Talk:Yukio Mishima

Japanese Wikipedia wikilinks and {{nihongo}}

The sheer amount of {{nihongo}} and Japanese Wikipedia wikilinks confuses me, particularly when the English-language article is linked already. For example, in the lead, it links Confessions of a Mask (仮面の告白, Kamen no kokuhaku) (and repeats this twice for two of his other novels). There's already a wikilink to its English-language article, and I don't see how having the Japanese Wikipedia wikilink or {{nihongo}} helps the reader in any way. (Sometimes, in the rest of the article, I see the purpose of {{nihongo}}, but not here.) Yukio Mishima's own Japanese Wikipedia is linked in his Early life section, which made me giggle. I am going to be bold and remove some of the particularly tacky ones, but wanted to post here and ask why they were included in the first place. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 17:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Please understand that this article is the cumulative result of a multitude of editors over many years, none of whom may have coordinated their work with others. Many of these editors may no longer be invested in this article or even participate in Wikipedia. So feel free to do what you feel you have to do. The worst that can happen is that somebody else will disagree. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Understood, thank you for taking the time to reply. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 20:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Coup-attempt split

I feel like the coup attempt part should be split and expanded as its own article. It is a GA in Japanese Wikipedia. The current information alone is enough for at least a start class article, and with the information and refs available on the Japanese version I believe an article about it can be of very high quality. A person with a better understanding of Japanese than I may want to take a look. Zinderboff(talk) 06:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi,Zinderboff. I am the person who edited most of the articles on 三島事件 ("The Mishima Incident"). I am not very good at English, but I understand the entire contents of this article, so I have been thinking for a while about trying to create an English version using a translation app.

In order to avoid mistranslations, I will convert the original Japanese into simple sentences, convert old kana spellings (Historical kana orthography) into modern kana spellings (Modern kana usage), etc. (Mishima insisted on writing his novels and essays in old kana spelling, and there are other writers who do the same), and it will be a meticulous task, so I am thinking of first creating an entry in the form of a shortened version, and then gradually adding the necessary sections. I will post the translation on my sandbox page, and I would be happy if you could review the English grammar mistakes and strange terminology. Once the translation has progressed to a certain extent, I would like to announce it here.

Right now, I am trying to create an entry for a work of Shūsaku Endō in the Japanese version, and in parallel with that, I will proceed with the English translation of the Mishima Incident, so I don't know when I will be able to do it, but I will try to do it little by little. Thank you.

みしまるもも (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Wow, thank you so much for the work you put in! I will definitely take a look, although to note I'm not the greatest at English either. Zinderboff(talk) 05:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you're from China. I love Jet Li so, and I also like Kung fu films, and Hong Kong movies starring Chow Yun-fat. I also admire director John Woo. I'll let you know when I've finished drafting the article on the Mishima incident, so please look forward to it. It's Obon (visiting graves and ancestral worship) season now, so I'm planning to start working on it a little later. みしまるもも (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course, take your time! I find Japanese culture extremely fascinating. It is sad I can only really read Kanji and attempts to learn Hiragana and Katagana before ended in failure. I would love to come visit again some day, the last time I went I had a fantastic time! Thank you again for your contributions! Zinderboff(talk) 22:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I have linked my sandbox page on my talk page, I'll also link here. →"User:みしまるもも/sandbox" Thank you. --みしまるもも (talk) 07:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the "coup attempt and ritual suicide" section, which was getting very long and repetitive, and had lots of extra detail that was not necessary for a long article on Mishima's entire life. I agree that there is much more to say about the Mishima Incident, but the more minor details should go into a separate article entirely about the Mishima Incident, as per WP:SPLIT, with only the most important aspects summarized here, especially as this article is already over 9,000 words long (getting very close to too long). I'm very much looking forward to seeing みしまるもも's planned article on the Mishima Incident! --Ash-Gaar (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:VOICE and WP:SYNTH concerns in lead

Yesterday, I cut a paragraph in the lead because it misrepresented and possibly synthesized opinions as statements of fact. Neither are acceptable according to WP:VOICE and WP:SYNTH. Mishimarumomo reverted me shortly thereafter. I did not reply in kind, partly because I don't want them to get the wrong idea about their edits in general, which have been helpful and welcome.

The passage in question:

Mishima's age corresponds exactly to the number of years in the postwar Shōwa era, and the milestones and achievements of his life coincide with the historical events of Japan's rise and fall during the second period of the Shōwa era. As a result, he is often spoken of in Japan as a man who shared his life with the "Shōwa" and sharply shed light on the problems of that era.

