Cannabis Sativa

Content deleted Content added
Catflap08 (talk | contribs)
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 80: Line 80:
: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. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 12:33, 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. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:: I can not see what you are doing at the same time as I do. Here you go
:: 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
::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
--[[User:Catflap08|Catflap08]] ([[User talk:Catflap08|talk]]) 12:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
::--[[User:Catflap08|Catflap08]] ([[User talk:Catflap08|talk]]) 12:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I can't see the reference, 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. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 13:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::My [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenji_Miyazawa&diff=prev&oldid=648933528 most recent edit summary] is another piece worth noting, but here's some more:
:::#When we search the websites of Japanese universities for the name "Miyazawa Kenji" (in its most common orthography for simplicity) we get [https://www.google.co.jp/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=site:.ac.jp+%22%E5%AE%AE%E6%B2%A2%E8%B3%A2%E6%B2%BB%22&btnG=Google+Search&oq=good+morning&gws_rd=cr,ssl&ei=lyDvVM-qKpfm8AXL7oLgCA 23,200 hits].
:::#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 [https://www.google.co.jp/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=site:.ac.jp+%22%E5%AE%AE%E6%B2%A2%E8%B3%A2%E6%B2%BB%22+-%22%E5%9C%8B%E6%9F%B1%22+-%22%E5%9B%BD%E6%9F%B1%22&btnG=Google+Search&oq=good+morning&gws_rd=cr,ssl&ei=gSDvVP2XCovj8AXn84KoBg 23,100 hits].
:::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 [https://www.google.co.jp/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=site:.ac.jp+%22%E5%AE%AE%E6%B2%A2%E8%B3%A2%E6%B2%BB%E3%81%AF%22+%22%E9%8A%80%E6%B2%B3%E9%89%84%E9%81%93%E3%81%AE%E5%A4%9C%22+%22%E6%98%A5%E3%81%A8%E4%BF%AE%E7%BE%85%22&btnG=Google+Search&oq=good+morning&gws_rd=cr,ssl&ei=cyDvVIurH4Gi8AWk94L4Bg#q=site:.ac.jp+%22%E5%AE%AE%E6%B2%A2%E8%B3%A2%E6%B2%BB%E3%81%AF%22+%22%E9%8A%80%E6%B2%B3%E9%89%84%E9%81%93%E3%81%AE%E5%A4%9C%22+%22%E6%98%A5%E3%81%A8%E4%BF%AE%E7%BE%85%22&hl=en&start=50&filter=0 56 hits].
:::#When we take away any any reference to "Kokuchū" (see above for rationale) we get [https://www.google.co.jp/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=site:.ac.jp+%22%E5%AE%AE%E6%B2%A2%E8%B3%A2%E6%B2%BB%E3%81%AF%22+%22%E9%8A%80%E6%B2%B3%E9%89%84%E9%81%93%E3%81%AE%E5%A4%9C%22+%22%E6%98%A5%E3%81%A8%E4%BF%AE%E7%BE%85%22+-%22%E5%9C%8B%E6%9F%B1%22+-%22%E5%9B%BD%E6%9F%B1%22&btnG=Google+Search&oq=good+morning&gws_rd=cr,ssl&ei=ZyDvVO35MpWD8gWPxICoBg#q=site:.ac.jp+%22%E5%AE%AE%E6%B2%A2%E8%B3%A2%E6%B2%BB%E3%81%AF%22+%22%E9%8A%80%E6%B2%B3%E9%89%84%E9%81%93%E3%81%AE%E5%A4%9C%22+%22%E6%98%A5%E3%81%A8%E4%BF%AE%E7%BE%85%22+-%22%E5%9C%8B%E6%9F%B1%22+-%22%E5%9B%BD%E6%9F%B1%22&hl=en&start=40&filter=0 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.
:::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 13:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:46, 26 February 2015

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


"Nationalist"?

