![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
if anybody wants to write some bio. here's some info: http://larryhaftl.com/ffo/fintro.html 200.55.100.229 23:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Since Masanobu Fukuoka passed away in August 2008, the verbs likely should be changed to past tense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
i very much doubt the claim that fukuoka produced similar yield to intensive farming. it needs a reference. otherwise i just the section off trueblood 08:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC) on second reading, i doubt that the person who wrote the section has read anything by fukuoka( i have), just wild claims in the section, 'all the work can be easily done by hand and is reduced by 80%" nonsense. might be worth putting mark bonfils back into the article, though. trueblood 08:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
"Wild Claims"? As a practitioner of Fukuoka's philosophy on my own farm I can assure you that claim is anything but nonsense. Although I can't verify specific numbers, I know from experience that one can do all the work by hand, and overall labour is greatly down. Montydog 5:30, 2 Sept. 2006
The external link at the end of the page:
The Fukuoka Farming Website
is broken
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. ST47 19:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
quote from article: The Fukuoka method is not suited to growing large quantities of grain, like those presently produced in the industrialised world by means of large-scale mechanization. But one could argue that the vast majority of this grain goes to feed animals (which could be more efficiently fed by diverse forage systems), and the quantity used for direct human consumption could be grown by the Fukuoka method
indeed one could argue that, but i doubt it and i wonder if this is the place to argue. i propose to delete the passage and just leave it with mentioning that fukuoka's method is a small scale method and it is even part of his philosophie that things should be small scale. if he argues somewhere that his method can feed the world, so be it, we can put that in too. but the editors should leavetheir speculation or opinion out.
trueblood
07:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:QVanillaQ, If you'd do your research, read Fukuoka's writings, as I've read all his english translated books (but perhaps one 1940's one), read the Fukuoka_Farming yahoo group, as I have constantly & contributed some, then you would know that those links I put up there are nothing irrelevant at all. In detail:
Sorry I didn't have time to format this talk up properly - I's doing other things & paying for it in an internet cafe when I saw this removal herein.
J. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macropneuma ( talk • contribs) 13:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Major page updates have happened in the last two weeks since Aug 3rd. -- Macropneuma ( talk) 13:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I've had a go with using {{ cite book}} which does allow for a translated title. Only done first two books
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=
, |separator=
, |laysummary=
, |month=
, and |lastauthoramp=
(
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help) translated by
Alfred Birnbaum 1964
[1]
[2]{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help) translated by Chris Pearce, Tsune Kurosawa & Larry Korn. English pref. by Wendell Berry. Rodale Press. 30 yr anniv. ed. 2009 NYRB.I'd sugest [1] as a better link from Amazon as it has more publication details.-- Salix ( talk): 12:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
(Dear Walter Ralt), Please discuss major changes before implementing as we have done, here in Masanobu Fukuoka. Please respect the efforts of others, including humble me, and discuss the serious reasoning we have before going and removing our considered, reasoned work. Consider adding to the page first please, and we'll see how we go working together. Rather than 'cutting it down'. Thank you for making efforts, at all, please keep doing that, and discussing. We, some of us have been editing here, in Masanobu Fukuoka, since at least 2006. Terraquaculture sounds interesting, i like to know more about it, but i don't have the reference you cite: Tane, Haikai. The Crucial Roles of Willows in Sustainable River Management. Watershed Foundation (Aotearoa New Zealand) (2010) Please write a page on that topic, too. Cheers -- Jase 12:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
SalixAlba (incidently, a Willow sp.) and InWind don't delete categories in ignorance of Mr. Fukuoka's accomplishments, while your concerns about Categorization show your good intentions, please first do homework on Categorization and particularly on Categorization - Non-diffusing_subcategories, i just have done my homework on that particularity. Then do homework on Mr. Fukuoka himself before you assume what kind of accomplishments he made, not all his accomplishments are yet documented here. The page text is not the justifications for the categories he's in, his life itself is, including his 5 books in English translation, more than 10 Japanese books and many more publications and appearances on television, etc. The UN through Maurice Strong commissioned him to work in Africa 're-greening' man-made deserts, and so on, and so on. Do some work adding references here and write ups here, do not come here as naysayers in ignorance, it is no excuse. Don't argue, read his work and learn from the resources on the internet like movies, interviews, documented awards (Magsaysay, Deshikottam, Rockefeller -> http://web.archive.org/web/20030223001409/http://www.rbf.org/ramongrant98.html ), and last but not least from Yahoo group Fukuoka_farming, where also i've been since 9 years ago. This page needs help, not discouragement by editors who do virtually no work on it.-- Jase 08:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
SalixAlba reversion wrong, don't come from your lack of knowledge, and put out incoherent reasoning to cover it ("diff's of view" wikipedia isn't a view and wikipedia isn't a person about which i'm writing biography). Your bad. Just wrong, just accept, don't be power-trippin, just accept and move on...your good works. For example see Noam_Chomsky - if that's so bad go edit that first and show me. Prove your personal, as yet unevidenced, as yet unverified, knowledge of the subject, - Wikipedia:verifiable-, regarding Masanobu Fukuoka or back off, i don't have to prove my myself at all - there's nine years of my understanding written up in Yahoo group Fukuoka_farming: -> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fukuoka_farming/ !-- Jase 12:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
User:TadewiGomda had added some long text (below) into a very brief list item near the top of the life story writing; Quote:
Please User:TadewiGomda add a new paragraph if you feel like it, to the Nature Farming section, about Mr. Fukuoka's pruning of fruit trees experiences and lessons. If you would like to then I presume that you would like to add the new paragraph after the paragraph that describes the orchard. -- Jase 14:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Short note. I removed a number of red links as the individuals named to not appear to have reached standards of notability for biographies and had few references, if any, mentioning them in the real world. Most are still living. -- Iyo-farm 14:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it really necessary and worthwhile to have such chronology as is current included?
It does not appear to be of any great importance, nor many of the events that notable in themselves.
I propose cutting it all down to a simple paragraph mentioning his activities. -- Iyo-farm 14:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I did a little bit more hacking away at the undergrowth to get to the grain of this topic and have discovered that what appears to be going in is a misuse of references to include vast amount of largely unimportant content and quotations much of which is duplicated.
Ditto, there appear to be numerous duplications of a reference to One-straw Revolution and Natural Farming. Cannot all of these just be reduced to one single reference and people go and read it there if they want? Basically, no claims have actually been refuted. Why does the topic need so many references?
Doesn't One-straw Revolution count as original research and don't we really require references from other sources? -- Iyo-farm ( talk) 15:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The External Links section seems to be full of blogspot links etc.
I suppose it should be cut down to a minimum, shouldn't it?
Anyone care to sort out any decent articles and drop the rest? -- Iyo-farm ( talk) 15:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I cannot find any references to an Earth Council Award. Actually, I cannot find any mention of an Earth Council Award existing without a reference to Fukuoka.
The fact that it and Earth Council or Earth Council Alliance all do not have wikipedia pages makes me wonder.
I actually do not doubt Fukuoka got given something but I have no idea what it really was. Jase, do you have any specific references? Was it a one off, or was it called something else?
Thank you -- Iyo-farm ( talk) 04:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Listen guys, I appreciate this is all very obscure and you might not be interested but there seems to be something else very strange going on; a blurring, or dare I say 'land grab' of the terms " Nature Farming" versus "Natural Farming".
Looking at a broad survey of the documents, Fukuoka's ideas seem to largely addressed as 'Natural Farming' and Okada's as 'Nature Farming' with 'Kyusei Nature Farming' additionally credited to Teruo Higa. Kyusei Nature Farming turns up many scholarly papers.
Looking at the Fukuoka topic, we find many hidden links "Natural farming" to "nature farming". Looking at the Nature Farming topic, we find Macropneuma's finger prints all over it and, as with this topic, a tendency towards references not really saying what is claimed for them.
I think we need some clarity to this and given the citations, it would seem to me to clearly come down, in English, to Fukuoka's method being 'Natural Farming' and Okada's 'Nature Farming'.
Does anyone else care to take a brief look into this? -- Iyo-farm ( talk) 15:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Evidently wrong – diametrically so!, POV and more gratuitous attempts at belittling, personal attacks, above (of my well evidence based positions); No really reliable sources –that really stack up together with all the reliable sources – that one source given above is just a lazy glossary source having quotes and citations of a very incomplete mix of sources. Not a scholarly analysis source. Not reliable, it just un-representatively quotes and cites other sources without fact checking, critical analysis or thinking, which put together don't make up a collective reliable source at all! Real third party, scholarly or critically fact-checked reliable sources are the best sources, not the easiest, laziest to obtain sources.
Translation books have got mistakes. Duh!–inevitable, from translation processes, i translate and i make mistakes. It's hard work and i need Japanese people to check mine. Translations have some mistakes which ramified into more mistakes.
Anyway, A quotation from page 343 of "The Road Back to Nature: Regaining the Paradise Lost", a 1987 English translation by Frederic P. Metraud of Masanobu Fukuoka's 1984 shizen ni kaeru (自然に還る):
I'm not an expert even, so what does that make ... .
Authors like Masanobu Fukuoka write their original words in their own language, Japanese in this case, not in English. Multiple scholarly sources for his Japanese clearly show the best and the nearest to correct translation: Nature Farming. See above also.
Evidently wrong –diametrically so!– according to reliable sources, including those cited within: 自然農法, 福岡正信, etc.;
And according to the extensive 168 page: Hui-Lian Xu (2001) "NATURE FARMING In Japan" Research Signpost, T. C. 37/661(2), Fort Post Office, Trivandrum - 695023, Kerala, India.
–a partly–scholarly monograph/book, providing, much detailed, sourced, relevant, history, language clarifications and evidence, at least. Hence re-corrected, evidently a gross POV!, and an entirely–unheeding, unilateral one at that! – for what real motives it was done, the rest of us cannot be knowing for sure.
Jase, can you sort out which of the Article section are books and attribute them to MF, particularly those in Japanese?
Are these books or pamphlets? Thanks. -- Iyo-farm ( talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Question, are all those Buddhist books or journals listed actually related to Fukuoka or are they just in there to support some theoretical point of view relating to his philosophical ideas and terminology.
If the latter, then I think they should go. -- Iyo-farm ( talk) 05:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I've done some minor copy editing of the Life section, but one of the sentences doesn't flow very well:
This sentence is unclear - which person found the methods led to disaster, Fukuoka or his father? What kind of disaster had occurred? TechnoSymbiosis ( talk) 00:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
See WP:OI
-- en:User:Macropneuma 05:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The sources seem clear that there is a distinction between natural farming and nature farming, the former being Fukuoka's style. See [2], as well as any number of Google Scholar results. The title of Fukuoka's first book is Natural Farming and the subtitle of his second book is 'An introduction to natural farming'. Please don't revert these changes without discussion and reliable sources to the contrary - Macropneuma, quoting a post you wrote yourself on Yahoo Groups does not constitute a reliable source by any stretch. TechnoSymbiosis ( talk) 00:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Wrong! Read the reliable sources already provided and a J-E dictionary on 自然農法.
"Natural Farming" first book? – no source provided!, (POV), and which every insider knows is "Mu Kami no kakumei" ( (in Japanese) One example ref. of many... by Mutsumi Shojaku, Kyoto University)
Also, -- Mr. Masanobu Fukuoka himself mentions this Japanese book he published very early - paraphrasing him: 40 years ago (he wrote in about 1992-1987): -
He mentions it in writing in his Japanese recapitulation 1992 book; Quoting here from its 1996 translation to English, "The Ultimatum of God Nature The One–Straw Revolution A Recapitulation" –page 170:
He also mentions it in his book, in English translation in "The Road Back to Nature" 1987.
About this supposed first book "Natural Farming", have you anything to add about it???
Here, the most reliable sources count, not opinions (yours nor mine nor SalixAlba's) at all.
The word 'permaculture' is not English, made up word like so many other brand names Orica or Safeway or RadioShack. -- en:User:Macropneuma 02:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Often incomprehensible reply and misuse of reliable sourcing policies when the link is obviously providing a Japanese language reliable source from a scholar who speaks Japanese, on the point here of what his first book was - Read the Japanese page. Translation books got the translations wrong in places. Want some examples?? This isn't unusual it's inevitable. The Natural Way of Farming was not his first book. Duh! Assume good faith until one's assuming gets proved wrong as above monstrous WP:NPA... .