If this paragraph were reworded so as to make clear to whom this subjective appraisal ought to be attributed it could be reincluded in the article. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

"Mishima's age corresponds exactly to the number of years in the postwar Shōwa era" - this is just plainly false, as we have pointed out. User みしまるもも's defense that even though the Shōwa era did not end until 1989, this statement is still somehow true because "hardly any major historical events happened in Japan after 1970" is a completely untenable expression of personal opinion that no credible secondary source is going to be able to adequately support. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually think it might make sense to add some sort of short graf about Mishima's legacy at the end of the lede, but it definitely should not be couched in terms of "Shōwa era," a term which hardly any English speakers will understand and which only makes sense to native Japanese speakers and scholarly specialists. This is *especially* true in the lede, which needs to be readily comprehensible to a broad audience. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

A consistent issue with a portion of みしまるもも's edits to this page is that they want to try to replicate the Japanese wiki page exactly, without doing adequate work to translate Japanese sentences into clear English prose and modify concepts and themes to better suit an English-language audience. I agree that these edits are in good faith, but the constant edit warring grows tiresome. In the past みしまるもも would not stop edit warring unless I personally translated every Japanese sentence on the talk page, which I did for a while, but could not do forever. Writing in clear, fully translated English should be on the user making the edit, not on the person (or persons) reverting incomprehensible or inaccurate prose. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

As long as the statement is directly quoted and attributed to a particular author or authors, then it's fine. It would be very helpful if Mishimarumomo could provide a direct quote in Japanese, so those of us who know the language can translate for the article or at least understand the context of this opinion. (I think I have the Matsumoto book buried somewhere in my personal library; been looking for it since last night.) Otherwise, I agree that it's best to leave it out if the WP:VOICE and WP:SYNTH problems can't be resolved. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I agree. But again, even if properly cited, I don't think there should be elaborate metaphors about the Shōwa era in the lede. The body might be okay if done well. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, as mentioned, I don't want to go back to the situation where みしまるもも threatens to edit war unless we translate all their Japanese prose for them. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually looked at the JaWiki page, and the statement is equally inaccurate and vague in Japanese as far as I can tell: 「満年齢と昭和の年数が一致し、」 --Ash-Gaar (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for not being able to speak English as fluently as native speakers. However, it is true that Mishima's age is the same as the year number of the Shōwa era, and it is not a lie. For example, the year 1941 (Shōwa 16) was when Mishima was 16 years old. Also, the content I edited is the usual understanding in Japanese biographies of Mishima, so please understand that I did not edit it with any malicious intent to confuse people in English-speaking countries. Maybe I should have just written the "year number".

Mishima's age corresponds exactly to the year number of the Shōwa era,

Also, the term "満年齢" is difficult for people outside of Japan and China to understand. It means normal age. It is a term used to distinguish it from "数え年 (East Asian age reckoning." --みしまるもも (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you meant now! Thank you for the explanation. But that was different from what was originally stated. I would still oppose putting this in the lead, as it is very confusing to explain for non-Japanese speakers, but it might work in the "Legacy" section, especially if more explicitly attributed to someone other than the article's own authorial voice. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It's tricky because 年数 can also mean "total number of years" which was probably what was throwing off your English translation --Ash-Gaar (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:VOICE issues

In making extensive copy edits today for English-language readability issues, I encountered numerous instances where Mishima's opinions were phrased in a way as if they were factual statements or obvious points, rather than merely Mishima's personal opinions. For example, saying Mishima "pointed out" instead of Mishima "argued" or "believed." Since this is an encyclopedia article, please be careful to always use NPOV language and make clear that opinions are opinions, even if you personally agree with Mishima's views. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

In the Japanese version, the word "pointing out" (指摘) does not have such a strong meaning that it should be banned, and it is often used in many articles, but I will be careful in the English version. Thank you for letting me know. --みしまるもも (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, in English, "pointed out" means that you completely agree with the statement. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 05:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I accept the use of such language, but frankly, it makes me a little sad that it seems as Mr. Ash-Gaar has deleted parts of Mishima's argument that you personally dislike.--みしまるもも (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I strongly resent this comment. All of my edits are in good faith and you have no idea my own views are. As I have carefully detailed in my edit summaries, I have only deleted quotations where the English translation is extremely garbled as to be incomprehensible, quotations that are excessive or repetitive in an already long article, or quotations that are simply inaccurate. All of my edits are squarely aimed at improving this article in terms of comprehensibility, readabilty, and accuracy, and it's undeniable that I have done a huge amount of work to expand this article and make it as good as it can be. I always assume good faith on your part (WP:AGF) - even if I sometimes get a bit frustrated with your occasionally excessive zeal about Mishima, you have obviously done amazing work on this article, and I always assume you are trying your best to help Wikipedia. You should do the same for me. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

