Talk:Kenji Miyazawa

Kokuchūkai

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Membership in Kokuchūkai and reference to it

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Boxed this RFC to archive it. The parties came to an agreement. AlbinoFerret 22:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC) 13:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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

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

So much for gross misinterpretation.

#1: [1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Why was the reference to membership of Kokuchūkai deleted removed from the lead? Kokuchūkai is mentioned six times in the main body, and his membership appears to be significant, given the impact it had on his relationship with his father, that it is argued it had an influence on his later writings, and that there is speculation (albeit minor) that it reveals some of his political affiliations. Per WP:Lead, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• @ User:SilkTork It is because a certain editor does not want to see such references being made. The Kenji man’s only affiliation with Nichiren Buddhism is the one mentioned. The nature of the organisation he decided to join at the time is clear – some however decide to practice white washing.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Per WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD, the dispute is not over whether a reference to the Kokuchukai should be "deleted" from the lede, but whether one should be added. The significance of the group to his overall biography is dubious, as you can see if you actually read through the references in the article body. His relationship with his father was not affected by his brief association with the Kokuchukai; he had already had a falling out with his father after converting to Nichiren Buddhism six years earlier. All of our reliable sources indicate that he was briefly associated with the group during his less-than-a-year stint in Tokyo, during which he likely had minimal contact with his father who lived hundreds of miles away. I've said enough about why one Wikipedia editor has been arguing with me and several others over this point: you can review the evidence and decide for yourself what has been going on.

Sorry for the over dramatic use of "deleted", that was me just being sloppy and picking up on the phrase used earlier. I have now corrected it to "removed". BRD is a behavioural guideline related to being bold in editing, but not angry, and about avoiding edit wars - it's not actually about making editorial decisions. BURDEN would relate to mention of Kokuchukai anywhere in the article, not any particular place. If Kokuchukai is mentioned significantly in the main body (which it is) then that mention needs to be summarised in the lead, per WP:Lead. Either Kokuchukai is relevant to this topic, in which case it is detailed in the body and summarised in the lead; or it not significant, in which case it shouldn't be in the article at all. I would suggest, that until you guys resolve the question of should Kokuchukai be discussed in the article, then, as the article currently stands, Kokuchukai should be mentioned in the lead. I am not an expert on the subject, so can't comment on the relevance of Kokuchukai to Kenji Miyazawa other than what I see already in the article, which appears to indicate enough significance to warrant mention. I just did a quick Google search; this is not always satisfactory for academic studies, but I did find this article by Jon Holt in the Japanese Journal of Religious Studies which is all about Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchukai, and which in its opening paragraph underlines that there is significant scholarship on the relationship: " Reframing both the scholarship on Kenji’s ties to the prominent prewar Nichiren organization, the Kokuchūkai, and the research on Kenji’s close friendship with Hosaka Kanai, I demonstrate how the salvation that the protagonist Giovanni finds in the story is shaped by the teachings of Nichiren Buddhism". Given that specialists in the subject are interested in Kenji Miyazawa's relationship with Kokuchukai, what exactly is the reason why you feel it should be deliberately excluded? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the ambiguity. My reference to BRD was to say that the default stance should be that if a change is made and reverted, it should be discussed on the talk page before being re-added. BURDEN was mentioned because the "burden" of providing adequate sources and obtaining consensus is on the party wishing to add or maintain something in the article, not the party that wants to remove it. They were both referenced exclusively in response to your use of the word "delete", which implied that the default state should have it left in. Your revised (and better) wording "remove" actually has the same problem, though. The reference to Kokuchukai in the lede, as opposed to a single brief mention in the body, is a recent addition that has been opposed by four other users including myself, and you are the first to defend it other than the original editor, so it would be better to say "Why shouldn't the reference to membership of Kokuchukai be added to the lead?" But it's a minor stylistic point and you're entitled to your opinion. But I disagree because...

If you look at the page history, you will see that I am responsible for 4/5 of the references to Kokuchukai in the body. (The other two uses of the name in the citations were also me.) I added a more detailed discussion than was there previously in response to the current dispute, in order to demonstrate that his relationship to the group is questionable -- the group himself claim him, but literary historians are doubtful, and he was ultimately buried in an unrelated temple. The paper you cite is interesting, but it's not a biographical piece on Kenji. It's a scholarly analysis of the influence of Nichiren Buddhism, and Kokuchukai philosophy in particular, on one of his novels. I have not had time to read the paper in detail, but the quote you provide (it comes from lines 9-13 of the abstract -- I did at least read that far) implies the connection is an original theory of the author, and a recent (2014) one at that. Even if the author was saying "Kenji was a member of the group until the moment of his death, and I can prove it" this would still be a WP:WEIGHT problem when presented with the fact that other biographical works specifically addressing Kenji's religious views don't necessarily say this. Keene's History of Japanese Literature has ten pages devoted to Kenji's bio, and the Kokuchukai is blink-and-you-miss-it. Japanese books with "Miyazawa Kenji" in the titles go into more detail but generally are skeptical about his long-term commitment to the group and even his awareness of the group's allegedly nationalist agenda.