All explained in plain and simple long-hand English above. Read the Japanese – Mutsumi Shojaku has provided, a long page with some scholarly Japanese on his bibliography; With a brief introductory three paragraphs English, which are obviously not intended nor are they scholarly reliable English sources, obviously just a basic English introduction. This Mutsumi Shojaku's page is a reliable source for his first book (and some more); Obviously not for Japanese to English translations which require scholarly reliable dictionaries and more explanatory detail translation sources – which Hui Lian Xu (2006) above provides a little more of – Read above talk here.. Masanobu Fukuoka wrote 自然農法. People have been translating that one phrase different ways. Which way is the scholarly, best translation relating Masanobu Fukuoka's message – His overall message which he gave in Japanese in his corpus of works. Obviously Nature Farming, based on the reading of his corpus of primary sources and on third party scholarly reliable sources and dictionaries. Not based on wack'n' WP:GYNOT which was wrongly previously done here above or on known translation imperfections, no blame to Larry Korn or Chris Pearce or anyone, just to loses of meaning in translation. Inevitable. To infer that the translation was or is perfect has less foundation than anything. Read [ example above here] WP:HEAR-- en:User:Macropneuma 04:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
...How many secondary sources are you talking about, one! The one i gave you all, above. You've ignored the additional secondary sources, which immediately above i've given encouragement to you to use. Abusing me by ignoring them and replying here above as if you've unilaterally decided already here and edited so, based not on having availed yourself of those secondary sources. Don't edit till there's consensus. No WP:CONS. Opting, you did, instead from primary sources—For numerical weight of primary sources.
Quoting policies:
Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers:
Indentifying reliable sources: Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources:
You need to think this through in all its implications, with all the best sources available. I notice you're missing many of the implications of this translating of 自然農法... Over several years with dialogue with the practitioner community i have done this; And sometimes with translators including Larry Korn.— common sense and the rest, consensus & Wikipedia does not have firm rules... .
Are you reading any of the Japanese? –including the originals?
It's never about numerical quantities of articles, as is well known many articles are not good articles let alone featured articles, per your bad edit, quoting: "...common standard across the majority of articles" –that's complete rubbish in this Wikipedia reality of major backlogs of required quality editing to articles. Always about quality! Of course!-- en:User:Macropneuma 05:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
If the term can have multiple translations then it would seem appropriate to include the original Japanese and note that there are various translations of the term. The talk page is getting rather long no and it would be helpful to repeat a reliable source showing that the term has been translated as "nature farming". -- Salix ( talk): 08:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Relevant here about shizen, and a link here into about the much more important than here, Japan situation... .-- en:User:Macropneuma 07:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm removing this tag per WP:DRIVEBY - I can't see any clear discussion on this talk page of what specific areas are in question in terms of neutrality. Please remember to discuss concerns on the talk page and use mainspace tags sparingly. TechnoSymbiosis ( talk) 00:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Wrong! Complete rubbish about driveby! Superficial reading doesn't count. Read this talk page. Duh!–tired of this bald bias poving.-- en:User:Macropneuma 03:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see, what is really getting Macropneuma's organic goat is my removal of Fukuoka's "enlightenment" experience. My feeling is that it is pretty impossible to independently verify whether "enlightenment" and so, therefore, I suggest we just leave it as he or his supporters "claimed" it was enlightenment or satori. To the best of my knowledge, no religious tradition acknowledged his enlightened state per se.
The fact is he was also hugely ill from stress, trauma and disease, and did behave rather oddly, so knows what it really was ... a nervous breakdown or what. "Claimed" is safest. The Wikipedia is not a fan site. Iyo-farm ( talk) 18:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Macropneuma, the guideline you're looking for is at WP:REF. From that guideline:
Refer also to WP:CITEVAR which states that on the list of "To be avoided unless there is consensus" is "Changing the section heading to or from References, Notes, etc.". You changed the title away from References without consensus. Please do not change the section titles without consensus, per the guideline. TechnoSymbiosis ( talk) 04:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
...You changed the section headings without consensus with me, as did ?Iyo-farm? documentarily do blanking and do everything without consensus... ... . It's all above. You're not 'the boss' Don't tell me what i'm looking for. When i've already found and provided it WP:FNNR. You didn't provide it, nor get consensus here, nor start this talk section until after your wrong edits. "Other references" ignores even more WP:FNNR policy and others—rhetoric of "normal WP style" has no meaning just abuse, quoting you "Retitled. Please find a way to incorporate these in normal WP style." from 23:58, 8 March 2011 Edit
Where is the primary relevance of WP:REF to reference section headings? Where in the WP:REF page does reference section headings get covered as a primary section? It's not covered there as primary policy. That page one whole page Wikipedia:Citing sources is about the contents of the sections, about Citing sources. You are factually wrong again including your undoing my corrective edits per WP:LAYOUT— WP:FNNR. How many times to i have to cite WP:LAYOUT— WP:FNNR; Which is right!—A primary policy! Quoting:
Rabindranath Tagore—Here's a featured article, more than just a good article; Having the following sections, all accepted by consensus according to policy: "
8 Corpus
9 Quotations
10 Notes
11 Citations
12 References
13 Further reading
14 External links"
No consensus!; And policy-wise factually wrong, and against good spirit of Wikipedia, good faith, and not a bureaucracy. A complete waste of a talk section heading here.-- en:User:Macropneuma 06:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I suggest for consensus the best for the page, for readers, the layout:
The numbering will change if other sections do, of course.
References is for the purpose of reliable third party scholarly source references used as the main basis for the article facts.-- en:User:Macropneuma 06:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
You've missed all the points i've made and primary policies that i've cited. OK "L"->"l" my typo here—fixed. Cannot have consensus until you read and get all... .-- en:User:Macropneuma 06:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Then,
I suggest for consensus the best for the page, for readers, the layout:
According to the primary guideline policy of WP:FNNR, again!
The numbering will change if other sections do, of course.
As was the state of it."Footnotes", before it was broken without any consensus at all, see 09:19, 6 February 2011.
References is for the purpose of reliable third party scholarly source references used as the main basis for the article facts.
Of featured article Rabindranath Tagore, you've completely missed the points i made of, quoting: "
9 Quotations
10 Notes
11 Citations
12 References"
Read what the contents of those sections contain. Note the up to date formatting policy i've use when there's no disruptive editing of WP:LDR, as used in the contents of those sections.-- en:User:Macropneuma 07:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
When time, readers' understanding shows it needs to be split into sources' sections which show:
Suggest according to WP:FNNR, featured article Rabindranath Tagore and many Japanese biographies i've read here, according with the manual of style for Japanese articles and for biographies:
then if ever necessary, the definitively less necessary documents which may be listed as:
as different from
I've thought closely and deeply through all of these above, and starting implementing, in much editing alone prior to 'the bad faith, no–consensus, ambush'. None of which has been acknowledged here. (Very much in evidence in hindsight now, grossly) ungrateful and warring TEs.
Quoting the same policy again:
.-- en:User:Macropneuma 08:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I've got many better people to engage with...(evidently), really genuinely better processes here, and better activities to do generally than ever getting drawn in to playing games of trivial pursuit in Wikipedia here? No consensus!... No to rubbish!... No superficial rubbish!... . –Not interested generally here, in anyone's brutal misconstruing or any kind of misconstruing.-- en:User:Macropneuma 03:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Take a read of Isaac Newton.-- en:User:Macropneuma 05:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Take a read of Jane_Austen but you can't edit it.-- en:User:Macropneuma 05:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
TechnoSymbiosis Take a read of Harold Pinter.-- en:User:Macropneuma 00:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Macropneuma most certainly does not have any consensus whatsoever to clutter up and return the topic to the garbage it was before. All the needless duplications of Japanese, all the other duplications, all the quirky laying out, all the obsessiveness.
I am sorry but no.
Macropneuma, this is not your own personal, romantic memorial to Fukuoka. I am sorry but you obviously have good knowledge but no idea how to compose a topic page.
I genuinely encourage you again to start your own WIki on Masanobu Fukuoka on, say, Wikia. Unfortunately, you misunderstand entirely the nature of a Wikipedia topic page.
I am proposing we move to a topic ban on Macropneuma. There is really no reason why the rest of the community ought be burden with this kind of problem. Iyo-farm ( talk) 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
So what point are you trying to make Macropneuma? What is NPOV about the topic?
Look at the topic for Jesus. Now quite a few people believe he is God or the Son of God. His more notable than Masanobu. But you cannot say IS on the Wikipedia. You can say claimed, venerated as etc but you cannot make definitive statements about stuff like that. Many people having nervous breakdowns turn their lifes around, many hit the bottom and transform etc. It is a good think BUT you cannot deify someone on the basis of his claims.
What point are you make about Japanese? I am against this topic being littered with Japanese, because it adds nothing, and I am against it being turned into a liturgy in memory of Fukuoka. It is a English language encyclopedia. A well written 'less' is more.
As for the farm, you have snap out of your denial, Macropneuma. The family don't farm Fukuoka style. They farm in neat rows covered in black plastic. The hill is neglected and overgrown. It is roped off and they don't show it to strangers. The pagoda and huts are all falling to pieces, many have already died. I know that, I took the pictures.
The other hill you mention where the fruit is grown is elsewhere, a drive away. I've been there too. Mostly it is too steep to farm anything but at the top and around the edges one of Fukuoka's old students keeps up a little of the old ways. This is not for inclusion on the Wiki, just a personal note. I find it sad that all the money taken from the sale of books goes to a way of farming that is different (I guess it is what bought the grandson his farm). The old house is unlived too and looks like it has not been cleaned since Larry Korn was there. Iyo-farm ( talk) 17:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the list of people influenced, I think that it's apparent that Fukuoka has influenced a great number of people and that we clearly can't list all of them. My suggestion would be to limit the list to between 3 and 5 particularly notable people, leaving the paragraph clear that it's not a full list with phrasing along the lines of 'such as', 'including' or 'and others'. The last one is probably least preferred as it could be seen as vague or weasel-ish. TechnoSymbiosis ( talk) 01:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course, I know far more notable individuals he has influenced but, unfortunately, most are unreferenced. The problem is, most of the ones Macropneuma lists are non-notable. Unless they can make a Wikipedia topic of their own, I cannot see how they can be included. Iyo-farm ( talk) 17:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi.
I would like help from individuals with Wikipedia experience to clean up this article according to Wikipedian standards. I apologize when I write that despite years of attention the article really is in a little bit of a mess and purely from a literary point of view, is difficult to read.
Is anyone going to take great offence if I start copyediting it?
I have to say that I agree with others comments regarding its lack of encyclopedic style, and that the Wikipedia is not the place for such a personal article about Fukuoka.
I would like to see a wonderful, professional article about Fukuoka that reflects fully his positive influence. -- Iyo-farm ( talk) 02:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Macropneuma,
What I have written at RfC, and will take through any admin page you wish to argue it on, is that you need to take your 'obsessiveness' about with Fukuoka elsewhere. For example, start a Fukuoka Wiki all of your own at Wikia.com where you can go into each element in detail.
I mean this positively and sincerely.
You obviously have a lot of knowledge and many references but you cannot write in plain and simple English.
Your article was so difficult to understand and follow. It is layered with unnecessary duplication.
I think you are also using wiki-formatting in a very strange and unique way which makes the topic very hard to sort. -- Iyo-farm ( talk) 16:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Complete rubbish about my personal qualities above. A gratuitous, attempted personal attack.
Identify yourself User:Iyo-farm –Seemingly evident Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, especially Avoiding scrutiny, WP:GHBH, WP:SOCK#NOTIFY – an absolute newcomer who has some evident Wikipedia experience (elsewhere?) –which begs only to start the process of asking the questions, not then yet the conclusion; Then with seemingly evident mixture of both good faith and of bad faith together; Then in editing actions and in writing above: dismissive and gratuitously abusive words towards me without citing any specifics of examples of any evidence and without acknowledging my successful extensive editings' expansion of the page since the previous 2010 state of it: [6], nor of my various earlier 2006 critical corrections of serious errors, referencing and expansions of it: 2006 before and 2006 after then 2006 before and 2006 after, then a few more edits in 2009, etc., talking above at cross–purposes, unresponsiveness, uncooperative, rather than constructive and cooperative in an editing team together with me;
For two examples, evidently & objectively gratuitously wrong, willful attempts to offend me, and to grossly exaggerate negativity, quoting from above:
–and see the rest above; Never have i had such crassly rude, wrong, abusive and ignorant, flouting of Wikipedia's civility, assume good faith, and etiquette rules and guidelines, directed at me, who has done so much successful, referenced & appreciated work here [7] according to many associates of the man himself and many nature farmers; Absurdly, without so much as a scintilla of established dialogue beforehand. Do you have an axe to grind. Did you in fact actually rhetorically ask "...Is anyone going to take great offence if I start copyediting it..." because you had already made your plans, intent on uncivilly deliberately offending the one person?, me, who you even associated with an (quote:) "anyone" in that sentence –rudely as an absent third person–, me, who has done nearly all the editing for practical purposes alone for the last six months; How about 'learning the ropes' of this article, of some of its history of editing and editors, of its vandals, of its 'semi-vandals' –those superficially veiled detractors of the man himself–, establishing dialogue and then consensus, and then being bold by adding value to the article, as Wikipedia policy requires. - It's understandable and fair enough, that as i know i have, i've got into a rut being stuck on my own editing alone and batting off vandals for six months, including having somewhat followed the 'even deeper rut' which i also know about, of the previous way many edits by others had been worded before i started editing on Aug 3rd 2010 [8] as 120.156.57.75 before renewing and re-registering my old login again; I require team work not loose-cannon abusers; And because, had you also already made plans to offend those worldwide who accept and appreciate late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu by your writing about him dismissively, of his internationally accepted experiences and messages? Also, by your editing which broke the page formatting [9] and which diminished this biography to the simplistic point of a so called 'for dummies' page???;
Here's four examples of proper main English Wikipedia (rather than simple English Wikipedia) encyclopaedic biographies about people from non-English speaking backgrounds: Indian: Rabindranath Tagore, Japanese: Haruki_Murakami, Matsuo_Bashō, Jun'ichirō_Tanizaki – hence the conventions of biographies of people from non-English speaking backgrounds –see Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), MOS:; Here's one biography from an English speaking and Jewish background: Noam Chomsky; – Some of all of these with some of the up to date formatting conventions, especially on refs and citations: Rabindranath Tagore, and including team work by some apparently well informed editors. These people articles also have similar levels of world-wide influence and hence importance, as late Mr Fukuoka Masanobu does have for example in India, Greece, Thailand and Spain. This page and i need assistance, in that i've been expanding & editing this page almost entirely on my own because of lack of help by well enough informed people.