With regard to the most recent quotation at issue, I had no intention of deleting it, and indeed had made copy edits on it several times, clearly showing my intention to keep it. I only deleted it when I went and looked up the original English article Mishima wrote and found that you were completely mischaracterizing Mishima's view to make it sound like he was more strongly against leftists than he really was, rendering your original paragraph highly inaccurate. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I have now replaced that paragraph with a more accurate paragraph, that also improves article flow by helping to explain why Mishima was so excited to debate the Todai Zenkyōtō students, and why he was so disappointed in them afterwards. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

In Mishima's debate on the Zenkyoto, you added the phrase "Seeking common ground," but this is clearly your own original research. In Mishima's essay after the debate, he stated that the purpose of the debate was to clearly distinguish between the Zenkyoto and his opponents by telling them to "take it, take it," which is the "pill" (the Emperor), that the Zenkyoto could never take. In his dialogues with several other writers, Mishima also made very harsh and critical statements about the Zenkyoto. If you are not aware of Mishima's harshness as a critic and say that I am in some way siding with Mishima, this is a mistake that comes from not knowing much about Mishima's ideas and arguments. --みしまるもも (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

"Seeking common ground" is not my original research. That was simply my attempt to fix your improper English phrase "Mishima invited them." If you meant something different, you need to clarify what "invited them" actually means. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, you wrote that Mishima was "disappointed" in the Zenkyōtō students. If Mishima had already lost all hope in the left and had no hope for the students, and was only there to distinguish himself from them, how could he be "disappointed" with them? Please clarify. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The reason why Mishima was disappointed in them was because, in the actual discussion, it became clear that they could not understand the historical peculiarity of the Japanese Emperor, that the Emperor is the principle of revolution. I wrote this when I first edited it, but you deleted the part that said, they could not understand.--みしまるもも (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but saying he was "disappointed" in them means he had hopes they would understand his point of view about the emperor, and was disappointed that they did not. You say here that he was not in any way trying to find "common ground" with them, and was just cynically trying to show their hypocrisy, but in that case, I can't understand why he would feel disappointed in their not understanding. "Seeking common ground" means the same as "trying to achieve a shared understanding." I don't care about the specific phrase "seeking common ground," though, so if you feel it is wrong please replace it with something better, or delete it entirely. I'm just explaining why I put that phrase there, in connection with your word "disappointed" and your mysterious phrase "Mishima invited them". --Ash-Gaar (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

This is also another example of your tendency toward original research. You keep mentioning your interpretations of what Mishima said in his own writings and dialogues about this debate as your evidence, when you should be citing what reputable scholars and biographers have said about this debate instead. I do not necessarily doubt your interpretation, but at the same time I am not obligated to trust your original research of Mishima's writings if it's not written in a published secondary source. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

In this connection, the Hosaka Masayasu quotation might be best pulled out of the endnote and used to replace your own interpretation of the debate in the main text, making clear that it is Hosaka's opinion or view. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• I used the expression "disappointment" because it was a word that Mishima's friends pointed out and it was listed in secondary sources. It is not my own original research. One of the secondary sources I added is a dictionary compiled by an expert on Mishima studies, and the other is from Hosaka, who is not right-wing or anything but is rather left-wing. Both are proper and reliable sources.
• However, I think your opinion that the word "disappointment" is not appropriate is true. Even if Mishima spoke these words to try to get the Zenkyoto to accept the "Emperor" that they would never accept, if it actually turned out as expected, it may be strange for English speakers to interpret it as a feeling of "I knew it" as well as "disappointment".
• In an essay after the debate, Mishima said about them "They were not free from existing left-wing thinking" and "The discussion had to go nowhere", which seems to show that he felt such dissatisfaction. Whether it is perceived as "disappointment" like Mishima's friends may vary depending on the reader, so I will re-edit it with the facts of what Mishima said. In addition, in the notes, I write what the critic Hosuka (not a friend of Mishima) thought Mishima was specifically "disappointed" in. This "disappointment" was not a word I came up with in my own research.