I'm also interested to know what exactly you want the lede to say: the original proposal was to replace "devout Buddhist" with "member of Kokuchukai", with the expressed reasoning being "Traditionally in Japan one would be expected to be registered with a temple when called a Buddhist. Kokuchukai is a lay organisation, not affiliated to any Buddhist school and with a dubious nationalist agenda". Your cited source is obviously inadequate for the claim "he was not a Buddhist but a member of a dubious quasi-Buddhist nationalist organization". Are you in favour of the wording "He was known as ... a devout Nichiren Buddhist (and a member of the Kokuchukai)"?

My view is that, even in a parenthetical statement like this, linking to the poorly sourced and unbalanced article on the Kokuchukai in the lede is overkill, and anyone who doesn't read the more detailed discussion in the article body but left-clicks the wikilink will come away with completely the wrong idea. I tried to fix the Kokuchukai article but had such an unpleasant time of it that, even though there was no real chance of my edits being reverted, I just pulled out of actively editing the article. If you want to have a stab at fixing that article so linking to it here more than the bare minimum won't introduce massive weight and POV problems, be my guest. As for this page, encyclopedia articles on Kenji hardly never mention the Kokuchukai. Biographies give only brief mention and are uncertain as to whether he left the group within a year. Only sources specifically discussing the Kokuchukai's supposed (remember, it's not the consensus view yet if it appeared once in one journal article published last year) influence on his literary works give any emphasis to the group in relation to him, and those sources have a very specific reason for doing so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding on your view. I think what you are saying is that you don't want the Wikipedia article to imply that he was nationalistic through what may be a tentative link to an organisation with nationalistic leanings, or for readers to leap to a conclusion that is not yet proven, And that is the right approach. From what you have said, though, it seems entirely appropriate that mention is given of Kokuchukai in the main body, with sufficient context and explanation from sources to indicate the position you outline above: that there is some speculation on his involvement with the organisation, and on its impact on his life and work. As there are some specialists who feel his involvement with the organisation was important, we should mention it, including mentioning that there are other specialists who question the importance of his affiliation. To remain quiet on the subject appears odd, and is not what we do, as that would be a disservice to those readers who may have read that he is associated with the group. Once we have material in the main body detailing the affiliation, speculation on its importance, and the counter speculation that it wasn't important, then a summary of the situation should appear in the lead: "He was a member of the Kokuchukai, a Nichiren Buddhist organisation with nationalistic leanings, though it is unclear for how long, and what relevance this had on his life and work." You then use the main body to explain more fully this statement. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you have misread the controversy slightly: I agree that proper discussion of his relationship with the group, well-written and diligently-sourced, should be included in the article body. That is why when you arrived here you found six uses of the word "Kokuchukai" in the article body rather than only one: I myself had written a full section discussing Kenji's religious views, featuring four sentences on his relationship with the group. I had written this in order to address the present controversy of whether he was a member of the Kokuchukai until his death and it was the only religious group with which he was affiliated, a claim continuing to be made on this talk page. The problem here is whether mention of the group belongs in the lede. I agree that the lede should summarize the content of the article, but it's impossible to read the current discussion of the Kokuchukai as justifying the characterization "he was a devout Nichiren Buddhist (a member of the Kokuchukai)" in the lede. I understand you could read it as "the Kokuchukai is discussed in detail in the body, therefore it should be in the lede", but it's just an accident of history that the body is written as it is, with proportionally as much emphasis on the Kokuchukai as there is. Print sources discussing Kenji don't give anywhere near as much weight to the group. Your proposed wording is not bad, and in an ideal world our article would have a detailed discussion of that issue in its body and we could afford to word its lede like that. But at present your proposed lede wording is essentially the same as what the body says. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: He was buried in a mainstream Nichiren temple with no affiliation with the Kokuchukai. At least three other established users, not counting the IP, have opposed you on this exact point, let alone the dozen or so who opposed you last time you tried something very similar. Your attempt to classify this as "one editor" opposing your proposed addition is laughable. As an aside, could you please stop calling him "the Kenji man"? It sounds derogatory, and if you have such a low opinion of the man and the scholars who have devoted time and effort to writing books about him that you're not even willing to check how they describe him, I would suggest you stay away from this article from now on.Struck own inappropriate response to ad hominem remark as per advice on user talk page.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I don't have enough time to look into this presently, but let me just say that Nichiren Buddhism has been described in scholarly sources as having a somewhat nationalistic component. The very name Nichiren is mentioned in a chapter subtitled "Buddhism nationalism, and history in medieval Japan" [3]. Accordingly, there do not seem to be grounds to say that someone affiliated with Nichren could not be a devout Buddhist and nationalistic. The two do not necessarily seem to be incompatible. Context is important, though.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not actually seeing a really clear RfC question here, but I'm guessing it is about the mention of the group affiliation in the lede. There seems on one hand, to my possibly uninformed eyes, to be an attempt to differentiate between belief in the Lotus Sutra and being a member of one of the groups which were established on the basis of it. To my, perhaps uninformed, eyes, that sounds to me anyway like trying to say that it can be quite relevant to say someone might believe in the Book of Genesis, but his Jewishness or Christianity (whichever) is not important. I do not know that such a differentiation is often, if ever, made in any instances of the hypothetical proposal I put forward (although I could be wrong), and, although I suppose it might be in this case possible that the subject was perhaps a believer in some form of "nonsectarian" support of the Lotus Sutra, I think the basic guidelines around here would support saying that his membership in a group, if established by RS, is generally relevant if the subject notably prominently holds beliefs which are consistent with that group. Instances of Marrano-type individuals are known worldwide, but in general it is somewhat OR to say that one is such a "false adherent" to a belief unless sources specifically state as much, otherwise, we indicate the affiliation which is supported by RS's. So, so far as I can tell, some mention of group affiliation, possibly with additional "qualifier", to the effect that he was only interested in the Lotus Sutra, would seem indicated. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