Late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu wrote in Japanese in internationally accepted scholarly journals and in scholarly terms in his own many Japanese books and papers published by both himself and the most renowned publishers appropriate to his subject matters, such as Jiji Press Co., Hakujusha co., Shunjusha co., NHK national public broadcaster, etcetera.
– Furthermore of my speculation about anonymous personally abusive User:Iyo-farm: –perhaps a person or persons i don't know who, who're personally angry at me for some undisclosed reason from my personal life outside Wikipedia, trolling directly at my work here in Wikipedia??? –I don't know, (don't care for trolls) and i refuse to become paranoid! It seems most likely on the small proportion of other English speaking people i know who understand his messages, that a person who finds this page "difficult to read", finds it so because of lack of 'awareness and brightness' on their own part, as has proven inescapably necessary for appreciating late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's own influential messages which have ramified outwards from the few 'Westerners' who clearly do appreciate them, his:
All of which are required as minimal for if here would be a truly representative encyclopaedic article – I have met many more 'western' people, a larger proportion, who have in their own systemic biases felt too scared by those true deep messages he has made about life and reality, some of my own family included, and haven't wanted to admit them at all – which of course is not a reason to not write up his full and true messages here in an encyclopaedic article, not a reason to understate his worldwide credibility with those experts in his subject fields, in fact if that is the motivating issue here behind the words of abuse and bad editing and so on, it would be a perversion of Wikipedia reasoning –see Wikipedia:Systemic bias; –Especially as evident in their gratuitous deleting of the quotations of his own ultimate goal in life and his ultimate goal in farming, quoted in the top of the page in the introduction [10]:
“ | My ultimate dream is to sow seeds in the desert. To revegetate the deserts is to sow seed in people's hearts.
The greening of the desert means sowing seeds in people's hearts and creating a green paradise of peace on earth. |
” |
— Masanobu Fukuoka, 1984 自然に還る English translation 1987 The Road Back to Nature -page 360 1992 わら一本の革命・総括編「神と自然と人の革命」 English translation 1996 The Ultimatum of God Nature•The One-Straw Revolution•A Recapitulation -page 203 |
“ | ...The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings. | ” |
— Masanobu Fukuoka, 1975 自然農法-わら一本の革命 English translation 1978 The One-Straw Revolution -page 119 |
An edit history alone or with consensus, last example 09:19, 6 February 2011; Diff's example; And Editing in progress history item 07:51, 9 February 2011. An attempt re-start the process of continuing editing according to consensus processes, after using rvv to recover damage done without consensus. Never was any consensus for blanking nor my accepting of any above WP:NPA –clearly evident–perverseness.
(only copyedit heading for links citation rendering – -- macropneuma 06:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC) )
Wikipedia:CLAIM—Especially as evident from the edit to what did previously read ( at 09:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)), quoting:
–which is internationally accepted by reputable international organisations appreciating these philosophical norms, such as Indian Government & many universities, Japanese government and universities, Japanese national public broadcaster television station NHK, the Philippines government and their organisation awarding the 'Asian Nobel Prize' to him in 1988 (The Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation one major example ref. of many), the United Nations, etcetera.
The article after their first edit (14:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)), and their edits (02:34, 7 February 2011 till now (UTC)) reads dismissively, factually–wrongly and negatively (not positively at all), quoting:
(his "kaigo" forms one of several forms of actual satori experience and a more specific in meaning synonym of satori (which has a more overarching general meaning), not a likeness or mere claim of it); Satori, he did experience at age 24-5, this is accepted worldwide in much evidence by those people who do accept the meaning of the word satori; this changed his whole life and led to his influence throughout the world today, which must get emphasied in any unbiased biography of him -References: Wikipedia:Systemic bias, (ref 1) (ref 2).
An anonymous person, evidently having some limited previous Wikipedia editing experience, while evidently also lacking awareness of some of the up-to-date formatting Wikipedia-conventions which i used, gratuitously abused me about accusing me about my "wiki-formatting" without providing any specific examples of evidence nor any discussion prior to their editing; Which saying it again in this context: now has really broken the page formatting [11] –quoting their above gratuitous and unspecified 'negativity' towards me:
–Especially negative, as evident in their comments above in the context of their edits now made, which have broken the page and really messed it up specifically for ref citations and wrecked it to the point of making it non-encyclopaedic for many other aspects –for those other editors and admins reading this talk – for refs citations i use as up to date instructions and formatting conventions from the following manual pages, see: Wikipedia Manual of Style (footnotes) #List-defined references, Template Reflist, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes) (in general the whole page's advice), Help Footnotes, Wikipedia:Citing sources|, WP:IBID, etcetera;
They're hiding behind anonymity here and have refused to respond and directly discuss with me or act constructively here, rather gratuitously abusing, talking at cross purposes and attempting to blame me for their own lack of knowledge of "wiki-formatting" up-to-date conventions, especially again those refs citations.
Yes, i am a successful nature farmer and a professional field ecologist and IT professional, including successfully doing professional writing, while i appreciate also, ineffable meanings. If foolishness is at play here, I don't suffer fools gladly and am personally well known for not doing so – having no regrets about that.
I'm in progress of making it more readable as i have been busy expanding and updating the formatting for many a long working time. This, late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's biography & i need help with the many hours of work i've done here already, not gratuitous abuse and obscrurantism of his life, his biography. Don't pretend that your opinions are any more than your opinions, that is why everything i appear to opine is in fact documented in his references, in Wikipedia manuals for conventions, and in writings by many of his supporters, associates, family and experts. I'm left with no other option than to suspect you, that you have issues and ulterior motives, which you're hiding behind your above abuse and unwillingness to come out of secret anonymity (not merely anonymity alone, obviously), eg. perhaps as has been typical of many wrong editors here in this Wikipedia page, have you come gratuitously out of greed for money from selling one of late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's English translation books, in his own descriptions of them: simplistic English translation of his Japanese writings, some of them inserting their own, translator's opinions, in an un-scholarly way (Reference: his section about this "The Road Back To Nature") – into what he, late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu has written in his own literature. Alternatively, perhaps are you someone who thinks they know more about late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu than everyone else and has been caught out by this page demonstrating with evidence that you don't actually know as much about him biographically as you thought you did, and claimed to others that you did, and that you cant take credit for having taken the time to write this page up properly, nor have you actually done a research project on his life and works, by which you can learn properly about his life, his biography. A scholarly, professional but unpaid research project on Masanobu Fukuoka, I actually have done in the last six months with assistance of professional Japanese scholars and of scholarly writing generally, of which this article page which is still in progress, is but one form of my 'produce'! – -- en:User:Macropneuma 00:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC) (immediate response,) and updated at: -- en:User:Macropneuma 07:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
First off I think it is high time that this article has had some view from other editors. It has for since August last year been the entirely controlled by a single editor. A classic case of
WP:OWNERSHIP. There have been numerous deviations from the
Manual of style. Perhaps the largest problem is one of
Undue weight whilst the influence of Fukuoka on the alternative farming community is clear, the impact of his more philosophical writings is less clear. There does need to be some mention of this but it needs more balance.
I hope that a way of working on the article can be acheived, But that will require everyone to refrain from personal attacks.-- Salix ( talk): 19:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Macropneuma, you seem to have strong personal attachment to this article for reasons that aren't clear to me. I'm not going to reply to comments you've made about me directly (such as my talk page comment which was there solely to make sure my talk link wasn't red) because they're not relevant to improving the article here. You've attacked other editors, made accusations of ignorance and sock-puppetry and written a veritable essay in response to honest criticism of the article quality that you seem to have taken as a personal insult. Please, again, remember the assume good faith and remember that we're all here to improve the article. If other editors commenting on and working on the article bothers you, please consider taking a step back to get some fresh perspective. As Salix pointed out, it seems like you feel you own the article, and that's not conducive to good collaborative editing. TechnoSymbiosis ( talk) 00:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
For ?User Iyo-farm's? issues, here's two Wikipedia policy quotations:
There's been so many loaded, graceless words started by others than me, and attempts to 'press my buttons' in euphemistic or 'politically correct' words... . Unlike that of ?User Iyo-farm's? evident approach since starting editing this article, i'm so very happy working in teams with people, including people like me and people very different from me. One-upmanship, etcetera, is not in accord with Wikipedia five pillars, constitution, other policies, nor with anywhere working cooperatively more widely in our Earth. The most highly pertinent information is: –A few references: Wikipedia:Systemic bias, (ref 1) (ref 2)
(Small copyedits updated - -- en:User:Macropneuma 03:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC) )
Macropneuma,
in essence, you've been trying to turn this topic page into a shrine for all things Fukuoka and it has become choked. To a degree, I think you have idolized the "Japaneseness" element, a common issue with Fukuoka adherents. Unfortunately, this is an English language encyclopedia, and English language references are largely good enough.
(Small copyedits, updated - -- en:User:Macropneuma 03:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC) )
I suppose if you wanted, you could make a separate page for List of Masanobu Fukuoka Publications or List of Natural Farming Publications and see how you get on. I would not certainly object to that. If they wont let you do it as a main topic, why not make it as a subsidiary resource to this page to help others?
The rest does not require responding to but there are a few references you could help us with if you care.
Thank you. -- Iyo-farm ( talk) 05:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Aah, if you care! Read all of what i've written in the edits, the mass of history, the talks above... . When do you stop pretending to be the authoriser of what can and can't get established, completely having ignored the fact that i did all that checking already, according to Wikipedia policies of referenced sources. Somewhere back up there above in the talk, you were gratuitously abusing me for too many references – evidently your bad, your blanking—deletion and rejection attitude! – logically can't be anyone else's! Nearly all the English writing you in your edits have now kept, was written by me, and much of what you have blanked was written by editors editing before me – so called: 'can't write plain and simple English', huh! Gratuitously, violently trying to put out a fence towards me, for edits. ???
Learn all about that stuff and a lot more besides, which you say above: "I suppose..." about, before you come hack editing and personally attacking editors. Duh! Consensus!!!? For so many meanings on so many fronts, you have now made the page so very factually wrong (also on so many fronts) – really broken and broken the evidence base of required referenced sources – according to so much scholarly evidence i have, some of which i used in the page, and much of that which you have, for now, destroyed. Who the WP:NPAer do you think you are. Redeem yourself with me, to my satisfaction, towards Wikipedia's–requirement, policy of consensus with me, before vainly trying to turning on a dime asking me to personally help you with your (evident so far often bad...) edits – too many examples to bother with, eg. one silly example, you don't even have clear in your so called thought his birth date. I could tell you his correct birth date in my sleep nowadays.-- en:User:Macropneuma 07:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
(Small copyedits, updating for readability, welcoming new editors - -- en:User:Macropneuma 04:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC) )
My internet allowance was used up just at the right time for me to no longer access any more here, your words full of gratuitous personal attacks, such as those above. – A mere saying: 'The cosmos's great spirit works in mysterious ways, to humans'. I knew this, my internet allowance would run out and i didn't feel any need to renew it as I'm a–good–kind–of–busy in my tens of acres with many years in my experience, 自然農園 (nature farm)!–Huh! Busy in my practise which you abusively, back stab-ingly wrote here in Wikipedia you don't know about ( Ref.). Of course you don't know about it, how could you – suits me fine now – enough of my having been gratuitously ignored and gratuitously personally attacked, etcetera by the most uncooperative ... i've encountered. ... . I have never had anything to prove in relation to my philosophy and practise of this sustainability subject. My writing is backed by verified and verifiable reliable sources, as is my personal practises and philosophies. I don't have to say "I think" about them because i have evidence in writing, in photos, in many friend's direct observations, etcetera. Just because you don't know me, that doesn't have any meaning. It's just that you don't know me and that's all.