みしまるもも (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

As for the New York Times article, the one that was published in the US was only a partial "abstract," not the entire text. And you again added your own research, saying, "Nevertheless, Mishima held out hope that the left and the right might be able to come together for the good of Japan." and used the word "pointed out," which I have banned. Your editing method is a double standard. And just like "pointed out," you added your own original research word "Mishima celebrated" to the edit, without understanding that Mishima was sarcastically and humorously viewing the actions of the left, who were pretending to be "nationalistic" in their protests against the US military bases, and the actions of the pro-American right, who were raising the American flag in opposition to them. Anyone who has read any of his other essays will quickly realize that Mishima did not fully endorse their actions. And around November 1969, when Mishima wrote this, he had already lost hope, so to say that he "had hope" based on one article for overseas audiences is, to put it bluntly, a shortsighted interpretation.--みしまるもも (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You are the one who first cited an English-language New York Times article, not me. And you quoted from it inaccurately to support your contention that Mishima hated the left. So it's weird for you to then turn around and criticize me for citing a "article for overseas audiences." You first cited that article, not me, and your quote was mistranslated to make it sound somewhat harsher than it really was. If you don't think the article is accurate, than you shouldn't cite it at all, not only quote from it selectively to support your point of Mishima hating the left. I'm not sure how anyone can read the sentence "Gradually, it has become difficult to paste simplistic labels on individuals to show who is Rightist, who is Leftist" and think that piece is only about hating the left. If you don't think that the New York Times piece is accurate, we should just remove that paragraph entirely. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I am NOT saying Mishima "celebrated" the left. I'm saying he celebrated "rising nationalism." Mishima was a nationalist and was glad that more people in Japan were being nationalistic. It doesn't mean he liked the left in general. "Pointed out" and "noted" are not absolutely banned. They are fine if used in relation to facts and not opinions. Do you think it was only Mishima's personal opinion that yakuza films were becoming popular with left-wing students? --Ash-Gaar (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

That is a fallacy and a double standard. If that is the case, then it would be strange if you did not acknowledge my writing style, which properly includes secondary sources explaining "what Mishima pointed out." Please observe proper editing etiquette. And Mishima does not praise "rising nationalism." He just describes the scene objectively. Please improve your reading comprehension.--みしまるもも (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not about whether you cited sources. Nobody said you didn't cite sources. It's about whether what is being "pointed out" is Mishima's own opinion or external facts. But we can take it out in this case. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You wrote "Mishima pointed out their deception and contradiction" which makes Wikipedia's authorial voice agree that it is an external fact the leftists were being deceptive and contradictory. But that was actually Mishima's own opinion of the leftists, which not everyone would agree with. If you cannot understand this clear and basic distinction, you should refrain from debating about this. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

This is literally the first rule under WP:VOICE - "Avoid stating opinions as facts." --Ash-Gaar (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

My criticism of you turned out to be quite harsh, but I cannot stand the idea of ​​adding your own obvious research without fully understanding the views expressed in Mishima's many essays, so I made that criticism. I understand that you are trying hard to understand Mishima with limited English sources, but I have done a lot more research on Mishima and read all kinds of literature, so I would like you to respect my edits a little more and not delete them so casually. If you notice any shortcomings, I would like you to be a little more comprehensive and cooperative.--みしまるもも (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not conducting "obvious" original research. I'm trying to make sense of your difficult English. I summarized the New York Times piece accurately, but if you say that it doesn't represent Mishima's true views, and was only meant to please a foreign audience, I believe you and we can take that out. I understand your criticism of me, but it's not from lack of understanding Japanese, but simply because I don't have access to all the primary source materials when I am not in Japan at the moment. To be very honest, you are one doing a lot of original research in this article, because you cite Mishima's own writings far too much. In theory, this article should be based almost entirely on secondary sources (in other words, what other scholars and researchers have written), not primary sources written by Mishima himself. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

If we strictly follow Wikipedia's policies on original research, we would have to delete the other paragraphs quoting from Mishima's own essays as well. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

"Secondary sources" can be added if one wishes. Biographies of Mishima are based on primary sources, whether they are sources from Mishima's father or Mishima himself, so to deny my editing for that reason would be to deny the biography of Mishima itself, which seems strange to me. みしまるもも (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