To make clear what the ongoing dispute is about. I once edited the introduction saying that Kenji was a Nationalist. This was challenged by the editor known as Hijiri 88. That point was taken and the lede remained saying he was a devout Buddhist. I later on included in the introduction that Kenji was a member of Kokuchūkai. It seems to have been established by SilkTork and John Carter that the introduction should sum up what is stated in the article. The influence of the Lotus Sutra in Kenji`s works are documented as well as his affiliation with Nichiren Buddhism. In this context the only affiliation documented is the one with Kokuchūkai – an organisation on the fringe of Nichiren Buddhism with a clear nationalist agenda, an organisation being still regarded NIchiren Buddhist. Kenji`s own family seems to have been affiliated with Pure Land Buddhism which is not based on the Lotus Sutra nor Nichiren Buddhism. So what is the problem? There is none. Kenji was a poet and what some call devout Buddhist – but also an adherent of a group devoted to a nationalistic interpretation of Nichiren`s teachings. In the course of events I was called a “jerk” and “jackass” and my citizenship ridiculed – as a German I am only allowed to hold one citizenship my background however is British, German and Czech. And finally @ _Fortuna I so far only edit regarding this ongoing conflict – if and to what extent en.Wikipedia is worth paying attention to is up to my discretion. If the reliability of information being visible to the average user is not a prime objective anymore I am not willing to waste much time unless I see gross misinformation.--Catflap08 (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08 -thanks for the call... why is this to do with me??? I'm honoured all the same... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 23:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: You've clearly misread this dispute, and I don't blame you -- it's a fustercluck. The dispute is not over whether he was a nationalist or whether we can call him a nationalist, as that dispute was resolved pretty conclusively last summer. The dispute is how the lede should summarize his religious views/affiliation: was he (a) "a devout Buddhist"; (b) "a member of the Kokuchukai"; (c) "a devout Buddhist (member of the Kokuchukai)"; (d) "a devout Nichiren Buddhist"; or (e) "a devout Nichiren Buddhist (member of the Kokuchukai)"?
Option (a) is the original wording. (b) is Catflap's original edit that was reverted by Dekimasu. (c) is the wording Catflap introduced after Dekimasu's revert. (d) is my wording. (e) is a hypothetical based on a combination of my wording with Catflap's. I am partial to (d) because that's how he is described in most of the sources I have read. Catflap says that Kenji was not associated with any Buddhist organization other than the Kokuchukai, and I'm not sure which of the five options he prefers. I also disagree that Kenji was not associated with any other organization, since he was buried in an unaffiliated temple.
@John Carter: Your analogy is basically flawed, since no one is arguing that he was not a "Buddhist" or a "Nichiren Buddhist". The dispute is over whether the lede should name-check a particular fringe group with which he was briefly associated. A better analogy would be to say John Smith was referred to in all the reliable sources as a devout Christian (Baptist) who was enraptured with the book of Genesis; he was briefly a member of the Westborough Baptist Church when he lived in Westborough, but apparently showed little interest in that group after moving back to his hometown of Phoenix; in the years since his death countless books and papers have been written about him and his religious views, and most barely mention the Westborough Baptist Church; none of the abundant encyclopedia articles on him even mention the group.
According to this analogy, (Personal attack removed)Catflap is now trying to either replace or tag onto the wording "he was a Christian" the note "member of the Westborough Baptist Church".
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: OK, thanks for pointing that out. I've read about ten pages of the relatively new academic paper (2014) SilkTork posted yesterday, and that says he was a Nichiren Buddhist and a "devout Buddhist writer", so it probably supports the characterization of "devout Nichiren Buddhist", and also documents his membership in the Kokuchukai and discusses the scholarly interpretations of its significance.