(Small copyedits and a few additions of more of these simple quotations, for clarity, for readability—for effectively welcoming different editors. - -- en:User:Macropneuma 01:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC) ) (Clarification update by adding one very much plainer English clause to an existing above sentence. -- en:User:Macropneuma 03:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC) )
Baseless, un-evidenced and grossly–ignorant–of–me casting of aspersions towards me just bounces them off the smoke and mirrors you've anonymously put out and up all around yourself in words here, reflecting back on you extraordinarily badly... . (evident now Straw man... . Consensus and policy respect, with you 3 or 2 or even 1, now absolutely requires this... :) .)
Merely one minor reference of many hundreds there, quoting for you directly here, with extra clarifying and simplifying words added for you, is:
Check the reliable dictionaries' sources yourself if you care! – The evidences of the most reliable dictionaries' sources are of course cited where necessary as footnotes in my recent edits of the page! Eg. Kenkyusha's dictionary. Look up this Japanese, in a dictionary: 自然の 農法。!
I do my research and check my sources beforehand, in my professional second–nature. That so called claim in ?Iyo-farm's? talk immediately above about late Mr. Okada Mokichi is just a so called 'land grab'– Lies! Again without any evidence or substance provided. Mokichi Okada's organisations today, in their own nature farming (collective) research institute's book by Xu, Hui-lian (2006) "Nature Farming in Japan" ISBN: 81-308-0119-1, which i referenced in my edits:
Specifically, two quotations with copyedits for simplifying them, including by expanding and punctuating them more (–more or less arbitrary decisions), into somewhat long-hand spelled-out–language for you:
Ref. for "wholeheartedly devoted himself" –his Japanese, a quotation:
大正2(1913)年、伊子市大平で生まれる。1933年に岐阜高等農林卒業後、横浜税関に勤務。25歳の春、後に自然農法実践の哲学となる 「人智・人為ー切無」の天啓を得て、退職。西日本放浪を経て帰郷。無の哲学を米と蜜柑作りを通じて実現するため、終戦の日以降、自然農法ー筋の百姓に打ち込む。
そしてついに1950年、米麦連続不耕起栽培技術を完成、自然農法を確立。25年後の1975年、『自然農法 わら一本革命』として世に問い、アメリカなど11ヶ国で翻訳。世界中で読者を得、民間人おして世界で最もよく知られる日本人となった。
'I think' 2 years is different to quoting you "20 years"!!! 'I think', much more significantly that late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's 1937–onwards initiated "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)" is very different from late Mr. Okada Mokichi's 1950 name change to "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)". 'I think' that late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's 1947 written up and "established" "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)" is very different from late Mr. Okada Mokichi's 1950 name change to "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)". 'I think' significant is that late Mr. Okada Mokichi's 1935 till 1950 officially titled in Japanese "[i'll check up that Japanese text later], Fertilizer-free Agriculture [as translated to English]", is very different from late Mr. Okada Mokichi's later 1950–onwards defined "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)", based on my reliable evidence sources, available on request, eg. Xu, Hui-lian (2006) "Nature Farming in Japan" -pp. 10 – 12, 134 – 140, etc. ISBN: 81-308-0119-1 which i've actually read! 'I think' that late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's fully proven in practise accomplishment of "Rice & Barley continuous succession no-till farming" from 1950–onwards, is very different from late Mr. Okada Mokichi's 1950–onwards name change to "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)". (example ref.: 1985 "The Natural Way of Farming" eg. p. 177) (Longer detailed references supplied on request, of course).
Late Mr. Okada Mokichi and late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu lived at home in Japan; Spoke Japanese and spoke Japanese idioms; Came from their culture, Japanese; Can get understood relatively simply, even with their deep philosophies, from any various, informed, "neutral", Japan–experienced–people's insider's views looking outwards (evidence); Comparatively however, they cannot get understood easily at all from a Japanese–outsider's view looking inwards (–especially their philosophies); – You don't like that??? (–as suggested by your gratuitously abusive negativity expressed towards so called "Japaneseness" above? –quoting you above: "...idolized the "Japaneseness" element...". Such a lot of rot!... Honest–robust communication, robust respect, correctness and reliable verified evidences, i respect as having so much value and importance, not your evidently–silly made–up so called 'Japaneseness' nor your gratuitous abuse of me of so called "idolized the..." anyone or anything. ...you don't have a clue who i am, not knowing me at all. Duh! Next, are you gonna tell me that you can read my mind—absurdly impossible! So much rot that i should not–ever have to come to all of this problem solving parenthetical–level – All obviously, your evidently–silly projections of images—imaginings—from your mind, onto 'pre–existing'–pre–'conceptions'—'pre-imaginings' which YOU so–clearly–wrongly imagine towards me; Wrong judgementalisms too, in other words.) Late Mr. Okada Mokichi and late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu! – Japanese people! They cannot be anyone else; Get used to it! Duh! Can you not cope with and respect fully people of Japanese nature, as suggested by your above words abusive of my respect? Duh! Is it some deep fear and loathing or whatever??? Dear o Dear! What the ... are you doing editing a biography of a Japanese person then, if you seemingly don't like the Japanese, or the insider's view of the Japanese?
That's what makes good subject matter editors in each respective article's subject matter here. In other words, editors who genuinely know their subject matter (from the inside outwards...), with reliable evidence sources – not with pretending, nor bias, nor mere hearsay, at all; – And not just Google wack'n' the subject!... –Not a reliable source per se at all – WP:GYNOT— approx. 275,000 en & approx. 39,300 ja Googles can only assist on the way to getting to the reliable sources and with the initial indications of notability for new articles, but it is not a reliable source in itself, nor a final test of notability, nor "to verify the accuracy of information" –there quoting from WP:GYNOT. Even Google scholar, Google books and Google news have a systemic bias with Japanese, such as missing hundreds of reliable news, citations of and scholarly articles about and by late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu and (his sense of) nature farming; While for editing biographies of Japanese people here in Wikipedia, Japanese–owned search engines, referencing about him in news, in scholarly journal writing, in books and in library holdings, prove up the reverse of that bias, by showing in total hundreds of reliable sources, millions of literature citations of him (in WebCatPlus), and of bibliographic listings of his scholarly journal writing and books. Evidently, you can't possibly have even tried these, nor even the imperfect–for–Japanese–people's–work English or Japanese Google scholar. –clearly apprehended WP:BIAS!
He only ever writes in Japanese! Of course! Translators and so on write the rest! Inevitable losses in translation processes!, especially of course, translations of idioms! Editors of formatting, mere proof readers, and so on, who are not subject to the need of subject matter expertise at all, can do great assistance–work in team work with any subject matter editors, obviously; If they have good faith and respect everyone, including themselves! Of course, (in the singular sense) there is no Wikipedia view nor end, specifically on each article's specific subject; Only general policies, not specific policies on only one individual article; Encyclopaedic policies, evidence from reliable sources, verifiable, neutrality, biography writing policies, Japan articles' policies, editor relations' & consensus policies, and all the rest of the policies, which in turn remain subject to change by consensus; No specific view nor end on Masanobu Fukuoka! at all – that's absurd, of course! Just neutrality on all article subject matters, according to reliable evidence sources, cited! Of course, Wikipedia provides not an end at all but (only) a means!
Wikipedia etiquette precludes one from saying here, what to me your edits' critically–evidence about your levels of respect, civilisation, language, listening, reading, knowledge, civility, consensus, co-operation, awareness, information, evidences, reliable sources, research, resources, Japanese respect & skills, references, etcetera – In this case here, on the subject of biography of 故福岡正信さん (late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu). Who the ... are you, rather than who you think you are?
For a wee little bit of your edification ( WP:AGF), from a very little bit of this, my large research, (and practise and sustainable way of life); More than you personally evidently–above deserve ( WP:AGF) from me after so much gratuitous personal abuse started by you, (separate from what general Wikipedia and us, it's general readers and editors, generally deserve, which is much more); Here's: Yamagishi movement and Janong Natural Farming, Korea, which derives from it –the Yamagishi 'cult1 movement'. Note 1) Advisedly, I nickname it a 'cult movement' based on this quotation from that Wikipedia page: "The movement has been sued by former members seeking to recover their financial assets, which were required to be donated when they joined." and my reading of the Japanese media on it: eg. Ref 1.
I am correct to have called you out and closely scrutinised you on your presumptuous user name ?Iyo-farm? here, by my above asking politely for you to show due cause for such a presumptuous user name as ?Iyo-farm? in an editor of the article of late Mr. Masanobu Fukuoka – Who was born, bred and lived nearly all his life in Iyo (district), and who's family has lived there (ancestrally) for apparently 1,300 years or so, according to records; You still have not yet answered this – WP:SPA. The same would occur if, while extensively editing, restructuring and expanding the article Masanobu Fukuoka, i had presumptuously named my user name "Masanobu Fukuoka" or "shizen nouhou" or "Fukuoka-farm" or "Fukuoka-farmer" or similar.
Anyone can edit Wikipedia according to the policies, including respect, reliable sources, no copyright violations, consensus, etcetera; Not according, evidently, to unilateral decisions, personal attacks, and editorialising, etcetera... .
I never criticised your infobox per se; Read all of what i wrote extensively above; That one of many mistakes i wrote about above, was about his life's birth and death dates wherever they are written in your multiple edits at that time. Fixed now, i never had any worries about that per se, just the point! Saying a tokenistic sorry about a non-problem which i never addressed myself to, while not saying any substantial sorry about specific gross problems now on the page, doesn't make sufficient 'anything'. Not to mention about your gratuitous attacks towards my person. Where do you even get those of your evidently un-sourced and wrong personal opinions about late Mr. Masanobu Fukuoka, now on the page, from anyway; And also about ecological processes (rather than aesthetic opinions)?; And also about, what is now his family's farm? Your farm photos are selective and grossly unrepresentative – WP:BIAS, WP:W2W & WP:UNDUE etcetera ... – There are many different very recent photos which show very different impressions of different parts of the farm, the opposite of so called neglected; And especially continuing the key, influential, annual crops in straw mulched cropping areas. Anyway, nature grows itself in forests everywhere, with so called neglect; So called neglect, an appearance only, an aesthetic prejudice word towards its mere appearance (ref.); If the owner says they didn't want that to happen, says they've neglected it in not doing work they did intend to do and they say that harm has come from that; Then if, this owner's own words has a reliable and verifiable source, it would get published here with the source, for everyone to check it and learn from it for themselves. (Copyedit adding clarification from an independent same–scenario source, from a Reuters newspaper article source.—'neglect' appearance prejudice. – -- en:User:Macropneuma 03:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC))
For one of several example sources, I respectfully access a series of public photos from Summer 2010, on a professional journalist's personal page—I already corrected you above mentioning this, my public source above—sufficiently for you but very briefly; All the same though, in time for you to not make the mistakes on the page which you have now grossly made; And in time for you to show an interest in those photos i mentioned, which you have not– (I have not yet got permission from him to cite here in Wikipedia his personal page, or an anticipatory–archive of it, nor yet asked him to publically release his professional photos into this, Wikipedia, as 'public domain' or fair use.); These include the professional journalist–photographer's English language descriptions of his invitation from the family, allowing him to spend a couple of days at the Fukuoka farms, of his meeting some of the family including 'the son', of his touring, of his doing farm work there in the citrus orchard for those days, and of his learning first hand about the workings of the farm from the family; Also of course of, photographing the farm and presenting his Japanese captioned photographs and Japanese descriptive text on his personal Japanese page.
Nothing you have said about me at all, rings true at all, or gets supported by evidence, or could be recognised by me as me, or by the many people who actually do personally know me. The page now has grossly wrong errors – the effects of evident–wrongheadedness WP:POV ...; And those gross errors of which do occur, do so against all reliable sources and/or many Wikipedia policies on those relevant particular editing aspects; – In overall biography impression, and inclusive of some key meanings there, now grossly erroneous ... .
... .