As per WP:PRIMARY, primary sources are fine as long as you only quote from them and do not do any interpretation of the quotations. Quoting from primary sources about basic facts or events that happened is fine. But quoting from several of Mishima's essays directly and synthesizing them into broad statements about Mishima's views would be original research. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

In response to your suggestion, I will add "secondary sources" to all the places that only contain primary sources. Thank you. みしまるもも (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Original research

Dear みしまるもも - Please do not remove "original research?" tags by doing even more original research! You made a claim that Mishima admired the kamikaze, and then supported this by doing original research and pulling a quote directly from a Mishima letter. This is a textbook case of "original research." You need to find a secondary source that discusses Mishima's admiration for the kamikaze. You can't just write your own biography of Mishima from scratch based on your own research of primary sources. That is original research and not what an encyclopedia is for. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and as such, needs to be based primarily on secondary sources. Primary sources should only be used for very basic chronology and simple facts, or completely self-explanatory quotes, not for offering up interpretations of a subject's viewpoints.

"No original research" is one of the most basic pillars of Wikipedia and has to be obeyed. It's not a matter of what is true or not. Please review WP:PRIMARY and make sure you understand how primary sources should and should not be used.

I have given you clear examples of how to remove the "original research?" tags using published secondary sources in the case of the "Hagakure nyūmon" and "Bunka bōei ron" sections. Please follow these examples. You are not being asked to do even more primary source research!!!

--Ash-Gaar (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The part where Mishima praised the kamikaze was already accompanied by secondary sources. Please stop mocking me without checking carefully. Also, the tag "original research" is used when something is unsourced and "obviously" suspicious, not when secondary sources are lacking. I received the FA award for my Mishima article after receiving the recommendation and peer review from the Japanese edition. Many people in Japan have knowledge of Mishima, and all of them can easily check the sources. Your treatment of me, who has been through such legitimate checks, is extremely disrespectful.--みしまるもも (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I promise you I am not mocking you. I am adhering Wikipedia's clearly stated and cherished rules. You invited this scrutiny on yourself when you insisted on this page, above, that your interpretation of Mishima's New York Times article had to be correct because, and I directly quote you, "I have done a lot more research on Mishima and read all kinds of literature, so I would like you to respect my edits a little more." But the problem is, there should be no space for disagreement over interpreting the New York Times article because the New York Times article is a primary source written by Mishima himself, and Wikipedia is not a place for interpreting primary sources. One acceptable use of primary sources on Wikipedia is to summarize the source (for example, the plot summary of a novel or a movie). When I replaced your WP:SYNTH interpretation of the article with a simple summary of the article as a whole, you objected and said, the article was aimed at foreigners and therefore wrong. But your whole basis for saying what Mishima wrote in the article was not his true views was that you have "done a lot more research on Mishima and read all kinds of literature." This is incontrovertably WP:SYNTH, which is making interpretive claims from across multiple sources, and it is not allowed here. You can definitely cite primary sources, but only for a simple and obvious statements of fact, that are verifiable from one primary source, not synthesized from an interpretive reading across many sources.

Your argument that your original research should be allowed since Japanese people know that there are secondary sources that say the same thing also does not hold water. If you already know there are reliable secondary sources that say the same thing, then you should just cite the secondary sources from the beginning. This is exactly my whole point in creating this section!!! Wikipedia is not the place to show off how good you are at original research ("I have done a lot of research and read all kinds of literature"), when instead there are perfectly valid secondary sources to cite. Most importantly, if you don't cite a secondary source, I have no way of knowing for sure if the same thing you claim from your original research is also said in a secondary source. That's why I'm asking you to cite a secondary source. You'll notice that I did not remove these sentences, but simply tagged them as "possible original research." I do think there might be a secondary source, and I am simply asking you to please cite it instead of citing your own primary source research.

In the specific case of the kamikaze claim, you claim you already had secondary source, but in fact you just had a reference to a memoir by Mitani, the person Mishima wrote the letter to, which is yet another primary source, and makes your WP:SYNTH even worse. This makes me worry if you really understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. Then you added even MORE original research by adding a quotation you apparently researched on your own from one of Mishima's letters!! You then retained the original WP:SYNTH statement that was based on your own original research across these multiple primary sources, that Mishima admired the kamikaze in multiple "letters to friends and private notes". It doesn't matter if this is "accurate" or "all Japanese people know this." Your own original research is not allowed here.