I would think that a text along the lines proposed by SilkTork, maybe with the addition of "devout Nichiren Buddhist", would be the most comprehensively inclusive and neutral approach:

"He was a devout Nichiren Buddhist and had been a member of the Kokuchukai, a Nichiren Buddhist organisation with nationalistic leanings, though it is unclear for how long, and what relevance this had to his life and work".

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This matter appears to be resolved so I have removed the RfC tag. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@ User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Uh as you seem to lose track here you go. My honour. Since tow editors are semi-retired. [4]--Catflap08 (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@ user:Ubikwit That’s similar to a wording I once suggested to the editor in question on his/her talk page and he/she decided to delete my post. See what happens.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: No, you never suggested any form of compromise, or accepted (or even read) any of my offers of compromise. You wanted the lede to proclaim him a nationalist, and then when that didn't work you wanted the lede to proclaim him "a member of the (non-Buddhist nationalist organization called the) Kokuchukai". You explicitly stated that you wanted our readers to click the link to your unbalanced POV-fest of an article on the group. Even most of your posts on this RFC have been to the effect that "he was not a member any Buddhist temple, only a lay group with a dubious nationalist agenda". The only time I ever removed a message from you on my user talk page was here. The message included no discussion of article content, and was just more personal attacks against me. I'm curious to see how you will choose to alter the current consensus wording when you inevitably come back to this article six months from now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Foreword

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

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

Structure of biography

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

I see what you mean, and if it's possible to restructure things, that might be preferable. Dekimasuよ! 16:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Which of his names should we use?

Obviously in the lede we need only use his name once, and there his full name. But in the flowing text should we call him "Kenji" or "Miyazawa"? The former has the advantage that most reliable sources call him that, and that while there are several Miyazawas mentioned or referenced in the article there is only one Kenji. The latter is the style used by Donald Keene and conforms to general Wikipedia style, and is the style currently used in the article.

Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not used to filing him under the group that is known by a single name (Shoyo, Soseki, Toson, etc.), but if the several Miyazawas are a problem we can always use the full name for clarification. The English-language monograph On Uneven Ground from 2012 uses "Miyazawa." Dekimasuよ! 16:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: Sorry... my ambivalent wording seems to have caused yet another misunderstanding. I didn't mean that Kenji is "one of those who is usually known by a single name", but that, since he is one of those who is usually known by his given name (if we include Japanese scholarship, Keene and Long are definite outlyers), and since we need to use his name every few sentences, but "Kenji Miyazawa set out for Tokyo the following day" sounds ridiculous in the middle of our article on Kenji Miyazawa, we should pick a style (and maybe include a footnote on it either way. (I was reading our Cesare Borgia article yesterday and it suffers from that very problem.) Keene doesn't mention the fact that most Japanese scholars call him by his given name; Holt (SilkTork and Ubikwit's cited source from the RFC a few sections up) follows the given name convention and justifies it (p306 n2); I haven't read Long -- does he comment on it anywhere? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Dubious "close" of an RFC that was actually closed weeks earlier?

@User:AlbinoFerret: This seems questionable, since the RFC template was removed three weeks earlier and the "consensus" is something that was stated by one user (SilkTork), directly opposed within the RFC by two other users (Wikimandia and myself) and agreed to by a third (Ubikwit). I acceded to the proposal but with a condition that someone either help me clean up the other article or support my cleaning it up -- this condition was agreed to initially, but never met. Dekimasu then came back and very clearly opposed my interim concession, taking the position earlier taken by Wikimandia and myself. If I had known that Dekimasu would soon come back and take the same stance as me on how the lede should be worded, I never would have made the concession I did. The timing of your "closing" the already-closed thread makes it look like a (no-doubt unintentional) undermining of the more recent developments. That the lede should summarize the article's content in a manner that most of the editors involved feel violates WP:WEIGHT was never a "consensus" to begin with.

Since I'm certain this is just a good-faith misunderstanding I'm not reverting you directly, but I would appreciate hearing what motivated you to "close" the already-closed thread and present an original interpretation of the discussion as the "consensus".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The reason it was closed, was its listing on the WP:ANRFC diff. It was not an original interpretation. It was formed by reading the Rfc and finding that a majority of the responders followed that line of reasoning in the comments. They may not have all used the exact words. AlbinoFerret 11:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Your diff is bad: the actual listing was here, and was a misplaced listing, because the RFC had been successfully closed weeks earlier. Perhaps User:Cunard's listing was a good-faith mistake based on some external RFC listing that SilkTork had forgotten to deal with when originally closing the RFC weeks earlier?