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

Please refrain from deleting referenced sources. He was also a member of Kokuchūkai.--Catflap08 (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this is going to elevate I should admit outright that I am this user. I'm editing logged out for reasons.
The reliable sources all state that he was a member of a religious group. I've read numerous books and articles that state he adhered strongly to the religious views of this group. None of them mentioned the politics of the group, or hinted that he himself shared the political views of the group's leaders. The only source that does imply he shared these views also admits openly that this is a minority view.
126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(EDIT CONFLICT) Why did you revert me again without trying to discuss here first?[1] WP:BURDEN says that the burden is on the party wishing to add information to the article that to find source that specifically support said information. I provided a coherent argument that your sources do not support your claim but in fact contradict your claim. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Again, per WP:BURDEN: please provide a source that actually supports the claim you are trying to add to the article. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since I'm arguing that "he was a nationalist" is a minority view and so it is inappropriate to make this claim per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, I would draw your attention to WP:TERTIARY: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. I wonder if you can find a reliably published encyclopedia or similar whose article on Miyazawa Kenji states "Miyazawa Kenji was a nationalist"? 126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out not only WP:BURDEN but WP:BRD is also on my side here. This claim was unilaterally and boldly added to the article by Catflap08 in January, challenged by another user (not me) in April before being re-added again, without justification, by Catflap08.[2][3][4] Since the default position should be "leave it out", I'm going to remove the claim again, and if Catflap08 attempts to re-add it without discussing here, I will take it as an indication that he/she is unwilling to use the talk page and our dispute will need to go to WP:FTN or WP:ANEW. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Third Opinion

