associated with wastefulness and an ideal of waste consciousness".

...that is, a paragraph written by Hijiri88 was removed ([28])? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

After the Second World War, the dominant meaning of the Japanese word mottainai is "waste" or "wasteful" feels like poor English writing. Yes, my Since World War II, the "wasteful" sense of the word is ... overwhelmingly prominent is not much better, but given that the above version contains both that doesn't really mean much. Anyway, I would appreciate it if you didn't dismiss my hard work with language like a version that imho is, apart from this detail, a vast improvement; not only is the sarcastic "imho" somewhat unbecoming (calling yourself humble while also saying your work is "a vast improvement" over my own) but I worked very hard on version C (Hasegawa quotes a lot of medieval writings without as many modern Japanese glosses -- most Japanese people I know would have an easier time reading Siniawer in English). If you like, talk about how much sweat and blood you put into writing it (like I did here), but please try to avoid being dismissive of my and others' work by saying it's a "vast improvement".

This new proposal is far more radically different from all other proposed versions than "version C1" was from the "original" version C, and that difference was apparently enough for both Martin and Rebecca not to count the !votes for versions C and C1 together. And versions A and D (the latter of which, I would remind you, was only counted as a separate version at your insistence), and versions B and E, are also substantially more similar to each other than version F is to version C. So can we agree to call it "version F"?

I only gave one very minor example of a problem in my edit summary to demonstrate that it is not unambiguously superior (which would be the only scenario where it could replace the status quo without discussion, under the circumstances). I do not want to go into detail until we get the opinions of the others. There appears to be a perception that a number of the editors I pinged above are "my people", and so I would prefer that they !vote on your proposal, one way or the other, without me having "told them how to !vote". Same reason I am going to be collapsing this reply and doing the pinging in a separate comment.

I explained the removal in my edit summary.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

If they are "your people", as you intimate, they should not be invited to !vote, so I commented out the pings (and per what I wrote above). And again, this is in no way a "version F", it is an improvement of one paragraph (split in two that makes "two paragraphs" at most), not a version of the entire article: other possible issues are untouched by this very, very limited rewrite. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

You are altering the board after about a dozen editors have already cast !votes for one or more of the existing four versions; it is not fair to them for you and me to hash out your proposed version (which, again, I will ask you to stop referring to dismissively as "an improvement" -- it is a change). And again, it is clearly much more substantially different from the already-popular version C than versions A and D, B and E, and C and C1 are from each other. Also, please assume good faith -- I never said anyone was "my people" (tq|There appears to be a perception}}), and certainly only a lunatic would consider, for example, Martin and Ivory to be "my people". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Anyway, this is the version of the first and last paragraphs of the "Etymology, usage, and translation" section I currently prefer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Proposal removed from RfC: the RfC can be closed without this variant (the RfC tag already expired some time ago). I'll start a new section on the proposal below, in a section outside the RfC. If needs be, I'll start a separate RfC on it. Appending it to the current RfC is undesirable from several perspectives, including it having virtually no chance in drawing, without active RfC banner, the attention of additional or new editors. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Martinthewriter, Nishidani, SMcCandlish, IvoryTower123, Levivich, HAL333, and Ryk72: What do you think of the above version? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

BTW, my own opinions of version F can be seen here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:AGF