I see you have now added the Ando source which seems to be a secondary source, but you simply tacked it on to your already existing WP:SYNTH of primary sources. The better way to do this is to reword to make clear you are drawing from a secondary source, and undo your WP:SYNTH wording. Otherwise I just have to trust you that the secondary source you cite has the exact same synthetic interpretation you had written before. The Ando source is also called a "daily record" and only cites one page. Are you sure the Ando source is making the same synthetic claim you made across multiple primary sources? Does the Ando citation make a comprehensive claim addressing multiple "letters to friends and private notes" or just one of those letters or notes? If it's just one source, this is still original research and you need to reword or find a better secondary source.

The basic problem here is that you seem to prefer to cite directly from your own reading of primary sources, EVEN WHEN secondary sources apparently say the exact same thing. Just cite the secondary sources!

If you don't cite secondary sources, an educated English-language reader has no way of knowing if what you are doing is original research or not. You can insult me all you want, saying "The fact that you think there are no secondary sources for such basic knowledge is proof that you don't know much about Mishima," as you did in a recent edit summary, but if you refuse to cite secondary sources, your synthetic claims cannot be "verified by any educated person without further, specialized knowledge". Again, the "original research?" tags are simply requests for citations to secondary sources. You keep appealing to your superior knowledge, but that is not how Wikipedia works. It doesn't matter if you know more, and proving you know more is not the point of Wikipedia.

It's not about my knowledge either. You don't know what I know or don't know. I may know these statements are "true," but other readers should not have to have special knowledge to know they are true. I may know that there are secondary sources out there that also say the same thing, but that does not excuse you from citing them. Please just cite the secondary sources. I don't understand why you are so angered by a request to follow basic policy and cite secondary sources instead of primary sources for synthetic interpretive claims. Your knowing a lot about Mishima doesn't allow you to make these claims on your own.

This might sound harsh to say, but your expertise carries no special weight on Wikipedia, because fundamentally, Wikipedia is not intended to be edited by experts. As "an encyclopedia anyone can edit," both experts and ordinary people alike are welcome contribute, but both are bound by the exact same standards of citation of secondary sources and no original research. Even if you are an acknowledged expert on Mishima in Japan, that does not allow you a special dispensation to engage in WP:VOICE, WP:SYNTH, private interpretation of primary sources, or other forms of original research. If you want to do that, you need to go to a different kind of website or write a book about Mishima yourself.

Please also understand, your arguments about what "many Japanese people know" and receiving "good article" status on Japanese Wikipedia are completely irrelevant. It is extremely obvious and should go without saying that articles on English Wikipedia have different needs and are being written for a different audience that knows different things than the audience of Japanese Wikipedia.

You assume I am mocking you, but this is not the case. In the past, you mostly cited secondary sources, but your more recent edits in the past few years are diving more and more deeply into synthetic claims from across your own reading of multiple primary sources. The most egregious current example is the paragraph under "Later Life", beginning with "In other critical essays...", in which you summarize Mishima's views across multiple primary sources (at least 9 different essays by Mishima), supported by quotations you pulled on your own from those same primary source essays. You need to stop doing this kind of thing.

When challenged to provide secondary sources for these kinds of claims, you get angry, say I am mocking you, and appeal to your allegedly superior knowledge as a Japanese person and your own private "research." You need to stop doing this as well.

Just start with secondary sources from the beginning. Set aside your own pride as a self-proclaimed Mishima expert, and allow your claims to be bound by what published secondary sources clearly state. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary source.

--Ash-Gaar (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You've been making all sorts of quibbles, but I have simply edited the book with proper secondary sources stating that Mishima made this assertion, and yet you are still finding fault with the secondary sources. The secondary sources I added properly quote Mishima's letter, and also include an explanation of it. It is strange to say that it is no good just because it was the person who received the letter. Even Ando's secondary source properly quotes a summary of the letter.

And nowhere in what I have edited is there any of my own ideas or original research. I have simply included the fact that Mishima praised kamikaze, along with the secondary sources. That is not original research.