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

I hid Catflap's initial, biased OP as a WP:COMMENT as it didn't meet the neutrality requirement of WP:RFC and apparently misled a couple of other participants who don't appear to have read my remarks below. 182.249.240.43 (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]
126 reply detailing coverage of the subject in relation to nationalism in reliable and semi-reliable sources.
So what you're saying, Catflap, is that we should claim "Kenji Miyazawa was a nationalist" without even citing a source? Almost no reliable sources actually say he was a nationalist. They say he was a devout follower of Nichiren Buddhism. Other reliable sources state that the founder of the particular religious group was a nationalist, that the group had nationalistic leanings, etc. But this is equivalent to adding the phrase "She is an opponent of gay marriage" to the article on Nicole Kidman because the leader of her religious group holds that view. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since this subject is notable exclusively as a writer I added the "media, the arts, and architecture" topic to this RfC, and since the present dispute is based entirely on his religious affiliation I added the religion topic as well. Since your assertion is about his political views the politics topic was also added. Also, I should point out the following noteworthy data regarding the classification of Kenji as a "nationalist":
For morphological reasons every possible Japanese word for "nationalist" (noun referring to a person) is derived from one of the root words meaning "nationalism". Since some sources might refer to him as, for instance, "nationalistic" or following a group that is associated with "nationalism", I decided to search only for the words in their simplest form. I then looked up the word "nationalism" in the English-Japanese dictionary Genius Ei-Wa Daijiten (Konishi and Minamide, Taishukan, 2001-2004). There were four words that could be taken as referring to the political ideology (主義, shugi) of nationalism (as opposed to words describing artistic movements or psychological tendencies): kokka-shugi, minzoku-shugi, kokusui-shugi and aikoku-shugi. I then examined the search results on Google Books, general Google search for specifically the Miyazawa Kenji Memorial Museum website, and general Google search for Japanese university domain-names. My search was slightly complicated by Kenji's surname being written two different ways in Japanese (宮沢/宮澤). This is why every possible combination has two links given. I focused on Japanese-language sources because somewhere between 90% and 99.99% of Kenji scholarship is in Japanese and has never been (will never be) translated. Therefore, if there is ever a claim made about Kenji in English-language source that is not backed up by Japanese-language scholarship, it is by definition WP:FRINGE. I also notice that User:Catflap08's user page boasts of speaking German, English and some French, but not Japanese. This makes it very difficult for this user to analyze mainstream scholarship on this topic.
Please also bear in mind that these results are the ones that happen to include one or more of words for "nationalism" somewhere in the same book/webpage as the name "Miyazawa Kenji". The results almost certainly include a plurality of sources that say "Miyazawa Kenji was not a nationalist and here's why", "Tanaka Chigaku was nationalist ... [100 pages later] ... poet and children's author Miyazawa Kenji found Chigaku's religious views compelling" or, like Catflap08's source, "I think Miyazawa Kenji was a nationalist, but as of yet no one else agrees with me". The results that include one or more of the words for "nationalism" are also partly (mostly?) multiplied unduly, because of sources that use more than one of these words being counted twice, three times or four times.
Mentions of "nationalism" on the official Miyazawa Kenji Memorial Museum website: kokka-shugi (0); minzoku-shugi (0); kokusui-shugi (0); aikoku-shugi (0)
Books mentioning Miyazawa Kenji: 171,000 + 56,900 = 227,900
Books mentioning Miyazawa Kenji and nationalism (kokka-shugi): 380 + 157 = 537
Books mentioning Miyazawa Kenji and nationalism (minzoku-shugi): 132 + 23 = 155
Books mentioning Miyazawa Kenji and nationalism (kokusui-shugi): 129 + 25 = 154
Books mentioning Miyazawa Kenji and nationalism (aikoku-shugi): 53 + 3 = 56
Total number of books mentioning Miyazawa Kenji and nationalism: 537 + 155 + 154 + 56 = 902
Proportion of books mentioning Miyazawa Kenji that also mention nationalism: 902/227,900 = 0.4%
Japanese university-domain webpages mentioning Miyazawa Kenji: 22,200 + 5,800 = 28,000
Japanese university-domain webpages mentioning Miyazawa Kenji and nationalism (kokka-shugi): 279 + 82 = 361
Japanese university-domain webpages mentioning Miyazawa Kenji and nationalism (minzoku-shugi): 499 + 75 = 574
Japanese university-domain webpages mentioning Miyazawa Kenji and nationalism (kokusui-shugi): 70 + 18 = 88
Japanese university-domain websites mentioning Miyazawa Kenji and nationalism (aikoku-shugi): 107 + 10 = 117
Total number of Japanese university-domain websites mentioning Miyazawa Kenji and nationalism: 361 + 574 + 88 + 117 = 1,140
Proportion of Japanese university-domain websites mentioning Miyazawa Kenji that also mention nationalism: 1,140/28,000 = 4.1%
So yeah, virtually all reliable/semi-reliable sources mentioning/discussing the subject of this article make no mention whatsoever of nationalism of any kind. "Miyazawa Kenji was a nationalist" is a fringe theory, as Catflap08's source actually admits. Ball's in your court, Catflap.
126.0.96.220 (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The balance of the evidence suggests that characterizing Kenji as a nationalist is not supported by a majority of reliable sources. At this point, omitting the characterization may be the most prudent course of action. Factchecker25 (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokuch%C5%ABkai and the article on the founder seems to confirm the group has 'nationalist tendencies' to some degree. I guess the question is if it is helpful to include this or if there is a good reason? I don't think you could say "..is a nationalist', but if it fit, you could allude "was a member of Kokuchu-kai, a group observed as being nationalist" or ..with a renowned Nationalist leader. It does seem like there would have to be some correlation with his personal leanings and the group he joined, as it is different than just working for a company. Joining a religious organization of that sort is implying there is at least some interest in the behavior or beliefs. Prasangika37 (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If he was a confirmed member of the organization, then you can say so uncontroversially. As to whether it was "nationalist" is a discussion for that article, not this one. At any rate, back in those days, nationalism was hardly exceptional. Teply (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Teply The article already does say he was a member of the group. Thing is, the group is arguably best-known as the religious group of which he was part. And he himself was almost certainly not a nationalist. Almost no reliable sources discussing him (including the group's official website's article on him) refer to him as sharing the nationalistic views of the group's founder.
@User:Prasangika37 Please read WP:NOTSOURCE before citing other Wikipedia articles to solve a dispute on this (currently much better) Wikipedia article. One of those articles was written in its entirety by Catflap based entirely on sources discussing Japanese nationalism during World War II, as discussed on the relevant talk page. Anyway, you could repeat my earlier Google experiment with "nationalism" "replaced with "Kokuchūkai" and find that almost all reliable sources discussing Kenji also mention that he was a member of the group, but almost never refer to either him or the group as nationalist.
126.0.96.220 (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree Not enough support in third-party, reliable sources to support this characterization. -The Gnome (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay yes I see this is quite clear now. Seems to be a single user's opinion as opposed to something that is validly sourced or established. Prasangika37 (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Do not refer to Kenji as a nationalist. At first glance, I'm having trouble seeing any sources which uses this adjective in relation to Kenji. I'm happy to change to mind if anyone wants to point to an RS for me. NickCT (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a Nationalist After spending a great deal of time looking at Japanese references to Miyazawa, I come to the same conclusion as the IP editor above. Simple membership of a group does not mean one agrees with the views of a group's leader. Unions, trade guilds, etc all have members of dissociative views, the leader of the AFL-CIO is a declared Communist, that doesn't make every union member a communist as well. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 00:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "nationalist" characterization Not enough sources claim otherwise. --Iamozy (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing because it's pretty clear there's a consensus. I suggest moving on to more interesting content. I came here intending to start the Matasaburo of the Wind, but I see someone else has already gotten it going in the last few weeks. Maybe some of the people here would like to work on Vegetarian Great Festival or The Dragon and the Poet. "どっどどどどうど どどうど どどう" Teply (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kokuchūkai

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@ 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)[reply]

<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 (やや) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (やや) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I can't see the reference, 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 (やや) 13:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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 (やや) 13:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply