Talk:History of Japan/Archive 14
 | This is an archive of past discussions about History of Japan. 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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
Post-War literature
- In literature, science fiction emerged as a major genre. Leading authors of this period such as Sakyo Komatsu and Haruki Murakami used science fiction to explore complex ideas such as social alienation, excessive materialism, the dangers of technology, and environmental destruction.
I'm not an expert on J-literature, but is this really the legacy of post-War Japanese literature? Science fiction? No Nobel-prize winners (Kawabata, Ōe)? No Dazai, Abe, Mishima? The Japanese literature article doesn't even mention Komatsu. Note to CurtisNaito: I am not saying "add these names now"—if you do, I'll revert. I am saying that I seriously doubt the above is an appropriate summary of post-War Japanese literature and it needs to be re-researched (properly) and completely rewritten. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Haruki Murakami was on a list of suggested additions and I was told "Anything here not mentioned in the article should be added." Personally, I didn't want to focus too much on post-war literature, because it doesn't appear to be a typical topic discussed in Wikipedia overviews of national history. For example, History of France doesn't mention any modern literary figures like André Gide nor does History of the United States mention Ernest Hemingway, though both of those articles are much longer than this one. Part of the reason might be the difficultly in discerning which recent literary works will have lasting value. Which authors do you think should be mentioned in the article?CurtisNaito (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Your response is a perfect example of what exasperates people who try to communicate with you, CurtisNaito. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I gave you my opinion. The source I used for adding the information on Haruki Murakami was Totman, and Totman does also mention Mishima Yukio and Kawabata Yasunari (though not Oe Kenzaburo), so the same source could potentially be used to add in some of the other figures you mentioned. As I said though, I'm not really sure we have room for a full discussion of post-war literature. Therefore, in order to foster discussion, I'm asking you, which authors do you personally think are worth mentioning?CurtisNaito (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- CurtisNaito, do you seriously have no comprehension what the problem is? None at all? Because your responses are in no way addressing the problem. It's as if you didn't even read the parent comment. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is that the information on post-war literature, if needed at all, can be expanded or changed based on the same sources already used in the article. It just depends on which authors/works to include. Some of the books currently cited in the article, like Henshall and Perez, include no post-war literature section at all. However, there are others, like Totman for instance, which do include information on authors like Murakami, Kawabata, and Mishima. Do you have any opinion on which authors to include or are you neutral on the subject?CurtisNaito (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- My opinion, which I've repeated more times and in more situations on this talk page than I care to count, is in the parent comment: if it's needed at all, do the research, and stop half-assing it—the quote above is an embarrassment. Now stop making me repeat myself. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, what sources would you prefer that we use for research? When it comes to the structure of a general overview of Japanese history, why not use the books listed above? If you think we shouldn't use the sources above, then I suppose we could use other, equally reliable sources, but do you have any specific ones in mind?CurtisNaito (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- why not use the books listed above?: did I say not to? I said the garbage there needs to be fixed. Until it is, it is yet one more example why this article will not meet GA standards. If you're not going to fix it (properly, adequately, not slap-dashedly), then let someone else do it—with no deadline. Perhaps I'll do it myself when I have the time and motiviation, as I've fixed other broken pieces of the article, but if I do I'll do it at my own pace. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I told you my proposals, but I got the impression that maybe you objected to the research I was doing. I wasn't sure why you objected to my research, but I thought maybe you didn't like the sources I was using. However, if you actually don't have any objection to the sources, I suppose I can go ahead and make some changes based on that.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- why not use the books listed above?: did I say not to? I said the garbage there needs to be fixed. Until it is, it is yet one more example why this article will not meet GA standards. If you're not going to fix it (properly, adequately, not slap-dashedly), then let someone else do it—with no deadline. Perhaps I'll do it myself when I have the time and motiviation, as I've fixed other broken pieces of the article, but if I do I'll do it at my own pace. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is that the information on post-war literature, if needed at all, can be expanded or changed based on the same sources already used in the article. It just depends on which authors/works to include. Some of the books currently cited in the article, like Henshall and Perez, include no post-war literature section at all. However, there are others, like Totman for instance, which do include information on authors like Murakami, Kawabata, and Mishima. Do you have any opinion on which authors to include or are you neutral on the subject?CurtisNaito (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- CurtisNaito, do you seriously have no comprehension what the problem is? None at all? Because your responses are in no way addressing the problem. It's as if you didn't even read the parent comment. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I gave you my opinion. The source I used for adding the information on Haruki Murakami was Totman, and Totman does also mention Mishima Yukio and Kawabata Yasunari (though not Oe Kenzaburo), so the same source could potentially be used to add in some of the other figures you mentioned. As I said though, I'm not really sure we have room for a full discussion of post-war literature. Therefore, in order to foster discussion, I'm asking you, which authors do you personally think are worth mentioning?CurtisNaito (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Your response is a perfect example of what exasperates people who try to communicate with you, CurtisNaito. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Most of the most notable "post-war" (as opposed to "contemporary") writers were dead by the time Keene wrote his history of them, and so are covered in some detail there. His introduction (which is only eight pages) notes (p. 8) Despite the prominence given to the various schools by critics of modern Japanese literature, the most popular and important writers, with only a few exceptions, did not belong to any school: Nagai Kafū, Tanizaki Jun'ichirō, Akutagawa Ryūnosuke, Kawabata Yasunari, and Mishima Yukio are remembered as strikingly individual writers. The number of post-war authors not in this list who we need to mention in the article could probably be counted on one hand -- Dazai Osamu springs to mind; calling someone like Shiga Naoya a post-war author would be ... questionable. Additionally, the best-known contemporary writer, who is already mentioned in the problematic section in question, listed in footnote 1 to his introduction to this book the modern authors he thinks the Japanese citizenry would nominate as the top ten. (The note isn't visible in the free preview, and my paper copy is still packed away somewhere in one of about a dozen boxes following a somewhat messy move last summer.) As for contemporary authors -- I'm sorry I can't be of much help here, but I think characterizing Murakami Haruki as one of a wave of "science fiction authors" is pretty ridiculous. I don't know exactly what we should be saying about these authors once we've decided who deserves mention, but Keene's description quoted above is pretty good, and allows us to also namedrop the schools in question -- on the previous page he specifically lists the Naturalists, Shirakaba, Proletarian, and New Sensationalist schools. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Totman refers to Murakami Haruki as an "author of sci-fi works" and mentions him prominently in that context. We could add in Nagai Kafū, but most of Keene's list is already included. Tanizaki Jun'ichirō and Akutagawa Ryūnosuke are already mentioned in an earlier section.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Curtis, please tell me you are joking -- Nagai Kafū is also already in here, and how Totman describes Murakami is not important because hundreds of critics who specialize in this area have commented on him, and thousands have commented on what "science fiction" means; this isn't the place to debate whether Star Wars is "science fiction" or "space fantasy" or just plain old "speculative fiction", but Murakami's best-known works are in my opinion even more remote from the conventions of this genre than Star Wars, and I'm confident the majority of scholars would agree with me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, MSJapan and Sturmgewehr88 wanted Murakami Haruki to be included, but among general purpose histories of Japan, Murakami was mentioned only in Totman. Totman deals with Murakami under his section on science fiction, and refers to him as a representative author in the field of "sci-fi". You've been stating your own opinion above, but in this case the article should represent the view of the scholars cited. Assuming that you want to include all the authors in Keene's list as well, I think they are all included in their appropriate context except possibly Nagai Kafū. Yes he is mentioned, but only in the Kamakura period section. Whatever we do, we need to keep it brief. As I noted, most encyclopedia articles on the History of Japan and most general purpose histories mention no twentieth century literary figures at all, in spite of the alleged bias towards recent events that such sources are said to have.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- So in other words you completely disregarded what I said: rather than doing the research, you simply name-checked Murakami in the closest work you had to hand and called it done. That would be incompetence even if you hadn't already been to repeatedly never to do that. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Totman does talk about Murakami in a paragraph that begins with sci-fi, but he doesn't "refers to him as a representative author in the field of 'sci-fi'". He calls him an "inventive" writer of the "Shōwa Genroku" period. The preceding page won't display for me, but the context appears to be popular literature, not sci-fi. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- The start of the paragraph in question says, "Science fiction flourished mainly as popular literature." He then goes on to list off typical authors of popular science fiction.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- He does no such thing. What are you trying to tell us? You're illiterate? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- The start of the paragraph in question says, "Science fiction flourished mainly as popular literature." He then goes on to list off typical authors of popular science fiction.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, MSJapan and Sturmgewehr88 wanted Murakami Haruki to be included, but among general purpose histories of Japan, Murakami was mentioned only in Totman. Totman deals with Murakami under his section on science fiction, and refers to him as a representative author in the field of "sci-fi". You've been stating your own opinion above, but in this case the article should represent the view of the scholars cited. Assuming that you want to include all the authors in Keene's list as well, I think they are all included in their appropriate context except possibly Nagai Kafū. Yes he is mentioned, but only in the Kamakura period section. Whatever we do, we need to keep it brief. As I noted, most encyclopedia articles on the History of Japan and most general purpose histories mention no twentieth century literary figures at all, in spite of the alleged bias towards recent events that such sources are said to have.