"the lede should cover what is in the article" was clearly based on SilkTork's comment. Even Ubikwit (who explicitly favoured SilkTork's proposed wording) did not make the argument that it should "cover what is in the article". I as the user who wrote the relevant passage in the article explicitly opposed this dubious characterization of what I had written, and one other user (Dekimasu) who was apparently busy with off-wiki business during the RFC but was very much involved in the dispute clearly was opposed to the whole move.

The "is policy based" wording is curious, given that the dispute was not over policy but over external reliable sources -- what did you mean by it?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, could you explain what "experience" you have closing RFCs to justify overruling a previous, if poorly-formatted, admin close? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The diff was not incorrect, I just wanted to show you that the RFC was listed, and showing the section being marked as done seemed the easiest way to accomplish this. The policy is WP:RS and WP:MOSINTRO, RFC's are closed based on consensus of arguments based on policy, WP:JDLI] arguments will not win over policy based arguments. As for overturning, I dont think of it as overturning. The RFC was not obviously closed, and it was listed on the WP:ANRFC page. Please AGF. AlbinoFerret 17:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• The close said "The opening RFC question was a statement rather than a question. The consensus is that the lede should cover what is in the article and is policy based." This is a restatement of policy and doesn't seem to be a controversial close. The close is basically a restatement of what SilkTork wrote here:

  Per WP:Lead, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."

  I have asked SilkTork to take a look at this. Cunard (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Additional comment to AlbinoFerret after I have taken a closer look: I've skimmed the discussion at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa#RfC: Membership in Kokuchūkai and reference to it and think your close is fine. SilkTork (talk · contribs) expressed a view about the article's content and later analyzed several sources about the topic. SilkTork is acting as an editor rather than as an admin in the discussion. Therefore, you did not overrule him because you were acting as an uninvolved editor while he was an involved editor participating in the discussion. And it is not necessary to know whether he was an admin or non-admin because he was acting as a regular editor.

  He removed the RfC tag with the edit summary "close", but he did not summarize the consensus. He only wrote "This matter appears to be resolved". There was no "close" to be overruled.

  It is well established practice and policy that:

  On the question of whether an RFC close by a non-admin can be summarily overturned by an admin, in most cases, no, and never if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin. I don't think we can say there is any iron-clad policy or consensus on this issue, but generally there should be a very good reason for anyone to overturn another users close of an RFC.

  —Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12#Review, 13 February 2013

  The purpose of this policy is to allow non-admins to put great time and care into closing controversial discussions without the fear that anyone can sweep away their hours of work with a revert.

  This principle was upheld in the December 2014 RfC closure review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267#Restoring reverted close of Talk:Cultural Marxism#Re-proposal.

  If your close is challenged and you cannot come to an agreement with the challenging editor, you or the challenging editor can take your close to WP:AN for a closure review. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for a list of past closure reviews.

  Cunard (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@User:AlbinoFerret: So, you based your "consensus" wording on the initial, poorly-worded statement by one of the participants, who at that time thought that (1) the article covered and always had covered the group in some detail and (2) the reference had been in the lede and had been "removed", rather than being unilaterally added and challenged? The statement in question was immediately challenged and partly withdrawn. That's a pretty disastrous close, and I think most users would agree with me.

@AlbinoFerret & User:Cunard: Both of you are missing the basic point that the closing statement of a "consensus" was based on a statement made by SilkTork (before the latter even knew all the facts -- my explanation of why Kokuchukai is mentioned in the body came later) and was not directly agreed to by anyone. The timing of the close was unfortunate, but it certainly looks like an attempt to undermine Dekimasu's edits.

@Cunard: SilkTork didn't "analyze several sources": he presented a single source that with no other context would support inclusion in the lede since it was all about Kenji's relationship with the group. I challenged him on this immediately, pointing out that the vast majority of sources on Kenji don't even mention the group, but at present half the lede is devoted to his relationship with the group. I've got one open AN thread at the moment and one closed-but-still-unarchived one, so I won't challenge immediately. If you hadn't directly supported the close I would have reverted it as a counter-consensus move that was unnecessary (again, please recognize that the RFC template was removed and the word "closed" was used). Now I'll just wait a little while. Also, can I ask why you listed the "unofficially closed" RFC on ANRFC when you did? I notice you added a bunch of others too, so it's not hard to assume good faith (again, the timing was unfortunate). Did SilkTork forget to remove it from somewhere when he originally closed?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• If an RfC has reached a conclusion there is no imperative to formally close it. A guideline is given at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs. In this case there was a question raised, a discussion followed, and some editing done on the article which appeared to be to the satisfaction of everyone involved. At that point there didn't seem much point in keeping the RfC open, nor a need to formally close it. Indeed, a formal closure is only one out of five suggested endings, and there are as many different endings as there different types of RfC. If a RfC has generated a lot of participation and/or relates to policy or other matters that will have a wide impact, then a formal closure is important. But formal closure for formal closure sake is neither required nor advisable. Sometimes it can seemingly lock in a decision, and then it would require another discussion with a formal close to unlock that decision. On the whole, we prefer to allow editing decisions to unfold more organically.