It shouldn't be up to you to declare that most of the participants on the talk page are acting in bad faith. Who are the bad faith editors? I can see clearly that Francis Schonken, Lightburst, and IvoryTower read the article and provided accurate and sensible commentary on it, so it can’t be them. On the other hand, some of the people who voted for other versions were specifically canvassed by you into the talk page, in one case on multiple occasions. I think that your canvassing did taint the results somewhat. By contrast, none of the people who voted for version A were strategically canvassed. They all came on their own accord. Also, I don't agree that because a couple of books on Buddhism don't mention mottainai's well-established connection to Buddhism, that means the connection doesn't exist. No single book is likely to contain every fact in existence on Buddhism. We do have plenty of reliable sources establishing this connection, so to refute it we need a book that refutes it, not just a short reference book that happens to omit it, along with omitting thousands of other facts about Buddhism. Concerning your latest suggestion on Siniawer, I'm personally fine with including it, but only alongside the other sources that I added to the article. The last RFC generated a clear consensus to include all the sources. Unless the RFC is restarted, we should maintain the previous consensus that was clearly supported by a majority of good-faith commentators.Martinthewriter (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't "strategically canvas" anyone: I asked those who had !voted for the most popular option (version C) if their !votes were for the text at the time they had !voted to be preserved as is, or if they like me believed an "RFC to formulate consensus wording that can't be changed" was unnecessary and tendentious and agreed to me as version C's author maintaining the authority to modify, add to, and perhaps remove some of the text. It was my intention at that time, as should now be clear, to remove the paragraph that cited (misrepresented) Siniawer 2014 and Sato, but since that paragraph had technically been intact in version C at the time SMcC et al. had cast their !votes (as a result of me still being afraid as of November 15 of Floq blocking me for "edit-warring" if I completely removed all the text you had re-added), I didn't want to go over their heads and remove text that they supported including. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The "previous consensus" was to ignore the nihonjinron stuff and focus on how the was used in 21st-century environmentalism.[29] You disrupted that by coming along two years later to add a citation of a source (Taylor) that got its information from Wikipedia and content that your cited source (Siniawer) was plainly skeptical of and to canvas !votes with a biased RFC question while hypocritically claiming that it is canvassing to invite the participation of the already-involved editors you had tried to steamroll. Everyone who has acknowledged these sourcing facts has opposed your edits, and now you are saying you are "personally fine" with including a fair summary of Siniawer's actual stated view as long as we also continue to misrepresent her? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, forgot to ping Ryk72 (talk · contribs) and Johnuniq (talk · contribs), whose opinions were also ignored in favour the canvassing RFC. (Admittedly Johnuniq just said that discussion of each of the sources should take place, which I tried but was subsequently ignored.)

Would either of you be willing to offer opinions now that it turns out Siniawer 2014 explicitly rejects the view our article was citing her in support of and Taylor 2015 apparently got the information we were citing him for from Wikipedia? Also, since you were last involved, I reversed my opinion on how much etymological information we should include, and located a very detailed source for said information (Hasegawa 1983) and another source that explicitly connected the idea that mottainai is a "Japanese Buddhist concept" to prewar Japanese nationalism (Ives 1999). (It did turn out that Siniawer 2014 was in basic agreement with this view, but her focus was on the recent phenomenon.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Apologies for the delayed reply. I am in the process of reviewing the discussion and would hope to add an opinion in the next day. - Ryk72 ^talk 06:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ryk72: FWIW, if the ANI thread I've been forced to file on MTW ends the way it probably should, your further input may no longer be required, since the only one still arguing this point will be either blocked or page-banned. Sorry to go over your head without withdrawing my request for input like that... >.< Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ryk72: ANI appears to be doing its usual bang-up job of not actually fixing the problems ANI exists to solve, so please consider my above response retracted. If you still have the time and inclination, I would very much appreciate your going through and adding your opinion to the discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

No, check the request for comment above, which was widely participated in by informed users. The consensus was to include the best scholarship and exclude personal opinions. We should respect this consensus and include the material. Hasegawa is a decent source, but obviously not as good as the articles by Siniawer, Sato, and Shuto, which are much more recent and reflect the latest and best scholarly research. You haven't provided a single source claiming that any of these scholars are secretly nationalists. Furthermore, there is no evidence Taylor got his information from Wikipedia. That's just a baseless assumption and original research. At the end of the day, we still haven't found a single source that contradicts the scholarly consensus that the word mottainai is of Buddhist origin. Siniawer does not contradict this. As has been mentioned before, you've just been misreading the source. If necessary, we could do another request for comment specifically concerning inclusion of the Buddhist origins of the word, but if so the request for comment should be closed formally so that no one can simply ignore the majority result, as you are doing now.Martinthewriter (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

If the consensus had been to include the best scholarship and exclude personal opinions, it would have completely missed the point of the issue, which is that the content you call "the best scholarship" is an unambiguous misrepresentation of sources, while the content you call "personal opinions" is a reasonable summary of the best sources. Moreover, no one used the words "personal opinions" but you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

That being said...