. Eg.: WP:DONOTDEMOLISH – WP:BUILDER – WP:POTENTIAL – WP:CHANCE – WP:NPOV – WP:IRS . -- en:User:Macropneuma 11:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
(Small copyedits, updated, for clarity, correcting some facts referenced and for readability—for effectively welcoming different editors. - -- en:User:Macropneuma 07:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC) )
(Small copyedits, formatting on line into a heading for more readability, and regarding gratuitous & gross personal attacks attempts towards me. – -- macropneuma 10:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC) )
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
if anybody wants to write some bio. here's some info: http://larryhaftl.com/ffo/fintro.html 200.55.100.229 23:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Since Masanobu Fukuoka passed away in August 2008, the verbs likely should be changed to past tense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
i very much doubt the claim that fukuoka produced similar yield to intensive farming. it needs a reference. otherwise i just the section off trueblood 08:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC) on second reading, i doubt that the person who wrote the section has read anything by fukuoka( i have), just wild claims in the section, 'all the work can be easily done by hand and is reduced by 80%" nonsense. might be worth putting mark bonfils back into the article, though. trueblood 08:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
"Wild Claims"? As a practitioner of Fukuoka's philosophy on my own farm I can assure you that claim is anything but nonsense. Although I can't verify specific numbers, I know from experience that one can do all the work by hand, and overall labour is greatly down. Montydog 5:30, 2 Sept. 2006
The external link at the end of the page:
The Fukuoka Farming Website
is broken
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. ST47 19:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
quote from article: The Fukuoka method is not suited to growing large quantities of grain, like those presently produced in the industrialised world by means of large-scale mechanization. But one could argue that the vast majority of this grain goes to feed animals (which could be more efficiently fed by diverse forage systems), and the quantity used for direct human consumption could be grown by the Fukuoka method
indeed one could argue that, but i doubt it and i wonder if this is the place to argue. i propose to delete the passage and just leave it with mentioning that fukuoka's method is a small scale method and it is even part of his philosophie that things should be small scale. if he argues somewhere that his method can feed the world, so be it, we can put that in too. but the editors should leavetheir speculation or opinion out.
trueblood
07:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:QVanillaQ, If you'd do your research, read Fukuoka's writings, as I've read all his english translated books (but perhaps one 1940's one), read the Fukuoka_Farming yahoo group, as I have constantly & contributed some, then you would know that those links I put up there are nothing irrelevant at all. In detail:
Sorry I didn't have time to format this talk up properly - I's doing other things & paying for it in an internet cafe when I saw this removal herein.
J. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macropneuma ( talk • contribs) 13:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Major page updates have happened in the last two weeks since Aug 3rd. -- Macropneuma ( talk) 13:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I've had a go with using {{ cite book}} which does allow for a translated title. Only done first two books
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=
, |separator=
, |laysummary=
, |month=
, and |lastauthoramp=
(
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help) translated by
Alfred Birnbaum 1964
[1]
[2]{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help) translated by Chris Pearce, Tsune Kurosawa & Larry Korn. English pref. by Wendell Berry. Rodale Press. 30 yr anniv. ed. 2009 NYRB.I'd sugest [1] as a better link from Amazon as it has more publication details.-- Salix ( talk): 12:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
(Dear Walter Ralt), Please discuss major changes before implementing as we have done, here in Masanobu Fukuoka. Please respect the efforts of others, including humble me, and discuss the serious reasoning we have before going and removing our considered, reasoned work. Consider adding to the page first please, and we'll see how we go working together. Rather than 'cutting it down'. Thank you for making efforts, at all, please keep doing that, and discussing. We, some of us have been editing here, in Masanobu Fukuoka, since at least 2006. Terraquaculture sounds interesting, i like to know more about it, but i don't have the reference you cite: Tane, Haikai. The Crucial Roles of Willows in Sustainable River Management. Watershed Foundation (Aotearoa New Zealand) (2010) Please write a page on that topic, too. Cheers -- Jase 12:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
SalixAlba (incidently, a Willow sp.) and InWind don't delete categories in ignorance of Mr. Fukuoka's accomplishments, while your concerns about Categorization show your good intentions, please first do homework on Categorization and particularly on Categorization - Non-diffusing_subcategories, i just have done my homework on that particularity. Then do homework on Mr. Fukuoka himself before you assume what kind of accomplishments he made, not all his accomplishments are yet documented here. The page text is not the justifications for the categories he's in, his life itself is, including his 5 books in English translation, more than 10 Japanese books and many more publications and appearances on television, etc. The UN through Maurice Strong commissioned him to work in Africa 're-greening' man-made deserts, and so on, and so on. Do some work adding references here and write ups here, do not come here as naysayers in ignorance, it is no excuse. Don't argue, read his work and learn from the resources on the internet like movies, interviews, documented awards (Magsaysay, Deshikottam, Rockefeller -> http://web.archive.org/web/20030223001409/http://www.rbf.org/ramongrant98.html ), and last but not least from Yahoo group Fukuoka_farming, where also i've been since 9 years ago. This page needs help, not discouragement by editors who do virtually no work on it.-- Jase 08:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
SalixAlba reversion wrong, don't come from your lack of knowledge, and put out incoherent reasoning to cover it ("diff's of view" wikipedia isn't a view and wikipedia isn't a person about which i'm writing biography). Your bad. Just wrong, just accept, don't be power-trippin, just accept and move on...your good works. For example see Noam_Chomsky - if that's so bad go edit that first and show me. Prove your personal, as yet unevidenced, as yet unverified, knowledge of the subject, - Wikipedia:verifiable-, regarding Masanobu Fukuoka or back off, i don't have to prove my myself at all - there's nine years of my understanding written up in Yahoo group Fukuoka_farming: -> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fukuoka_farming/ !-- Jase 12:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
User:TadewiGomda had added some long text (below) into a very brief list item near the top of the life story writing; Quote:
Please User:TadewiGomda add a new paragraph if you feel like it, to the Nature Farming section, about Mr. Fukuoka's pruning of fruit trees experiences and lessons. If you would like to then I presume that you would like to add the new paragraph after the paragraph that describes the orchard. -- Jase 14:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Short note. I removed a number of red links as the individuals named to not appear to have reached standards of notability for biographies and had few references, if any, mentioning them in the real world. Most are still living. -- Iyo-farm 14:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it really necessary and worthwhile to have such chronology as is current included?
It does not appear to be of any great importance, nor many of the events that notable in themselves.
I propose cutting it all down to a simple paragraph mentioning his activities. -- Iyo-farm 14:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I did a little bit more hacking away at the undergrowth to get to the grain of this topic and have discovered that what appears to be going in is a misuse of references to include vast amount of largely unimportant content and quotations much of which is duplicated.
Ditto, there appear to be numerous duplications of a reference to One-straw Revolution and Natural Farming. Cannot all of these just be reduced to one single reference and people go and read it there if they want? Basically, no claims have actually been refuted. Why does the topic need so many references?
Doesn't One-straw Revolution count as original research and don't we really require references from other sources? -- Iyo-farm ( talk) 15:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The External Links section seems to be full of blogspot links etc.
I suppose it should be cut down to a minimum, shouldn't it?
Anyone care to sort out any decent articles and drop the rest? -- Iyo-farm ( talk) 15:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I cannot find any references to an Earth Council Award. Actually, I cannot find any mention of an Earth Council Award existing without a reference to Fukuoka.
The fact that it and Earth Council or Earth Council Alliance all do not have wikipedia pages makes me wonder.
I actually do not doubt Fukuoka got given something but I have no idea what it really was. Jase, do you have any specific references? Was it a one off, or was it called something else?
Thank you -- Iyo-farm ( talk) 04:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Listen guys, I appreciate this is all very obscure and you might not be interested but there seems to be something else very strange going on; a blurring, or dare I say 'land grab' of the terms " Nature Farming" versus "Natural Farming".
Looking at a broad survey of the documents, Fukuoka's ideas seem to largely addressed as 'Natural Farming' and Okada's as 'Nature Farming' with 'Kyusei Nature Farming' additionally credited to Teruo Higa. Kyusei Nature Farming turns up many scholarly papers.
Looking at the Fukuoka topic, we find many hidden links "Natural farming" to "nature farming". Looking at the Nature Farming topic, we find Macropneuma's finger prints all over it and, as with this topic, a tendency towards references not really saying what is claimed for them.
I think we need some clarity to this and given the citations, it would seem to me to clearly come down, in English, to Fukuoka's method being 'Natural Farming' and Okada's 'Nature Farming'.
Does anyone else care to take a brief look into this? -- Iyo-farm ( talk) 15:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Evidently wrong – diametrically so!, POV and more gratuitous attempts at belittling, personal attacks, above (of my well evidence based positions); No really reliable sources –that really stack up together with all the reliable sources – that one source given above is just a lazy glossary source having quotes and citations of a very incomplete mix of sources. Not a scholarly analysis source. Not reliable, it just un-representatively quotes and cites other sources without fact checking, critical analysis or thinking, which put together don't make up a collective reliable source at all! Real third party, scholarly or critically fact-checked reliable sources are the best sources, not the easiest, laziest to obtain sources.
Translation books have got mistakes. Duh!–inevitable, from translation processes, i translate and i make mistakes. It's hard work and i need Japanese people to check mine. Translations have some mistakes which ramified into more mistakes.
Anyway, A quotation from page 343 of "The Road Back to Nature: Regaining the Paradise Lost", a 1987 English translation by Frederic P. Metraud of Masanobu Fukuoka's 1984 shizen ni kaeru (自然に還る):
I'm not an expert even, so what does that make ... .
Authors like Masanobu Fukuoka write their original words in their own language, Japanese in this case, not in English. Multiple scholarly sources for his Japanese clearly show the best and the nearest to correct translation: Nature Farming. See above also.
Evidently wrong –diametrically so!– according to reliable sources, including those cited within: 自然農法, 福岡正信, etc.;
And according to the extensive 168 page: Hui-Lian Xu (2001) "NATURE FARMING In Japan" Research Signpost, T. C. 37/661(2), Fort Post Office, Trivandrum - 695023, Kerala, India.
–a partly–scholarly monograph/book, providing, much detailed, sourced, relevant, history, language clarifications and evidence, at least. Hence re-corrected, evidently a gross POV!, and an entirely–unheeding, unilateral one at that! – for what real motives it was done, the rest of us cannot be knowing for sure.
Jase, can you sort out which of the Article section are books and attribute them to MF, particularly those in Japanese?
Are these books or pamphlets? Thanks. -- Iyo-farm ( talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Question, are all those Buddhist books or journals listed actually related to Fukuoka or are they just in there to support some theoretical point of view relating to his philosophical ideas and terminology.
If the latter, then I think they should go. -- Iyo-farm ( talk) 05:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I've done some minor copy editing of the Life section, but one of the sentences doesn't flow very well:
This sentence is unclear - which person found the methods led to disaster, Fukuoka or his father? What kind of disaster had occurred? TechnoSymbiosis ( talk) 00:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
See WP:OI
-- en:User:Macropneuma 05:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The sources seem clear that there is a distinction between natural farming and nature farming, the former being Fukuoka's style. See [2], as well as any number of Google Scholar results. The title of Fukuoka's first book is Natural Farming and the subtitle of his second book is 'An introduction to natural farming'. Please don't revert these changes without discussion and reliable sources to the contrary - Macropneuma, quoting a post you wrote yourself on Yahoo Groups does not constitute a reliable source by any stretch. TechnoSymbiosis ( talk) 00:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Wrong! Read the reliable sources already provided and a J-E dictionary on 自然農法.
"Natural Farming" first book? – no source provided!, (POV), and which every insider knows is "Mu Kami no kakumei" ( (in Japanese) One example ref. of many... by Mutsumi Shojaku, Kyoto University)
Also, -- Mr. Masanobu Fukuoka himself mentions this Japanese book he published very early - paraphrasing him: 40 years ago (he wrote in about 1992-1987): -
He mentions it in writing in his Japanese recapitulation 1992 book; Quoting here from its 1996 translation to English, "The Ultimatum of God Nature The One–Straw Revolution A Recapitulation" –page 170:
He also mentions it in his book, in English translation in "The Road Back to Nature" 1987.
About this supposed first book "Natural Farming", have you anything to add about it???
Here, the most reliable sources count, not opinions (yours nor mine nor SalixAlba's) at all.
The word 'permaculture' is not English, made up word like so many other brand names Orica or Safeway or RadioShack. -- en:User:Macropneuma 02:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Often incomprehensible reply and misuse of reliable sourcing policies when the link is obviously providing a Japanese language reliable source from a scholar who speaks Japanese, on the point here of what his first book was - Read the Japanese page. Translation books got the translations wrong in places. Want some examples?? This isn't unusual it's inevitable. The Natural Way of Farming was not his first book. Duh! Assume good faith until one's assuming gets proved wrong as above monstrous WP:NPA... .