Anyway, we now have a formal close, and a challenge to that close. What happens now is if AlbinoFerret, the closer, and Hijiri88, the challenger, cannot reach agreement on what to do, the close can be taken to AN for review. My personal view is that while the close is strictly correct on the question of WP:Lead: that if there is something significantly mentioned in the body of an article, it should be summarised in the lead; the close did not take into account the reasons for the objections to what was in the lead, not to the solutions offered, and the wording that was used. As a formal close it's not particularly helpful in this case, but neither is it doing any harm - it simply repeats something that is in WP:Lead; the question of how that relates to the specific objections and discussion is not mentioned, so it is not making any binding decision on the issue. So, the options are: 1) accept the close, as it makes no difference, then archive the RfC and move on; 2) undo the close, as it makes no difference, then archive the RfC and move on; or 3) take the matter to AN and involve more people in dealing with what is really a minor issue. Personally I feel we have better things to do with our time than deal with petty bureaucracy like this. So, guys, agree to accept it or undo it, and lets move on. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you SilkTork for the reply. To avoid possible WP:POINT, and since it really makes no difference, I have undone the RFC and left the box around it to simply archive it. We all have better things to do than to spend more time on something that makes no difference. AlbinoFerret 22:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@User:SilkTork: You are right, of course, but my concern is not so much the minor matter of whether the RFC is closed with a dubious consensus statement (and don't get me wrong: that is a minor matter), but the somewhat more significant matter of whether half the lede should be devoted to Kenji's relationship with the Kokuchukai. I was going to discuss this with Dekimasu and either try to convince Ubikwit or open a new RFC to undo the last result, because what came out of it was not really a consensus statement, but a concession by me to you and Ubikwit. If we include Dekimasu and the other IP user who weighed in back in December, and don't include the two who didn't have specific proposals for the lede's wording, it was four (me, Wikimandia, Dekimasu and the IP) who were against naming the group in the lede at all, and two (you and Ubikwit) in favour of forming an original statement on his relationship with the group that takes up half of the present lede, solely because of a dubious interpretation of what was in the article body (again, it was a mischaracterization of what I wrote). I conceded to you ad Ubikwit because other factors were distracting me at the time and Dekimasu was nowhere to be seen; if I had a crystal ball I would have continued arguing as long as it took Dekimasu to intervene or for me to convince either of you. The recent close looks like a deliberate attempt to undermine this, and by User:AlbinoFerret's own admission, he formed the "consensus" statement based on your first comment in the RFC, not based on what the actual consensus was. This was a personal opinion that the close's timing and the dubious consensus wording looked like an attempt to undermine recent edits, even though I acknowledged it clearly could not have been (as I repeatedly stated above: "no-doubt unintentional", "I'm certain this is just a good-faith misunderstanding", "Perhaps User:Cunard's listing was a good-faith mistake based on some external RFC listing", ...). It was a duo of good-faith, if highly-misguided, mistakes by Cunard and AlbinoFerret. I don't appreciate other users choosing to ignore when I clearly state that I know they did not have ill intent and repeatedly accuse me of violating AGF: this is itself a minor AGF violation, although one I will not pursue any further. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC) (Edited 13:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC) )

@User:AlbinoFerret: Thank you. I hadn't noticed your above post before responding to SilkTork. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri88 I suggest you strike the sentence saying I said I formed consensus based on one response, because I said no such thing. It is misrepresenting what was said WP:TALKNO. In fact I suggest you strike the entire post and is is contrary to AGF. AlbinoFerret 02:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret How about this? I had actually misremembered who had stated that your consensus statement was a restatement of SilkTork's initial comment, and thought it had been you. I don't think it was a misrepresentation of the actual wording of the close. This was in reference to the now defunct edit here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC) (Struck 13:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC) )

Done. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference to Kokuchukai in lede

Okay, now that the other stuff has mostly wound down, I'm bringing this back for discussion. The previous RFC was clouded by several other, unrelated issues, and in order to bring it to an end as early as possible I made a concession that violated WP:WEIGHT and WP:POINT. One user suggested that because the group is mentioned in the body it should be mentioned in the lede, and one other user agreed. I disagreed, and since I am the one who added the reference to the group in the body I think I'm a pretty good judge of what I meant by what I wrote. Three other users (only one of whom commented on the RFC itself) agreed with me that there should be no reference to the group in the lede. Two other users who did post in the RFC had no solid proposal for what the lede should actually say. One of the latter has since claimed that the RFC was about nationalism and that my editing this article is about my own ideological bias. Given my consistent and thorough critical analysis of the broadest possible range of sources throughout every talk page discussion that has taken place on this issue so far, this is obviously not a tenable claim.