@Edwardx: I'm not sure how you noticed my removal of the re-added RFC template and thanked me for it, but if you were already in the process of reviewing the RFC to comment or close it, would you mind doing the latter so we can be done with this mess?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Refactorings (part II)

Francis, can you please explain this, this, this and this and elaborate on why it is okay for you to (repeatedly) move my posts (which had been consciously placed where they were to assist an RFC closer in assessing consensus) but it is not okay for me to move yours (when you apparently placed them in error)? You very obviously posted a reply to my long summary and commentary on Siniawer 2018's opening paragraph, beginning your reply with "TL;DR", but you placed it as a response to a short, two-sentence comment that had been posted more than a day earlier. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't move my posts, so I don't have to move yours when I move mine back to where I intended them. After a previous batch of your refactorings I had explicitly asked "no more WP:REFACTORings" on this page (which means that the refactorings should stop after such request per WP:TPG). I even repeated that request a few times. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No no, but you see: in those previous "refactorings", I posted responses to you, which you later moved, so the only refactoring of anything written by anyone else was you. In this case, you are criticizing me for doing exactly what you did previously, with the only difference being that when you met resistance you edit-warred over it, whereas I have withdrawn and moved my own post to accommodate you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

New comments below this line

I think it's an untenable situation to have such a strong consensus on the talk page that isn't enforced in the article itself. My basic view is that we should accept the RFC and add the Buddhist origins of the word. Challenger.rebecca (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that there is a strong consensus on the Talk page. The sourcing is still terribly poor. - Ryk72 ^talk 04:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Challenger.rebecca: What do you mean by "strong consensus" and "we should accept the RFC"? Even based on a straight !vote count, there is a clear majority (not just a plurality -- a 6/11 or 54.5% majority) against version A and in favour of either version C as presented or my modified version C. Of that majority, the only ones who hasn't explicitly said he prefers the modified version now that it has emerged that Siniawer was misquoted was User:HAL333, who hasn't edited this page since then. That's just a !vote count -- disregarding the two who haven't commented on the discussion since the misrepresentation of sources was uncovered it becomes a 6/9 or 66.7% majority, and further discounting those who themselves misrepresented sources to support their !votes it becomes 6/7 or 85.7%.

Do you actually mean "we should disregard the RFC and insert content that the RFC "?

Moreover, what do you mean by "the Buddhist origins of the word"? Anyone who can read can clearly see that the "Buddhist origins" are cited in the current version.[30] It even alludes to the 1930s fascist author who combined the Buddhist and secular senses of the word to claim that regret over (or aversion to) wastefulness is a uniquely Japanese and uniquely Buddhist concept. The text you recently attempted to re-add just creates the impression that said fascist view is correct.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

#RFC on article versions above has been listed at WP:ANRFC#RfCs since 15 December ([31] – thanks Cunard!) – so, no need to get impatient and jump to interpretations of the RfC outcome: an uninvolved admin (or other uninvolved editor) will come along and give a formal closure to the RfC. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Relisted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, this badly needs closure, and probably a restart with more focus. I can't see that a clear consensus is emerging, and the two-editor conflict between Hijiri88 and Francis Schonken consumes too much of the material for most people to wade through. I've given up trying to parse all of this and offer a "we should do X" recommendation. Hijiri, please don't take everything Francis says in the worst possible light, looking hard to find potential insult in every phrase. Francis, please don't respond with flippant "TL;DR" handwaving and "pretend you're either new or stupid" recitations of policy links; that actually is an insult. You both need to just pretend you're addressing someone else, someone you've never encountered before, and stick to the content instead of commenting on contributor so much. Otherwise, it just turns into a two-person wrestling match and the rest of us lose interest.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, close it. Close it as no consensus, even -- or, heck, close it as consensus for version A or version F: I don't even care any more. Far too much good editor time has been wasted over the last two months on this tiny article on a common Japanese adjective. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I still think there is a clear consensus for version C. Even after Rebecca's disruptive hounding !vote, it is 5 for A (of whom only one has explicitly opposed C), 4 for C (of whom all four explicitly oppose A), 1 for "not A" (with an apparent preference for C), and 1 for E. Setting aside how five editors could support the proven abuse of sources obviously present in version A, version C is the one that would clearly make the most parties happy. This also doesn't even take into account the fact that of the five A !votes, three (including the only one explicitly opposed to C) obviously followed me here just to !vote against me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note for disclosure purposes I've made a request for input at RSN. I tried to be as neutral as possible in my wording, but needed to included a single slightly argumentative point in parentheses, as it is a truism that Siniawer 2014 (and Siniawer 2018) "verifies" the text version A attributes to her, so not elaborating on why Siniawer 2014 is an inappropriate source for the content in question (she is critical of her own source and quite explicitly disagrees with the conclusion version A makes) would mislead those notified and potentially be considered canvassing. The assertion that Shuto & Eriguna, and Taylor, are generally unreliable sources for the content we attribute to them is being made by me, Ryk, Nishidani, etc., and so didn't need such clarification. I still have not been able to access Sato, but hopefully someone who sees my RSN posting will -- I have no reason to believe Sato isn't being misquoted like Siniawer was. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A belated outsider comment

Do I summarize the discussion correctly as follows:

1. Versions B and D aren't serious candidates, versions E and F are hardly discussed. So that leaves versions A and C.
2. Version A proposes to follow a recent English-language source with disputed reliability
3. Version C proposes to follow an older Japanese-language source with undisputed reliability
4. The two sources contradict each other (to a certain extent)

If this is a fair summary, then it is obvious to go for version C, giving most weight to reliability. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: Points 1, 2 and 3 are mostly correct. E has one supporter and F is one person's second choice. 4 is partially wrong, but I don't blame you for missing this point: only one of A's sources actually contradicts C's sources, and that source (Taylor) is not technically of "disputed" reliability -- it is outright wrong. Version A's other sources are being misquoted -- Siniawer, for instance, is quoted out of context so that our article draws the exact opposite conclusion she does. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The material in version A is not actually disputed by any scholars, only by a few Wikipedia users. No scholar has yet been cited to contradict the Buddhist etymology of the word mottainai. Furthermore, the Japanese-language source in version C does not contradict anything in version A. The Japanese-language source in version C does not delve in detail into the Buddhist significance of mottainai, as many other sources do, but it doesn't contradict it either. Version C does benefit from containing an excellent source by Yuriko Sato, though I think version C should contain more information from this source than the little that was included.Martinthewriter (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Siniawer 2014 and Siniawer 2018 both explicitly dispute the "Buddhist etymology" you are talking about, while Ives does so somewhat implicitly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Siniawer does not deny the Buddhist etymology of the term. As Francis Schonken pointed out above, Siniawer only vaguely disputes the "pure and unchanging" nature of the word's meaning. We do not yet have a source stating that the word isn't of Buddhist etymology. Ives also does not implicitly deny the Buddhist etymology of the term in any way, shape, or form. It's very important that we read the sources literally, and not make wild assumptions based on personal biases. Incidentally, we should also consider relisting the previous RFC in order to solicit the opinions of more users.Martinthewriter (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"Buddhist origin" as you keep talking about is a synonym for bogus nihonjinron logic. It is plainly obvious that Siniawer's whole point was to dispute the whole bogus nihonjinron element to the mid-00s "mottainai boom". Ives does so too, although writing in the 90s he was was talking retroactively about the wartime use of the term rather than anything contemporary to himself.

Anyway, I would not be opposed to creating a new RFC that does not contain biased wording like your original one. You would, of course, need to either (a) acknowledge that Taylor is an unacceptable source for the Seisuiki material (since he took the relevant content from our article) or (b) allow for a full, unbiased description of all the problems with what you called "version A" to be presented up-front, to prevent a fustercluck like what happened in November. I am willing to work with you to craft a new RFC, but you need to drop this whole disruptive "gotcha" act you have been pulling and be more open.