All explained in plain and simple long-hand English above. Read the Japanese – Mutsumi Shojaku has provided, a long page with some scholarly Japanese on his bibliography; With a brief introductory three paragraphs English, which are obviously not intended nor are they scholarly reliable English sources, obviously just a basic English introduction. This Mutsumi Shojaku's page is a reliable source for his first book (and some more); Obviously not for Japanese to English translations which require scholarly reliable dictionaries and more explanatory detail translation sources – which Hui Lian Xu (2006) above provides a little more of – Read above talk here.. Masanobu Fukuoka wrote 自然農法. People have been translating that one phrase different ways. Which way is the scholarly, best translation relating Masanobu Fukuoka's message – His overall message which he gave in Japanese in his corpus of works. Obviously Nature Farming, based on the reading of his corpus of primary sources and on third party scholarly reliable sources and dictionaries. Not based on wack'n' WP:GYNOT which was wrongly previously done here above or on known translation imperfections, no blame to Larry Korn or Chris Pearce or anyone, just to loses of meaning in translation. Inevitable. To infer that the translation was or is perfect has less foundation than anything. Read [ example above here] WP:HEAR-- en:User:Macropneuma 04:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
...How many secondary sources are you talking about, one! The one i gave you all, above. You've ignored the additional secondary sources, which immediately above i've given encouragement to you to use. Abusing me by ignoring them and replying here above as if you've unilaterally decided already here and edited so, based not on having availed yourself of those secondary sources. Don't edit till there's consensus. No WP:CONS. Opting, you did, instead from primary sources—For numerical weight of primary sources.
Quoting policies:
Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers:
Indentifying reliable sources: Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources:
You need to think this through in all its implications, with all the best sources available. I notice you're missing many of the implications of this translating of 自然農法... Over several years with dialogue with the practitioner community i have done this; And sometimes with translators including Larry Korn.— common sense and the rest, consensus & Wikipedia does not have firm rules... .
Are you reading any of the Japanese? –including the originals?
It's never about numerical quantities of articles, as is well known many articles are not good articles let alone featured articles, per your bad edit, quoting: "...common standard across the majority of articles" –that's complete rubbish in this Wikipedia reality of major backlogs of required quality editing to articles. Always about quality! Of course!-- en:User:Macropneuma 05:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
If the term can have multiple translations then it would seem appropriate to include the original Japanese and note that there are various translations of the term. The talk page is getting rather long no and it would be helpful to repeat a reliable source showing that the term has been translated as "nature farming". -- Salix ( talk): 08:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Relevant here about shizen, and a link here into about the much more important than here, Japan situation... .-- en:User:Macropneuma 07:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm removing this tag per WP:DRIVEBY - I can't see any clear discussion on this talk page of what specific areas are in question in terms of neutrality. Please remember to discuss concerns on the talk page and use mainspace tags sparingly. TechnoSymbiosis ( talk) 00:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Wrong! Complete rubbish about driveby! Superficial reading doesn't count. Read this talk page. Duh!–tired of this bald bias poving.-- en:User:Macropneuma 03:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see, what is really getting Macropneuma's organic goat is my removal of Fukuoka's "enlightenment" experience. My feeling is that it is pretty impossible to independently verify whether "enlightenment" and so, therefore, I suggest we just leave it as he or his supporters "claimed" it was enlightenment or satori. To the best of my knowledge, no religious tradition acknowledged his enlightened state per se.
The fact is he was also hugely ill from stress, trauma and disease, and did behave rather oddly, so knows what it really was ... a nervous breakdown or what. "Claimed" is safest. The Wikipedia is not a fan site. Iyo-farm ( talk) 18:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Macropneuma, the guideline you're looking for is at WP:REF. From that guideline:
Refer also to WP:CITEVAR which states that on the list of "To be avoided unless there is consensus" is "Changing the section heading to or from References, Notes, etc.". You changed the title away from References without consensus. Please do not change the section titles without consensus, per the guideline. TechnoSymbiosis ( talk) 04:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
...You changed the section headings without consensus with me, as did ?Iyo-farm? documentarily do blanking and do everything without consensus... ... . It's all above. You're not 'the boss' Don't tell me what i'm looking for. When i've already found and provided it WP:FNNR. You didn't provide it, nor get consensus here, nor start this talk section until after your wrong edits. "Other references" ignores even more WP:FNNR policy and others—rhetoric of "normal WP style" has no meaning just abuse, quoting you "Retitled. Please find a way to incorporate these in normal WP style." from 23:58, 8 March 2011 Edit
Where is the primary relevance of WP:REF to reference section headings? Where in the WP:REF page does reference section headings get covered as a primary section? It's not covered there as primary policy. That page one whole page Wikipedia:Citing sources is about the contents of the sections, about Citing sources. You are factually wrong again including your undoing my corrective edits per WP:LAYOUT— WP:FNNR. How many times to i have to cite WP:LAYOUT— WP:FNNR; Which is right!—A primary policy! Quoting:
Rabindranath Tagore—Here's a featured article, more than just a good article; Having the following sections, all accepted by consensus according to policy: "
8 Corpus
9 Quotations
10 Notes
11 Citations
12 References
13 Further reading
14 External links"
No consensus!; And policy-wise factually wrong, and against good spirit of Wikipedia, good faith, and not a bureaucracy. A complete waste of a talk section heading here.-- en:User:Macropneuma 06:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I suggest for consensus the best for the page, for readers, the layout:
The numbering will change if other sections do, of course.
References is for the purpose of reliable third party scholarly source references used as the main basis for the article facts.-- en:User:Macropneuma 06:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
You've missed all the points i've made and primary policies that i've cited. OK "L"->"l" my typo here—fixed. Cannot have consensus until you read and get all... .-- en:User:Macropneuma 06:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Then,
I suggest for consensus the best for the page, for readers, the layout:
According to the primary guideline policy of WP:FNNR, again!
The numbering will change if other sections do, of course.
As was the state of it."Footnotes", before it was broken without any consensus at all, see 09:19, 6 February 2011.
References is for the purpose of reliable third party scholarly source references used as the main basis for the article facts.
Of featured article Rabindranath Tagore, you've completely missed the points i made of, quoting: "
9 Quotations
10 Notes
11 Citations
12 References"
Read what the contents of those sections contain. Note the up to date formatting policy i've use when there's no disruptive editing of WP:LDR, as used in the contents of those sections.-- en:User:Macropneuma 07:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
When time, readers' understanding shows it needs to be split into sources' sections which show:
Suggest according to WP:FNNR, featured article Rabindranath Tagore and many Japanese biographies i've read here, according with the manual of style for Japanese articles and for biographies:
then if ever necessary, the definitively less necessary documents which may be listed as:
as different from
I've thought closely and deeply through all of these above, and starting implementing, in much editing alone prior to 'the bad faith, no–consensus, ambush'. None of which has been acknowledged here. (Very much in evidence in hindsight now, grossly) ungrateful and warring TEs.
Quoting the same policy again:
.-- en:User:Macropneuma 08:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I've got many better people to engage with...(evidently), really genuinely better processes here, and better activities to do generally than ever getting drawn in to playing games of trivial pursuit in Wikipedia here? No consensus!... No to rubbish!... No superficial rubbish!... . –Not interested generally here, in anyone's brutal misconstruing or any kind of misconstruing.-- en:User:Macropneuma 03:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Take a read of Isaac Newton.-- en:User:Macropneuma 05:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Take a read of Jane_Austen but you can't edit it.-- en:User:Macropneuma 05:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
TechnoSymbiosis Take a read of Harold Pinter.-- en:User:Macropneuma 00:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Macropneuma most certainly does not have any consensus whatsoever to clutter up and return the topic to the garbage it was before. All the needless duplications of Japanese, all the other duplications, all the quirky laying out, all the obsessiveness.
I am sorry but no.
Macropneuma, this is not your own personal, romantic memorial to Fukuoka. I am sorry but you obviously have good knowledge but no idea how to compose a topic page.
I genuinely encourage you again to start your own WIki on Masanobu Fukuoka on, say, Wikia. Unfortunately, you misunderstand entirely the nature of a Wikipedia topic page.
I am proposing we move to a topic ban on Macropneuma. There is really no reason why the rest of the community ought be burden with this kind of problem. Iyo-farm ( talk) 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
So what point are you trying to make Macropneuma? What is NPOV about the topic?
Look at the topic for Jesus. Now quite a few people believe he is God or the Son of God. His more notable than Masanobu. But you cannot say IS on the Wikipedia. You can say claimed, venerated as etc but you cannot make definitive statements about stuff like that. Many people having nervous breakdowns turn their lifes around, many hit the bottom and transform etc. It is a good think BUT you cannot deify someone on the basis of his claims.
What point are you make about Japanese? I am against this topic being littered with Japanese, because it adds nothing, and I am against it being turned into a liturgy in memory of Fukuoka. It is a English language encyclopedia. A well written 'less' is more.
As for the farm, you have snap out of your denial, Macropneuma. The family don't farm Fukuoka style. They farm in neat rows covered in black plastic. The hill is neglected and overgrown. It is roped off and they don't show it to strangers. The pagoda and huts are all falling to pieces, many have already died. I know that, I took the pictures.
The other hill you mention where the fruit is grown is elsewhere, a drive away. I've been there too. Mostly it is too steep to farm anything but at the top and around the edges one of Fukuoka's old students keeps up a little of the old ways. This is not for inclusion on the Wiki, just a personal note. I find it sad that all the money taken from the sale of books goes to a way of farming that is different (I guess it is what bought the grandson his farm). The old house is unlived too and looks like it has not been cleaned since Larry Korn was there. Iyo-farm ( talk) 17:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the list of people influenced, I think that it's apparent that Fukuoka has influenced a great number of people and that we clearly can't list all of them. My suggestion would be to limit the list to between 3 and 5 particularly notable people, leaving the paragraph clear that it's not a full list with phrasing along the lines of 'such as', 'including' or 'and others'. The last one is probably least preferred as it could be seen as vague or weasel-ish. TechnoSymbiosis ( talk) 01:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course, I know far more notable individuals he has influenced but, unfortunately, most are unreferenced. The problem is, most of the ones Macropneuma lists are non-notable. Unless they can make a Wikipedia topic of their own, I cannot see how they can be included. Iyo-farm ( talk) 17:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi.
I would like help from individuals with Wikipedia experience to clean up this article according to Wikipedian standards. I apologize when I write that despite years of attention the article really is in a little bit of a mess and purely from a literary point of view, is difficult to read.
Is anyone going to take great offence if I start copyediting it?
I have to say that I agree with others comments regarding its lack of encyclopedic style, and that the Wikipedia is not the place for such a personal article about Fukuoka.
I would like to see a wonderful, professional article about Fukuoka that reflects fully his positive influence. -- Iyo-farm ( talk) 02:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Macropneuma,
What I have written at RfC, and will take through any admin page you wish to argue it on, is that you need to take your 'obsessiveness' about with Fukuoka elsewhere. For example, start a Fukuoka Wiki all of your own at Wikia.com where you can go into each element in detail.
I mean this positively and sincerely.
You obviously have a lot of knowledge and many references but you cannot write in plain and simple English.
Your article was so difficult to understand and follow. It is layered with unnecessary duplication.
I think you are also using wiki-formatting in a very strange and unique way which makes the topic very hard to sort. -- Iyo-farm ( talk) 16:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Complete rubbish about my personal qualities above. A gratuitous, attempted personal attack.
Identify yourself User:Iyo-farm –Seemingly evident Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, especially Avoiding scrutiny, WP:GHBH, WP:SOCK#NOTIFY – an absolute newcomer who has some evident Wikipedia experience (elsewhere?) –which begs only to start the process of asking the questions, not then yet the conclusion; Then with seemingly evident mixture of both good faith and of bad faith together; Then in editing actions and in writing above: dismissive and gratuitously abusive words towards me without citing any specifics of examples of any evidence and without acknowledging my successful extensive editings' expansion of the page since the previous 2010 state of it: [6], nor of my various earlier 2006 critical corrections of serious errors, referencing and expansions of it: 2006 before and 2006 after then 2006 before and 2006 after, then a few more edits in 2009, etc., talking above at cross–purposes, unresponsiveness, uncooperative, rather than constructive and cooperative in an editing team together with me;
For two examples, evidently & objectively gratuitously wrong, willful attempts to offend me, and to grossly exaggerate negativity, quoting from above:
–and see the rest above; Never have i had such crassly rude, wrong, abusive and ignorant, flouting of Wikipedia's civility, assume good faith, and etiquette rules and guidelines, directed at me, who has done so much successful, referenced & appreciated work here [7] according to many associates of the man himself and many nature farmers; Absurdly, without so much as a scintilla of established dialogue beforehand. Do you have an axe to grind. Did you in fact actually rhetorically ask "...Is anyone going to take great offence if I start copyediting it..." because you had already made your plans, intent on uncivilly deliberately offending the one person?, me, who you even associated with an (quote:) "anyone" in that sentence –rudely as an absent third person–, me, who has done nearly all the editing for practical purposes alone for the last six months; How about 'learning the ropes' of this article, of some of its history of editing and editors, of its vandals, of its 'semi-vandals' –those superficially veiled detractors of the man himself–, establishing dialogue and then consensus, and then being bold by adding value to the article, as Wikipedia policy requires. - It's understandable and fair enough, that as i know i have, i've got into a rut being stuck on my own editing alone and batting off vandals for six months, including having somewhat followed the 'even deeper rut' which i also know about, of the previous way many edits by others had been worded before i started editing on Aug 3rd 2010 [8] as 120.156.57.75 before renewing and re-registering my old login again; I require team work not loose-cannon abusers; And because, had you also already made plans to offend those worldwide who accept and appreciate late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu by your writing about him dismissively, of his internationally accepted experiences and messages? Also, by your editing which broke the page formatting [9] and which diminished this biography to the simplistic point of a so called 'for dummies' page???;
Here's four examples of proper main English Wikipedia (rather than simple English Wikipedia) encyclopaedic biographies about people from non-English speaking backgrounds: Indian: Rabindranath Tagore, Japanese: Haruki_Murakami, Matsuo_Bashō, Jun'ichirō_Tanizaki – hence the conventions of biographies of people from non-English speaking backgrounds –see Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), MOS:; Here's one biography from an English speaking and Jewish background: Noam Chomsky; – Some of all of these with some of the up to date formatting conventions, especially on refs and citations: Rabindranath Tagore, and including team work by some apparently well informed editors. These people articles also have similar levels of world-wide influence and hence importance, as late Mr Fukuoka Masanobu does have for example in India, Greece, Thailand and Spain. This page and i need assistance, in that i've been expanding & editing this page almost entirely on my own because of lack of help by well enough informed people.