Just how much more do you want to make fun of me before you're satisfied? みしまるもも (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Please explain to me how this entire paragraph you wrote is anything other than entirely WP:SYNTH and a gross violation of WP:NOR:

In other critical essays, Mishima argued that the national spirit which been cultivated throughout Japan's long history was the key to national defense, and expressed apprehensions about what he viewed as the insidious "indirect aggression" of the Chinese Communist Party, North Korea, and the Soviet Union. Mishima said it was contradictory for people to say they were opposed to the US military while at the same time calling for the protection of Article 9 of the Constitution. In critical essays in 1969, Mishima described Japan's difficult and delicate position in the crosshairs of Cold War competition between China, the Soviet Union, and the United States:

To put it simply, support for the Security Treaty means agreeing with the United States, and to oppose it means agreeing with the Soviet Union or the Chinese Communist Party, so after all, it's only just a matter of which foreign country to rely on, and therein the question of "what is Japan?" is completely lacking. If you ask the Japanese, "Hey you, do you choose America, Soviet Union, or Chinese Communist Party?", if they are a true Japanese, they will withhold their opinion.

— みしまるもも, Yukio Mishima

You are creating your own synthetic analysis of nine different primary source essays by Mishima. This is completely unacceptable. You did not even cite a single secondary source, and even if you went ahead tacked on a few secondary sources, it would not make this not WP:SYNTH. I feel like I am repeating myself because you seem to be deliberately ignoring what I am saying. ---Ash-Gaar (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Ash-Gaar (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Just how much more do you want to make fun of me before you're satisfied? - You are constantly assuming bad faith on my part and I am tired of it. You can disagree with me, but you have to stop making it personal or implying that I am out to get you. I have contributed more than 33,000 bytes to this article over many years. I have worked tirelessly and devoted hundreds of hours of my life to improving this article, much of which was due to your unedited machine translations and often problematic English prose. Anytime I make any significant change or improvement beyond fixing a minor typo or something, you always take it personally and you don't take any of my criticisms seriously. You take a sense of personal ownership over this article far beyond what is appropriate for a collaboratively edited encyclopedia. You constantly try to pull rank and appeal to your own authority as an expert, even though that doesn't matter on Wikipedia. It is incredibly tiresome. There are times I have made mistakes, and you have pointed them out, and I have gladly and cheerfully corrected them or removed them. This is a team effort, and we are all trying to make the article as good and as accurate as it can be. I insist that you adhere to WP:AFG going forward and stop hurling personal insults about my "lack of knowledge," implying that I am making edits out of ideological bias, or accusing me of "mocking you". --Ash-Gaar (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

And, You may not omit or modify parts of a quotation without permission. Even if some parts are difficult to understand, if you do not leave the author's words exactly as they were, this constitutes "falsification" and constitutes copyright infringement. みしまるもも (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Please don't make up nonsensical justifications for undoing my improvements to your bad translations. None of what you said is even remotely true. Have you ever read any work of literary criticism? It is perfectly acceptable to trim quotations in analytical text. This is extremely common in Japanese scholarship as well, where they use ellipses and <省略>. That is what ellipses exist for. And it is certainly not "copyright infringement", an absurd claim. Japanese scholars literally do this all the time, and you yourself use shortened and partial quotes throughout this very article.

Most importantly in this case, your machine translation is terrible, and cannot remain as is. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

No, if you quote something in quotation marks, you are not allowed to modify it. I'm surprised you don't know that. みしまるもも (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This is completely false. I did not modify it. I merely omitted part of the quotation, which is EXTREMELY COMMON. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Please provide the original quotation in Japanese and I will see if ellipses are needed. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

「近代人」は特攻隊によつてはじめて「現代」といふか、本当の「われわれの時代」の曙光をつかみえた、今まで近代の私生児であつた知識層がはじめて歴史的な嫡子になつた。それは皆特攻隊のおかげであると思ひます。日本の全文化層、世界の全文化人が特攻隊の前に拝跪し感謝の祈りをさゝげるべき理由はそこにあるので、今更、神話の再現だなどと生ぬるいたゝへ様をしてゐる時ではない。全く身近の問題だと思ひます。

The original text is as above. In your translation, 「理由はそこにある」meaning is lacking. みしまるもも (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

At least in the Japanese version, such a thing would be a violation. It is okay to simply omit the following sentence, but you must not abruptly change it in the middle of the sentence. みしまるもも (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Since it is written in old kana spelling, it may be difficult for non-Japanese to understand.

"ゐ" ＝ "い"

"つ" ＝ "っ"

"ひ" ＝ "い"

"さゝげる" ＝ "ささげる" みしまるもも (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I've fixed and improved the translation. I hope it meets your expectations now. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I appreciate you making up for my poor English skills. I apologize for being some harsh towards you in our conversation so far. みしまるもも (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)