Or I could ask for you to be blocked for the blatant trolling that you've now been consistently engaged in for over three months. That would probably be a preferable solution.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere at all in Siniawer 2014 or 2018 or in Ives where they indicate that the Buddhist word origin of mottainai is disputed. To say that these sources dispute the article by Sato Yuriko is just flat-out false. I see no quote in eitherthis talk page or in the sources themselves that could sustain the argument that they somehow are saying two different things. And nowhere does Siniawer describe it as "nihonjinron" either. Challenger.rebecca (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere at all in Siniawer 2014 or 2018 or in Ives where they indicate that the Buddhist word origin of mottainai is disputed. They themselves dispute it -- that is the whole point. To say that these sources dispute the article by Sato Yuriko is just flat-out false. Umm ... what? I see no quote in eitherthis talk page or in the sources themselves that could sustain the argument that they somehow are saying two different things. Again, some sources give correct information and other, non-specialist, sources give incorrect or potentially misleading information. You, Challenger.rebecca, still haven't managed to justify your continued support of using a source that got its information from this Wikipedia article as a basis for maintaining said information in this Wikipedia article -- this often happens when people write outside their own field, no matter how learned or reputable they may be in that field. And nowhere does Siniawer describe it as "nihonjinron" either. Challenger.rebecca, do you know what "nihonjinron" means? You don't seem to have ever edited any Japan-related articles except in cases involving me... Siniawer most definitely does talk extensively about so-called "nihonjinron", even if she doesn't use that specific word. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Challenger.rebecca is 100% correct here. Siniawer doesn't disagree with Yuriko Sato's opinion or mention nihonjinron. Challenger.rebecca is just underlining the need to read the sources in an impartial and accurate manner. Anyway, the current RFC doesn't contain biased wording, as it just asks which version people preferred. If you look over the talk page, more Wikipedia editors have identified the biggest problems as those of version C, not version A, which utilizes the basic facts from the best sources. What I was proposing is that we repost the previous RFC so more people can see it and indicate their preference. The only people who are seeing it now are those visiting the requests for closure page.Martinthewriter (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"significant section of version C"?

@Martinthewriter: It seems you restored content from version A, against consensus, with the tags that were preliminarily placed on it in version C removed. Would you care to explain this action?

@Ryk72: Sorry, you thanked me for my revert while I was in the process of self-reverting back, having sought a second opinion from SMcCandlish (talk · contribs). Your opinion on the matter as it has developed would be appreciated.

I suppose the opinion of the closing admin might be worth asking for while their memory is still fresh: @Wugapodes: What do you make of this edit?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I went and checked, and the removals took place in mid-December, here and here, with the assent of the majority of editors who originally !voted for version C as presented in the original RFC (Nishidani and SMcCandlish explicitly supported my additional edits, while HAL333 (talk · contribs) hasn't posted since December 14). The only editor who !voted for version C later was Ryk72, who just thanked me for the most recent removal, and whose !vote was actually explicit in that it read Version E or Version B or Version C (omitting the final paragraph of the Etymology section). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm reluctant to wade too deeply back into this. I think it's best if we go back toward the equilibrium established before. We know that ostensibly reliable sources disagree on this stuff, and just need to attribute what they say, in DUE proprotion, and without putting claims of The Truth in Wikipedia's own voice. Mtw's reintroduction of a particular source may be reasonable, but the claim "Mottainai originated as a Buddhist term ..." seems to be central to the dispute about the subject, which exists off-site as well as on-site. Frankly, if we can keep an article like Donald Trump from running off the rails, this should be a piece of cake.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I think having the re-added content back in the article with the tags is reasonable in the short term, but unless someone can find some evidence that, for example, Siniawer actually agrees with the dubious nihonjinron content she quoted, I think consensus in the long run will be to remove it. Ryk72 has actually been a more vocal critic of the Sato-sourced content than I have been (and given what little Nishidani did write on the matter, I suspect he'd probably agree), and so I can't see that content surviving long either. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The closure shouldn't be taken to reflect an authoritative version. It reflects what seems to be the general result of that discussion, nothing else. If other stuff has happened since that discussion, it wouldn't be reflected in the closure, and I leave the specifics of implementation to the normal editing process. The discussion and closure were meant to reduce disputes. If somehow the closure is reigniting conflicts, I would say you should ignore it and continue working towards a consensus. I don't have an opinion on the content of the edits. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It was an important part of version C. A number of people singled it out as the single most important section of version C. So yes, I feel it should be included in accordance with the consensus for version C, but since I see you reverted me, I'm willing to start an RFC to determine the current consensus. I especially want clarification on whether the tags have consensus currently. The material itself, I believe, has overwhelming consensus, because it was in versions A and C, but the consensus for the tags is less clear. As I mentioned before, achieving clarity on these issues could take more than one RFC, ultimately. For this RFC, I'll keep it focused to just one article to avoid any confusion. In accordance with SMcCandlish's suggestion, I will insert the additional attribution "according to Yuriko Sato", though I still disagree that this dispute exists off-site, since I have never seen any off-site sources disagreeing with this.Martinthewriter (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

A number of people singled it out as the single most important section of version C. Those people were the ones opposed to version C and supporting version A. Those are the same people who thing circular sourcing is okay. Among the people who supported version C, most explicitly (and the rest implicitly) supported the removal of the text in question.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Other specialist sources?

Does anyone have access to Masaru Tajima's "Mottainashi", "mottai" kō: "Katakoto" o yomu[32][33]? Or to the Yasukazu Takenaka's Mottainai to iu koto (the source consulted by Hasegawa for Noma's statement on the matter? I'd be very much interested in seeing what they wrote; Hasegawa/Takenaka attribute to Noma the claim that mottainashi originated as slang during the Kamakura period ("これが鎌倉時代からの俗語であることを教わった"), which would seem to contradict the claim of our original article that it originates in Buddhist philosophy and a deep-ingrained respect for the value of things, surviving now in the text Mottainai originated as a Buddhist term, though this fact is not common knowledge even in Japan. The word later become connected to the Shinto concept that all objects have souls. (Moreover, this claim is apparently contradicted by a number of the basic tenets of Buddhism,[34] but let's not get into that.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Likely not able to help access those sources, unfortunately. But would like to add the Ōbunsha kogo jiten (Ōbunsha's dictionary of archaic words) by Akira Matsumura, Akio Yamaguchi & Toshimasa Wada to the list (8th Ed, c.1994 would be ideal, but anything around that time). This is the dictionary referenced by Siniawer 2014 for the history of the term, mottainai. - Ryk72 ^talk 09:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Oh, I've got that. It says largely the same thing as Kojien, but with a little more detail and some concrete examples, one of which is the Uji Shui Monogatari, which predates all documents currently named in our article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"Deutero-A"

(Couldn't write everything that needed to be said in my edit summary.)

Some "version A" stuff that somehow crept back into the article at some point despite my distinctly recalling having removed it around the start of the November RFC has now been removed. The Sato material being discussed above (and the misrepresentation of Siniawer 2014 that was sneakily re-added the other day before being quickly removed) is also "version A".

I was the primary author of "version C" -- in fact, I have put more work into writing this article than any other individual editor, and more than Martinthewriter, Ivorytower123, Lightburst, Francis Schonken, Challenger.rebecca, Krow750, Colin Gerhard, Hko2333 and Patiodweller combined -- and I can say with confidence that it was never my intention as the author of version C that any OR/SYNTH/unverifiable content written by Martinthewriter or Francis Schonken be considered part of it. Moreover, virtually everyone else who supported version C and opposed "version A" either (a) explicitly stated from the start that this was their interpretation as well, or (b) clarified as much later (before the second, current, RFC was filed).

If any further attempt is made to claim that this "deutero-A" material was actually part of version C and therefore supported by existing consensus, as happened here and here, I will request that the claimant be blocked for unambiguous bad-faith disruption (or, worse, an inability to read).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Martinthewriter: I would appreciate it if you would use the talk page, rather than ignore me and everyone else until you can find an excuse to drag up every little thing on ANI as you did here. If you are not going to respond to the above message, or explain why you have been repeatedly referring to "version A" material that you added as though it were part of "version C" as written by me, then you definitely should not go to ANI and request sanctions for my act of ... saying that you did as much. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)