Late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu wrote in Japanese in internationally accepted scholarly journals and in scholarly terms in his own many Japanese books and papers published by both himself and the most renowned publishers appropriate to his subject matters, such as Jiji Press Co., Hakujusha co., Shunjusha co., NHK national public broadcaster, etcetera.
– Furthermore of my speculation about anonymous personally abusive User:Iyo-farm: –perhaps a person or persons i don't know who, who're personally angry at me for some undisclosed reason from my personal life outside Wikipedia, trolling directly at my work here in Wikipedia??? –I don't know, (don't care for trolls) and i refuse to become paranoid! It seems most likely on the small proportion of other English speaking people i know who understand his messages, that a person who finds this page "difficult to read", finds it so because of lack of 'awareness and brightness' on their own part, as has proven inescapably necessary for appreciating late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's own influential messages which have ramified outwards from the few 'Westerners' who clearly do appreciate them, his:
All of which are required as minimal for if here would be a truly representative encyclopaedic article – I have met many more 'western' people, a larger proportion, who have in their own systemic biases felt too scared by those true deep messages he has made about life and reality, some of my own family included, and haven't wanted to admit them at all – which of course is not a reason to not write up his full and true messages here in an encyclopaedic article, not a reason to understate his worldwide credibility with those experts in his subject fields, in fact if that is the motivating issue here behind the words of abuse and bad editing and so on, it would be a perversion of Wikipedia reasoning –see Wikipedia:Systemic bias; –Especially as evident in their gratuitous deleting of the quotations of his own ultimate goal in life and his ultimate goal in farming, quoted in the top of the page in the introduction [10]:
“ | My ultimate dream is to sow seeds in the desert. To revegetate the deserts is to sow seed in people's hearts.
The greening of the desert means sowing seeds in people's hearts and creating a green paradise of peace on earth. |
” |
— Masanobu Fukuoka, 1984 自然に還る English translation 1987 The Road Back to Nature -page 360 1992 わら一本の革命・総括編「神と自然と人の革命」 English translation 1996 The Ultimatum of God Nature•The One-Straw Revolution•A Recapitulation -page 203 |
“ | ...The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings. | ” |
— Masanobu Fukuoka, 1975 自然農法-わら一本の革命 English translation 1978 The One-Straw Revolution -page 119 |
An edit history alone or with consensus, last example 09:19, 6 February 2011; Diff's example; And Editing in progress history item 07:51, 9 February 2011. An attempt re-start the process of continuing editing according to consensus processes, after using rvv to recover damage done without consensus. Never was any consensus for blanking nor my accepting of any above WP:NPA –clearly evident–perverseness.
(only copyedit heading for links citation rendering – -- macropneuma 06:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC) )
Wikipedia:CLAIM—Especially as evident from the edit to what did previously read ( at 09:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)), quoting:
–which is internationally accepted by reputable international organisations appreciating these philosophical norms, such as Indian Government & many universities, Japanese government and universities, Japanese national public broadcaster television station NHK, the Philippines government and their organisation awarding the 'Asian Nobel Prize' to him in 1988 (The Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation one major example ref. of many), the United Nations, etcetera.
The article after their first edit (14:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)), and their edits (02:34, 7 February 2011 till now (UTC)) reads dismissively, factually–wrongly and negatively (not positively at all), quoting:
(his "kaigo" forms one of several forms of actual satori experience and a more specific in meaning synonym of satori (which has a more overarching general meaning), not a likeness or mere claim of it); Satori, he did experience at age 24-5, this is accepted worldwide in much evidence by those people who do accept the meaning of the word satori; this changed his whole life and led to his influence throughout the world today, which must get emphasied in any unbiased biography of him -References: Wikipedia:Systemic bias, (ref 1) (ref 2).
An anonymous person, evidently having some limited previous Wikipedia editing experience, while evidently also lacking awareness of some of the up-to-date formatting Wikipedia-conventions which i used, gratuitously abused me about accusing me about my "wiki-formatting" without providing any specific examples of evidence nor any discussion prior to their editing; Which saying it again in this context: now has really broken the page formatting [11] –quoting their above gratuitous and unspecified 'negativity' towards me:
–Especially negative, as evident in their comments above in the context of their edits now made, which have broken the page and really messed it up specifically for ref citations and wrecked it to the point of making it non-encyclopaedic for many other aspects –for those other editors and admins reading this talk – for refs citations i use as up to date instructions and formatting conventions from the following manual pages, see: Wikipedia Manual of Style (footnotes) #List-defined references, Template Reflist, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes) (in general the whole page's advice), Help Footnotes, Wikipedia:Citing sources|, WP:IBID, etcetera;
They're hiding behind anonymity here and have refused to respond and directly discuss with me or act constructively here, rather gratuitously abusing, talking at cross purposes and attempting to blame me for their own lack of knowledge of "wiki-formatting" up-to-date conventions, especially again those refs citations.
Yes, i am a successful nature farmer and a professional field ecologist and IT professional, including successfully doing professional writing, while i appreciate also, ineffable meanings. If foolishness is at play here, I don't suffer fools gladly and am personally well known for not doing so – having no regrets about that.
I'm in progress of making it more readable as i have been busy expanding and updating the formatting for many a long working time. This, late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's biography & i need help with the many hours of work i've done here already, not gratuitous abuse and obscrurantism of his life, his biography. Don't pretend that your opinions are any more than your opinions, that is why everything i appear to opine is in fact documented in his references, in Wikipedia manuals for conventions, and in writings by many of his supporters, associates, family and experts. I'm left with no other option than to suspect you, that you have issues and ulterior motives, which you're hiding behind your above abuse and unwillingness to come out of secret anonymity (not merely anonymity alone, obviously), eg. perhaps as has been typical of many wrong editors here in this Wikipedia page, have you come gratuitously out of greed for money from selling one of late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's English translation books, in his own descriptions of them: simplistic English translation of his Japanese writings, some of them inserting their own, translator's opinions, in an un-scholarly way (Reference: his section about this "The Road Back To Nature") – into what he, late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu has written in his own literature. Alternatively, perhaps are you someone who thinks they know more about late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu than everyone else and has been caught out by this page demonstrating with evidence that you don't actually know as much about him biographically as you thought you did, and claimed to others that you did, and that you cant take credit for having taken the time to write this page up properly, nor have you actually done a research project on his life and works, by which you can learn properly about his life, his biography. A scholarly, professional but unpaid research project on Masanobu Fukuoka, I actually have done in the last six months with assistance of professional Japanese scholars and of scholarly writing generally, of which this article page which is still in progress, is but one form of my 'produce'! – -- en:User:Macropneuma 00:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC) (immediate response,) and updated at: -- en:User:Macropneuma 07:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
First off I think it is high time that this article has had some view from other editors. It has for since August last year been the entirely controlled by a single editor. A classic case of
WP:OWNERSHIP. There have been numerous deviations from the
Manual of style. Perhaps the largest problem is one of
Undue weight whilst the influence of Fukuoka on the alternative farming community is clear, the impact of his more philosophical writings is less clear. There does need to be some mention of this but it needs more balance.
I hope that a way of working on the article can be acheived, But that will require everyone to refrain from personal attacks.-- Salix ( talk): 19:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Macropneuma, you seem to have strong personal attachment to this article for reasons that aren't clear to me. I'm not going to reply to comments you've made about me directly (such as my talk page comment which was there solely to make sure my talk link wasn't red) because they're not relevant to improving the article here. You've attacked other editors, made accusations of ignorance and sock-puppetry and written a veritable essay in response to honest criticism of the article quality that you seem to have taken as a personal insult. Please, again, remember the assume good faith and remember that we're all here to improve the article. If other editors commenting on and working on the article bothers you, please consider taking a step back to get some fresh perspective. As Salix pointed out, it seems like you feel you own the article, and that's not conducive to good collaborative editing. TechnoSymbiosis ( talk) 00:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
For ?User Iyo-farm's? issues, here's two Wikipedia policy quotations:
There's been so many loaded, graceless words started by others than me, and attempts to 'press my buttons' in euphemistic or 'politically correct' words... . Unlike that of ?User Iyo-farm's? evident approach since starting editing this article, i'm so very happy working in teams with people, including people like me and people very different from me. One-upmanship, etcetera, is not in accord with Wikipedia five pillars, constitution, other policies, nor with anywhere working cooperatively more widely in our Earth. The most highly pertinent information is: –A few references: Wikipedia:Systemic bias, (ref 1) (ref 2)
(Small copyedits updated - -- en:User:Macropneuma 03:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC) )
Macropneuma,
in essence, you've been trying to turn this topic page into a shrine for all things Fukuoka and it has become choked. To a degree, I think you have idolized the "Japaneseness" element, a common issue with Fukuoka adherents. Unfortunately, this is an English language encyclopedia, and English language references are largely good enough.
(Small copyedits, updated - -- en:User:Macropneuma 03:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC) )
I suppose if you wanted, you could make a separate page for List of Masanobu Fukuoka Publications or List of Natural Farming Publications and see how you get on. I would not certainly object to that. If they wont let you do it as a main topic, why not make it as a subsidiary resource to this page to help others?
The rest does not require responding to but there are a few references you could help us with if you care.
Thank you. -- Iyo-farm ( talk) 05:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Aah, if you care! Read all of what i've written in the edits, the mass of history, the talks above... . When do you stop pretending to be the authoriser of what can and can't get established, completely having ignored the fact that i did all that checking already, according to Wikipedia policies of referenced sources. Somewhere back up there above in the talk, you were gratuitously abusing me for too many references – evidently your bad, your blanking—deletion and rejection attitude! – logically can't be anyone else's! Nearly all the English writing you in your edits have now kept, was written by me, and much of what you have blanked was written by editors editing before me – so called: 'can't write plain and simple English', huh! Gratuitously, violently trying to put out a fence towards me, for edits. ???
Learn all about that stuff and a lot more besides, which you say above: "I suppose..." about, before you come hack editing and personally attacking editors. Duh! Consensus!!!? For so many meanings on so many fronts, you have now made the page so very factually wrong (also on so many fronts) – really broken and broken the evidence base of required referenced sources – according to so much scholarly evidence i have, some of which i used in the page, and much of that which you have, for now, destroyed. Who the WP:NPAer do you think you are. Redeem yourself with me, to my satisfaction, towards Wikipedia's–requirement, policy of consensus with me, before vainly trying to turning on a dime asking me to personally help you with your (evident so far often bad...) edits – too many examples to bother with, eg. one silly example, you don't even have clear in your so called thought his birth date. I could tell you his correct birth date in my sleep nowadays.-- en:User:Macropneuma 07:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
(Small copyedits, updating for readability, welcoming new editors - -- en:User:Macropneuma 04:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC) )
My internet allowance was used up just at the right time for me to no longer access any more here, your words full of gratuitous personal attacks, such as those above. – A mere saying: 'The cosmos's great spirit works in mysterious ways, to humans'. I knew this, my internet allowance would run out and i didn't feel any need to renew it as I'm a–good–kind–of–busy in my tens of acres with many years in my experience, 自然農園 (nature farm)!–Huh! Busy in my practise which you abusively, back stab-ingly wrote here in Wikipedia you don't know about ( Ref.). Of course you don't know about it, how could you – suits me fine now – enough of my having been gratuitously ignored and gratuitously personally attacked, etcetera by the most uncooperative ... i've encountered. ... . I have never had anything to prove in relation to my philosophy and practise of this sustainability subject. My writing is backed by verified and verifiable reliable sources, as is my personal practises and philosophies. I don't have to say "I think" about them because i have evidence in writing, in photos, in many friend's direct observations, etcetera. Just because you don't know me, that doesn't have any meaning. It's just that you don't know me and that's all.