I'm removing the sentence I added to the lede as a concession to the former two users, since (even if I myself had sincerely supported the "summary") it was not consensus wording, and only supported by a minority of participants in the discussion. Further discussion, if anyone still disagrees, can take place here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

And I have restored the sentence, because the reasons for removing it were basically, laughable. There had been a consensus to have the material included, and the fact that one editor, who as per the article talk page archives and discussion at noticeboards, has a noticeable objection to the inclusion of the material on the basis of reasons which are themselves not in accord with policies and guidelines wants it removed. It will stay included until and unless there is consensus to remove it.

A more reasonable approach would be to develop the length of the lede, which according to policies and guidelines can be up to four paragraphs in length, to do a better job of summarizing the article. The lede is supposed to summarize the content of the article. There is, at present, a section five paragraphs long out of a basically 20 paragraph article, dealing with his religious beliefs. To have no mention of that material in the lede is obviously making the lede clearly fail to do its one and only purpose, which is to summarize the content, as it basically removes any mention of 1/4 of the total content of the article (by paragraph count) from the lede. The fact that anyone would think such an edit even remotely acceptable as per policies and guidelines not unreasonably raises or keeps alive questions regarding the basic competency of certain individuals to adhere to policies and guidelines, and can not unreasonably be seen as being perhaps motivated strictly by the pre-existing opinions of that individual, which have been rather clearly displayed in the prior dicussions of this topic. John Carter (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: Per my above post, and per the extensive prior discussion, "consensus", if there is any, is to leave the mention out of the lede. Even if Wikipedia was, as you seem to believe, a democracy where each "vote" counts even if no valid policy- or source-based argument is made, it would still be 4-2 against. And even if you want to throw your own weight behind including that wording in the lede (you never hinted that up till now that you were in favour of it), it would still be 4-3 against. That is not a "consensus".

If you think we really must expand the lede, how about "He was a devout believer in the Lotus Sutra, and his conversion to Nichiren Buddhism caused a degree of strife with his Pure Land family, especially his father." This is a very reasonable summary of the section of the article that I wrote. The fact that only one paragraph out of twenty in the article discusses the Kokuchukai means that, by your own stated logic, devoting 50% of the lede to it is inappropriate. (I would appreciate you refrain from telling me what I meant when I wrote what I did, by the way.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, this edit summary is turning the policy on consensus on it's head: consensus is needed to make radical changes to previously established consensus wording, or introduce new and controversial claims; undoing one's own unilateral addition of material can't possibly require "consensus". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

(multiple e-c's later) That's nice. However, please realize that your already clearly stated personal biases about this topic are a serious concern here. I hope you will understand that it would be no more appropriate for you to change the nature of the content of the lede to reflect your statement above than it would be to continue to remove content which had already received at least tacit consensus for existing. There is no rush to make such changes, and it would certainly be reasonable for you to wait for some further input, or perhaps request further input from others, which would be much more in keeping with the spirit of the wiki.

Additionally, this edit summary is turning the policy on consensus on it's head: consensus is needed to make radical changes to previously established consensus wording, or introduce new and controversial claims; undoing one's own unilateral addition of material can't possibly require "consensus". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is also generally required when one individual who has already rather clearly stated a strong personal POV regarding the topic seeks to change content to reflect his own clear POV. Actually, common sense rather indicates that as well. Your refusal to make any sort of attempt to address what would seemingly be the most obvious solution, to make the lede more adequately do its job and adequately reflect the nature of the following content, is noticed, with some obvious regrets and, frankly, bewilderment. Your refusal to even address the matter of the lede adequately summarizing the content, and the nature of the existing content, is also noticed. The consensus of policies and guidelines regarding the nature of the lede trumps all the opinions regarding local consensus, and the removal of the appropriate information is on that basis more or less contrary to policy and guidelines, which take priority over local consensus. It also calls to mind again the fact that you as an individual have already clearly expressed a rather strong POV regarding that topic, and that, on that basis, there is perhaps at least sufficient reason to believe that given your own clear biases regarding this matter the best person to make any such changes, or judgments about such changes, would probably be someone other than you.

And, as per our guidelines regarding editors with clearly established POV regarding topics, such as, in this case, you, it is also generally requested that they seek input from individuals who do not have those biases, in the hope of seeking less biased input. You are free to pursue that measure, as you are free to edit the lede to do an even remotely adequate job of summarizing the content, which it clearly grossly fails to do at present, and to make other changes, but, without consensus of editors who do not share your rather clearly stated purely personal biases regarding that particular aspect of this subject. But, short of that, it is also generally very strongly advised that individuals do not make edits which clearly support their own personal biases when there are other, existing, policies and guidelines in play, which in this case include the distressingly bad job the lede in its current condition does of even remotely adequately summarizing the content of the article. John Carter (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

P. S. Also, I note that your insistence on adding new information in quick order has caused the above edit to be in edit conflict with your additions to remarks, including adding a separate subsection below as a part of this section, three or four times. If it isn't asking too much of you, it is sometimes considered a good idea to try to get your statements together in advance, and even start new sections by starting new sections in the generally acceptable manner, rather than as additions to already existing sections. John Carter (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please elaborate on my "already stated personal biases". You think that because I have checked reliable sources and seen how they cover the subject, and want Wikipedia to cover the subject in the same manner, that qualifies as a "personal bias"? Almost every single editor who has commented on this issue has checked the sources and seen that (1) almost no one says Kenji was a "nationalist" based on his religious affiliation, and (2) almost no one believes Kenji's relationship with the Kokuchukai was a significant influence on either his religious convictions (he had converted to the faith of the Lotus Sutra years earlier) or on his writings. I find it hard to believe that this article still doesn't state anywhere that only one of Kenji's stories was ever published in his lifetime, yet editors familiar with the topic are being forced to waste so much time and effort discussing this extremely peripheral point. You are clearly not familiar with this topic and are not here to help improve the article, so why are you even here? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Theory that Kenji was a nationalist in the body

I removed the sentence about the fringe theory that Kenji's association with the Kokuchukai means he was a nationalist. One scholar's view is one scholar's view, and when said scholar states right up front that no one else talks about it, that means his opinion doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I stated this view on the talk page when I first added the section, and no one has disagreed with me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The heading of this section does if nothing else clearly demonstrate the nature of the problem. Hijiri does not mention the nature of the content in question, which is the membership in an organization, but in the heading jumps to a conclusion regarding that which is not absolutely necessarily 100% supported by the nature of the content. Not everyone who is necessarily a member of a group also necessarily agrees with every single aspect of the group's teachings. I think there were at least a few Nazis according to the records who demonstrate that. Your apparent inability to not instantly equate the group membership with being a nationalist, and your insistence on saying that content which is demonstrably adequately sourced has to be removed because, in your opinion, it also necessarily says something else which is not explicitly stated, raises some questions regarding your capacity to deal with this topic rationally, and regarding your own rather obvious biases regarding this matter. John Carter (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Lede discussion

I personally find the existing last clause of the lede, specifically, "and what influence (if any) this had on his life and work' seemingly perhaps unsourced, and, very possibly, contrary to the existing text of the article. We have later in the article a specifically cited claim, "but the group's website claims the influence of Nichirenism (the group's religio-political philosophy) can be seen in later works such as Ame ni mo Makezu," which does not have any refuting material indicating that the claim is wrong. On that basis, the existing text of the article proper seems to, at least at this point, contradict the possibly unsourced claim in the lede. If the source which has recently been added to the lede does not specifically include the material indicating the lack of clarity as to what (if any) influence his membership had on his life and work, then I believe that there are both grounds for removing the clause as unsupported, or, at least, to move that clause to a separate section.

This is, of course, over and above the existing fact that a one-paragraph lede is, as has already been stated, clearly failing to summarize the content of the article. Perhaps it might make more sense to stop arguing about what to exclude from the lede and more of a visible effort to make the lede conform to its more important purpose, which is summarizing the content of the article? John Carter (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If a religious group's website says "other people say he left our group and he was never really that involved, but we can clearly see our grou['s influence on his writings", then we don't need another external source to contradict it. Also, could you please comment on the above-demonstrated fact that hardly any sources discussing Kenji even mention the group, and those that do almost universally imply his relationship with the group was superficial at best? None of the users arguing in favour of keeping the Kokuchukai article in the lede seem to actually have checked the sources, other than one cherry-picked article about his relationship with the group. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You are free to take that question to WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN. However, given your own regularly expressed personal opinions about the matter, it is I believe very, very obvious that the last person who should make a decision about that matter is you. Also, in all honesty, unless the sources specifically support the contention, the material may well violate WP:OR and more or less require being removed in any event. Rather than continue to engage in discussion which does not meet the standards of what is and is not acceptable enough for content to be added, perhaps you could better spend your time in finding good sources which meet RS standards which specifically support the contention? It may be that the citation does, but, having not reviewed the article, I cannot say one way or another, and it would be useful for you in your position to have some source which specifically and clearly supports the contention of the last clause. John Carter (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)