(Small copyedits and a few additions of more of these simple quotations, for clarity, for readability—for effectively welcoming different editors. - -- en:User:Macropneuma 01:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC) ) (Clarification update by adding one very much plainer English clause to an existing above sentence. -- en:User:Macropneuma 03:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC) )
Baseless, un-evidenced and grossly–ignorant–of–me casting of aspersions towards me just bounces them off the smoke and mirrors you've anonymously put out and up all around yourself in words here, reflecting back on you extraordinarily badly... . (evident now Straw man... . Consensus and policy respect, with you 3 or 2 or even 1, now absolutely requires this... :) .)
Merely one minor reference of many hundreds there, quoting for you directly here, with extra clarifying and simplifying words added for you, is:
Check the reliable dictionaries' sources yourself if you care! – The evidences of the most reliable dictionaries' sources are of course cited where necessary as footnotes in my recent edits of the page! Eg. Kenkyusha's dictionary. Look up this Japanese, in a dictionary: 自然の 農法。!
I do my research and check my sources beforehand, in my professional second–nature. That so called claim in ?Iyo-farm's? talk immediately above about late Mr. Okada Mokichi is just a so called 'land grab'– Lies! Again without any evidence or substance provided. Mokichi Okada's organisations today, in their own nature farming (collective) research institute's book by Xu, Hui-lian (2006) "Nature Farming in Japan" ISBN: 81-308-0119-1, which i referenced in my edits:
Specifically, two quotations with copyedits for simplifying them, including by expanding and punctuating them more (–more or less arbitrary decisions), into somewhat long-hand spelled-out–language for you:
Ref. for "wholeheartedly devoted himself" –his Japanese, a quotation:
大正2(1913)年、伊子市大平で生まれる。1933年に岐阜高等農林卒業後、横浜税関に勤務。25歳の春、後に自然農法実践の哲学となる 「人智・人為ー切無」の天啓を得て、退職。西日本放浪を経て帰郷。無の哲学を米と蜜柑作りを通じて実現するため、終戦の日以降、自然農法ー筋の百姓に打ち込む。
そしてついに1950年、米麦連続不耕起栽培技術を完成、自然農法を確立。25年後の1975年、『自然農法 わら一本革命』として世に問い、アメリカなど11ヶ国で翻訳。世界中で読者を得、民間人おして世界で最もよく知られる日本人となった。
'I think' 2 years is different to quoting you "20 years"!!! 'I think', much more significantly that late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's 1937–onwards initiated "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)" is very different from late Mr. Okada Mokichi's 1950 name change to "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)". 'I think' that late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's 1947 written up and "established" "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)" is very different from late Mr. Okada Mokichi's 1950 name change to "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)". 'I think' significant is that late Mr. Okada Mokichi's 1935 till 1950 officially titled in Japanese "[i'll check up that Japanese text later], Fertilizer-free Agriculture [as translated to English]", is very different from late Mr. Okada Mokichi's later 1950–onwards defined "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)", based on my reliable evidence sources, available on request, eg. Xu, Hui-lian (2006) "Nature Farming in Japan" -pp. 10 – 12, 134 – 140, etc. ISBN: 81-308-0119-1 which i've actually read! 'I think' that late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu's fully proven in practise accomplishment of "Rice & Barley continuous succession no-till farming" from 1950–onwards, is very different from late Mr. Okada Mokichi's 1950–onwards name change to "自然農法 (shizen nōhō, nature farming)". (example ref.: 1985 "The Natural Way of Farming" eg. p. 177) (Longer detailed references supplied on request, of course).
Late Mr. Okada Mokichi and late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu lived at home in Japan; Spoke Japanese and spoke Japanese idioms; Came from their culture, Japanese; Can get understood relatively simply, even with their deep philosophies, from any various, informed, "neutral", Japan–experienced–people's insider's views looking outwards (evidence); Comparatively however, they cannot get understood easily at all from a Japanese–outsider's view looking inwards (–especially their philosophies); – You don't like that??? (–as suggested by your gratuitously abusive negativity expressed towards so called "Japaneseness" above? –quoting you above: "...idolized the "Japaneseness" element...". Such a lot of rot!... Honest–robust communication, robust respect, correctness and reliable verified evidences, i respect as having so much value and importance, not your evidently–silly made–up so called 'Japaneseness' nor your gratuitous abuse of me of so called "idolized the..." anyone or anything. ...you don't have a clue who i am, not knowing me at all. Duh! Next, are you gonna tell me that you can read my mind—absurdly impossible! So much rot that i should not–ever have to come to all of this problem solving parenthetical–level – All obviously, your evidently–silly projections of images—imaginings—from your mind, onto 'pre–existing'–pre–'conceptions'—'pre-imaginings' which YOU so–clearly–wrongly imagine towards me; Wrong judgementalisms too, in other words.) Late Mr. Okada Mokichi and late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu! – Japanese people! They cannot be anyone else; Get used to it! Duh! Can you not cope with and respect fully people of Japanese nature, as suggested by your above words abusive of my respect? Duh! Is it some deep fear and loathing or whatever??? Dear o Dear! What the ... are you doing editing a biography of a Japanese person then, if you seemingly don't like the Japanese, or the insider's view of the Japanese?
That's what makes good subject matter editors in each respective article's subject matter here. In other words, editors who genuinely know their subject matter (from the inside outwards...), with reliable evidence sources – not with pretending, nor bias, nor mere hearsay, at all; – And not just Google wack'n' the subject!... –Not a reliable source per se at all – WP:GYNOT— approx. 275,000 en & approx. 39,300 ja Googles can only assist on the way to getting to the reliable sources and with the initial indications of notability for new articles, but it is not a reliable source in itself, nor a final test of notability, nor "to verify the accuracy of information" –there quoting from WP:GYNOT. Even Google scholar, Google books and Google news have a systemic bias with Japanese, such as missing hundreds of reliable news, citations of and scholarly articles about and by late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu and (his sense of) nature farming; While for editing biographies of Japanese people here in Wikipedia, Japanese–owned search engines, referencing about him in news, in scholarly journal writing, in books and in library holdings, prove up the reverse of that bias, by showing in total hundreds of reliable sources, millions of literature citations of him (in WebCatPlus), and of bibliographic listings of his scholarly journal writing and books. Evidently, you can't possibly have even tried these, nor even the imperfect–for–Japanese–people's–work English or Japanese Google scholar. –clearly apprehended WP:BIAS!
He only ever writes in Japanese! Of course! Translators and so on write the rest! Inevitable losses in translation processes!, especially of course, translations of idioms! Editors of formatting, mere proof readers, and so on, who are not subject to the need of subject matter expertise at all, can do great assistance–work in team work with any subject matter editors, obviously; If they have good faith and respect everyone, including themselves! Of course, (in the singular sense) there is no Wikipedia view nor end, specifically on each article's specific subject; Only general policies, not specific policies on only one individual article; Encyclopaedic policies, evidence from reliable sources, verifiable, neutrality, biography writing policies, Japan articles' policies, editor relations' & consensus policies, and all the rest of the policies, which in turn remain subject to change by consensus; No specific view nor end on Masanobu Fukuoka! at all – that's absurd, of course! Just neutrality on all article subject matters, according to reliable evidence sources, cited! Of course, Wikipedia provides not an end at all but (only) a means!
Wikipedia etiquette precludes one from saying here, what to me your edits' critically–evidence about your levels of respect, civilisation, language, listening, reading, knowledge, civility, consensus, co-operation, awareness, information, evidences, reliable sources, research, resources, Japanese respect & skills, references, etcetera – In this case here, on the subject of biography of 故福岡正信さん (late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu). Who the ... are you, rather than who you think you are?
For a wee little bit of your edification ( WP:AGF), from a very little bit of this, my large research, (and practise and sustainable way of life); More than you personally evidently–above deserve ( WP:AGF) from me after so much gratuitous personal abuse started by you, (separate from what general Wikipedia and us, it's general readers and editors, generally deserve, which is much more); Here's: Yamagishi movement and Janong Natural Farming, Korea, which derives from it –the Yamagishi 'cult1 movement'. Note 1) Advisedly, I nickname it a 'cult movement' based on this quotation from that Wikipedia page: "The movement has been sued by former members seeking to recover their financial assets, which were required to be donated when they joined." and my reading of the Japanese media on it: eg. Ref 1.
I am correct to have called you out and closely scrutinised you on your presumptuous user name ?Iyo-farm? here, by my above asking politely for you to show due cause for such a presumptuous user name as ?Iyo-farm? in an editor of the article of late Mr. Masanobu Fukuoka – Who was born, bred and lived nearly all his life in Iyo (district), and who's family has lived there (ancestrally) for apparently 1,300 years or so, according to records; You still have not yet answered this – WP:SPA. The same would occur if, while extensively editing, restructuring and expanding the article Masanobu Fukuoka, i had presumptuously named my user name "Masanobu Fukuoka" or "shizen nouhou" or "Fukuoka-farm" or "Fukuoka-farmer" or similar.
Anyone can edit Wikipedia according to the policies, including respect, reliable sources, no copyright violations, consensus, etcetera; Not according, evidently, to unilateral decisions, personal attacks, and editorialising, etcetera... .
I never criticised your infobox per se; Read all of what i wrote extensively above; That one of many mistakes i wrote about above, was about his life's birth and death dates wherever they are written in your multiple edits at that time. Fixed now, i never had any worries about that per se, just the point! Saying a tokenistic sorry about a non-problem which i never addressed myself to, while not saying any substantial sorry about specific gross problems now on the page, doesn't make sufficient 'anything'. Not to mention about your gratuitous attacks towards my person. Where do you even get those of your evidently un-sourced and wrong personal opinions about late Mr. Masanobu Fukuoka, now on the page, from anyway; And also about ecological processes (rather than aesthetic opinions)?; And also about, what is now his family's farm? Your farm photos are selective and grossly unrepresentative – WP:BIAS, WP:W2W & WP:UNDUE etcetera ... – There are many different very recent photos which show very different impressions of different parts of the farm, the opposite of so called neglected; And especially continuing the key, influential, annual crops in straw mulched cropping areas. Anyway, nature grows itself in forests everywhere, with so called neglect; So called neglect, an appearance only, an aesthetic prejudice word towards its mere appearance (ref.); If the owner says they didn't want that to happen, says they've neglected it in not doing work they did intend to do and they say that harm has come from that; Then if, this owner's own words has a reliable and verifiable source, it would get published here with the source, for everyone to check it and learn from it for themselves. (Copyedit adding clarification from an independent same–scenario source, from a Reuters newspaper article source.—'neglect' appearance prejudice. – -- en:User:Macropneuma 03:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC))
For one of several example sources, I respectfully access a series of public photos from Summer 2010, on a professional journalist's personal page—I already corrected you above mentioning this, my public source above—sufficiently for you but very briefly; All the same though, in time for you to not make the mistakes on the page which you have now grossly made; And in time for you to show an interest in those photos i mentioned, which you have not– (I have not yet got permission from him to cite here in Wikipedia his personal page, or an anticipatory–archive of it, nor yet asked him to publically release his professional photos into this, Wikipedia, as 'public domain' or fair use.); These include the professional journalist–photographer's English language descriptions of his invitation from the family, allowing him to spend a couple of days at the Fukuoka farms, of his meeting some of the family including 'the son', of his touring, of his doing farm work there in the citrus orchard for those days, and of his learning first hand about the workings of the farm from the family; Also of course of, photographing the farm and presenting his Japanese captioned photographs and Japanese descriptive text on his personal Japanese page.
Nothing you have said about me at all, rings true at all, or gets supported by evidence, or could be recognised by me as me, or by the many people who actually do personally know me. The page now has grossly wrong errors – the effects of evident–wrongheadedness WP:POV ...; And those gross errors of which do occur, do so against all reliable sources and/or many Wikipedia policies on those relevant particular editing aspects; – In overall biography impression, and inclusive of some key meanings there, now grossly erroneous ... .
... .
. Eg.: WP:DONOTDEMOLISH – WP:BUILDER – WP:POTENTIAL – WP:CHANCE – WP:NPOV – WP:IRS . -- en:User:Macropneuma 11:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
(Small copyedits, updated, for clarity, correcting some facts referenced and for readability—for effectively welcoming different editors. - -- en:User:Macropneuma 07:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC) )
(Small copyedits, formatting on line into a heading for more readability, and regarding gratuitous & gross personal attacks attempts towards me. – -- macropneuma 10:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC) )