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Curtis, please tell me you are joking -- Nagai Kafū is also already in here, and how Totman describes Murakami is not important because hundreds of critics who specialize in this area have commented on him, and thousands have commented on what "science fiction" means; this isn't the place to debate whether Star Wars is "science fiction" or "space fantasy" or just plain old "speculative fiction", but Murakami's best-known works are in my opinion even more remote from the conventions of this genre than Star Wars, and I'm confident the majority of scholars would agree with me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Totman refers to Murakami Haruki as an "author of sci-fi works" and mentions him prominently in that context. We could add in Nagai Kafū, but most of Keene's list is already included. Tanizaki Jun'ichirō and Akutagawa Ryūnosuke are already mentioned in an earlier section.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Curtis, you did this same thing with Yoshitsune and Teika months ago, and I asked you to stop back then. If you have determined that someone or something deserves mention in this article, you don't find and add whatever random factoid is given in a source you already have -- you should figure out why it belongs in the article and write that, citing an appropriate source. Why did you think Murakami needed to be added? Just because User:MSJapan and User:Sturmgewehr88 said so? Did you think that your including a completely random factoid about him would encourage them to support this article's being renominated? That's not how this is supposed to work... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I said before that my opinion was that we should focus our attention on how general purpose histories of Japan present the facts, and then emulate their style. The article is called "History of Japan", so it makes sense for us to present our information in a similar way to other books dealing with the exact same subject. As I said, I personally didn't want any postwar literary figure in the article, in accordance with common practice both on and off Wikipedia, but a fair number of users wanted Murakami mentioned. Naturally, I had to go with the consensus, and it just so happened that Totman's book on Japanese history, which is regarded by scholars as one of the best overviews available, mentioned Murakami as a representative writer of postwar Japanese science fiction. If you believe that Murakami is not known for his science fiction, we could still change the text, but it would be useful to know what source you plan on citing for that, because in your last post you only mentioned your opinion. You didn't mention which source you wanted to cite.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- my opinion was that we should focus our attention on how general purpose histories of Japan present the facts: I think a better approach is what Sturmgewehr proposed: use the general histories to figure out what should be included, and then use specialized sources to figure out how to srite it accurately. This has been brought up numerous times and you've ignored it each time. Your presentation of Murakami is case in point—you are apparently so unfamiliar with his works that you would present him as a sci-fi author. This is after being told that you need to do the research or step out of the way so someone competent can handle it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- It was Totman who said that, not me specifically. The relatively little attention that Murakami receives in general histories focuses on science fiction. Do you believe that we should continue to mention Murakami in reference to non-science fiction works, or do you think we should not mention him at all?CurtisNaito (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Totman did not call Murakami a sci-fi writer. I've already quoted what he did say. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Even if Totman had called him a sci-fi writer (which he didn't), if no other source agrees with him, then you've failed to do the research that you are required to do. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- When I read it didn't seem very ambiguous. The section was called "Science fiction and business novels". Murakami was included under the paragraph about "Science fiction flourished mainly as popular literature." Murakami was included as a representative, not of the business novel genre, but rather, of the science fiction genre. Regarding article content, I'm not sure right now whether you are arguing in favor of deleting Murakami entirely, or whether you want him included but with reference non-science fiction works.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- So; you didn't do the research and thus badly screwed up. Yes, you don't need to keep telling us that. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Murakami was included as a representative, not of the business novel genre, but rather, of the science fiction genre: no, no he was not. Stop saying this. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure right now whether you are arguing in favor of: I cannot comprehend how you do not understand that I am arguing in favour of you doing the research before messing up the article. CTRL+F to see how many times I've said this already. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I did do the research, but I still believe that Totman's opinion of Murakami can be considered reliable. Naturally, I'm willing to wait for you to complete your own research as well, but if you're planning on taking your time with your research, we might want to iron out some of the details now in advance of you completing your research. If you don't think we should be citing Totman, I suppose we can start looking for a different source now. I get the impression that other users want to delete references to science fiction in favor of some other genre.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- You did not do the research, and you badly misread Totman. Digging in your heels will not fix this article. What you wrote is wrong from every perspective.
- I get the impression that other users want to delete references to science fiction in favor of some other genre.—this is gibberish that has nothing to do with anything anyone has said here. You are not giving the impression that you are here to make this the bast article you can. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I still think that when Totman refers to Murakami as a sci-fi writer in a paragraph about science fiction in a section dealing only with science fiction and business novels, then it leaves little doubt that he is known for science fiction. Another user said that, "Murakami's best-known works are in my opinion even more remote from the conventions of this genre". In other words, other users prefer that Murakami not be mentioned in the context of science fiction. Personally, I favored Totman's approach of including him as a science fiction writer, but we could use a different source if a different perspective is needed. There's still some ambiguity over what sort of information each user would prefer to have in the article, but if you're planning on conducting your own research on the matter I could wait until you finish your research before asking you any further questions.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I still think that when Totman refers to Murakami as a sci-fi writer—Once again: Totman does not refer to Murakami as a sci-fi writer. Stop this now. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- There's still some ambiguity over what sort of information each user would prefer to have in the article—no, there's not. You are being told repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly to do the proper research or move out of the way. You refuse to do the proper research, so please move out of the way. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, as Prhartcom said, "This nominator is competent, has access to all the necessary sources, and is willing and able to work on the article". I believe that I did the research in a careful and accurate manner. However, we still have a disagreement over what Totman is saying, and I suppose that if there is no consensus on what Totman is saying then I'll use a different source instead.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I still think that when Totman refers to Murakami as a sci-fi writer in a paragraph about science fiction in a section dealing only with science fiction and business novels, then it leaves little doubt that he is known for science fiction. Another user said that, "Murakami's best-known works are in my opinion even more remote from the conventions of this genre". In other words, other users prefer that Murakami not be mentioned in the context of science fiction. Personally, I favored Totman's approach of including him as a science fiction writer, but we could use a different source if a different perspective is needed. There's still some ambiguity over what sort of information each user would prefer to have in the article, but if you're planning on conducting your own research on the matter I could wait until you finish your research before asking you any further questions.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I did do the research, but I still believe that Totman's opinion of Murakami can be considered reliable. Naturally, I'm willing to wait for you to complete your own research as well, but if you're planning on taking your time with your research, we might want to iron out some of the details now in advance of you completing your research. If you don't think we should be citing Totman, I suppose we can start looking for a different source now. I get the impression that other users want to delete references to science fiction in favor of some other genre.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- When I read it didn't seem very ambiguous. The section was called "Science fiction and business novels". Murakami was included under the paragraph about "Science fiction flourished mainly as popular literature." Murakami was included as a representative, not of the business novel genre, but rather, of the science fiction genre. Regarding article content, I'm not sure right now whether you are arguing in favor of deleting Murakami entirely, or whether you want him included but with reference non-science fiction works.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- It was Totman who said that, not me specifically. The relatively little attention that Murakami receives in general histories focuses on science fiction. Do you believe that we should continue to mention Murakami in reference to non-science fiction works, or do you think we should not mention him at all?CurtisNaito (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- my opinion was that we should focus our attention on how general purpose histories of Japan present the facts: I think a better approach is what Sturmgewehr proposed: use the general histories to figure out what should be included, and then use specialized sources to figure out how to srite it accurately. This has been brought up numerous times and you've ignored it each time. Your presentation of Murakami is case in point—you are apparently so unfamiliar with his works that you would present him as a sci-fi author. This is after being told that you need to do the research or step out of the way so someone competent can handle it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I said before that my opinion was that we should focus our attention on how general purpose histories of Japan present the facts, and then emulate their style. The article is called "History of Japan", so it makes sense for us to present our information in a similar way to other books dealing with the exact same subject. As I said, I personally didn't want any postwar literary figure in the article, in accordance with common practice both on and off Wikipedia, but a fair number of users wanted Murakami mentioned. Naturally, I had to go with the consensus, and it just so happened that Totman's book on Japanese history, which is regarded by scholars as one of the best overviews available, mentioned Murakami as a representative writer of postwar Japanese science fiction. If you believe that Murakami is not known for his science fiction, we could still change the text, but it would be useful to know what source you plan on citing for that, because in your last post you only mentioned your opinion. You didn't mention which source you wanted to cite.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
we still have a disagreement over what Totman is saying: no, we don't. He objectively said nothing like what you claimed he did, and you did not do the "research" you claimed to have done. If you're dragging Prhartcom into the conversation, then at least have the courtesy to let him know. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, as I said, I don't quite understand why Totman's reference to Murakami as a sci-fi writer is regarded as ambiguous, but in the absence of agreement, I'll use a different source. If it's okay with you, I could also put back the information on Mishima Yukio and Kawabata Yasunari. If we are going to include a post-war literature section, then re-adding this will at least allow us to link to all the major names, though the details of what additional information to include on each person might still be subject to debate.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Both Henshall and Tsutsui (both of which you have access to) mention Murakami, and neither say a word about sci-fi. So in light of your extensive research you believe that in the History of Japan article Haruki Murakami is most appropriately presented as typical of Japanese science fiction? Okay—please keep your hands off the article and let those of us who know what we're doing handle it. You have demonstrated that you lack even the most basic competence. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- The editors of the Wikipedia article on Murakami Haruki apparently didn't see any problem with mentioning science fiction as one of his genres of writing. I suppose some sources, including the ones I cited, view science fiction as somewhat more important than his other genres, but I can understand that there is more to his career than that. I certainly have demonstrated my competence, but with this section all I was trying to do was make a brief summary, not an in-depth analysis. I'll try to make the coverage a little broader by using different sources. I hadn't yet read Tsutsui at the time I initially added the information, and Henshall only mentions Murakami in the context of the 1995 sarin gas attacks which are not referred to in the current version of the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- The Murakami aritcle does not call him a scince fiction author and does not mention science fiction in the body. Are you going to continue to insist he is a science fiction writer, that he represents Japanese science fiction, and that you have extensively researched this fact and put it in an appropriate context with due weight? Seriously, just get your hands off it. You can't handle this. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I consulted the relevant sources and inserted a basic summary of those sources. I think you're more so disagreeing with the sources I mentioned than with me personally. Having said that, I think I understand your concern that Murakami perhaps should be mentioned in a broader context. I'll look into making some modifications using different sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- You did not "consult the relevant sources". Stop saying that. You completely botched that paragraph and have demonstrated you have no understanding of what is wrong or what is required to fix it. Please, please, please leave it alone. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I believe that I did consult the relevant sources, though I understand that we disagree on which sources to use. If you discover a good alternative source to use, don't hesitate to say so. Nihonjoe of course told us both to leave the article, but personally I think it would be better for everyone to work together. I'll try modifying the text to deal with the concerns.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, you didn't consult the relevant sources, nor do you believe you did—you've been told what's wrong so many times and in so many ways that I cannot believe you are working in good faith. Regardless, you are damaging the article. Stop this now. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- personally I think it would be better for everyone to work together And this is why you are the one requesting ArbCom not to ban me from editing this page? Because I could have sworn you opened two ANI threads requesting that I be banned from the page, and the result was an ArbCom case in which you again requested that I be banned from the page, and at the moment looks set to do just that, and you were the only one here not opposed to that possibility... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- The article talk page is for discussing article content. Arbcom cases are a separate matter. The best way to move forward is to deal, one at a time, with issues directly relating to the text of the article. Recently I have swapped the sources for Haruki Murakami and have presented an alternative version of the text.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- (EDIT CONFLICT) So let me get this straight: it's okay for you to make the off-topic and untrue claim that you are in favour of everyone working together to improve the article (your unilateral reverts of any edits with which you disagree say otherwise, mind you), but my pointing out that your off-topic claims are untrue is off-topic and inappropriate for the article talk page? Seriously? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I was saying that we should talk about article content on the talk page. Arbcom isn't article content. I do think we should work together to improve article content, but it would be easier to do that if we discussed only article content on this talk page. We already have three different versions on Murakami to choose from.[1][2][3] We can select one of those three versions or else someone can write up a fourth.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Curtis, it's not enough to say you are in favour of people working together to improve the article. When you (1) make a mistake, (2) refuse to acknowledge your mistake, (3) aggressively defend your mistake as an acceptable reading of your source, and then (4) claim that you are the one trying to edit cooperatively, it is a slap in the face of all the other editors who wish to improve this article. You need to back down and admit you were wrong; otherwise you are making it extremely difficult to work with you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I was saying that we should talk about article content on the talk page. Arbcom isn't article content. I do think we should work together to improve article content, but it would be easier to do that if we discussed only article content on this talk page. We already have three different versions on Murakami to choose from.[1][2][3] We can select one of those three versions or else someone can write up a fourth.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- (EDIT CONFLICT) So let me get this straight: it's okay for you to make the off-topic and untrue claim that you are in favour of everyone working together to improve the article (your unilateral reverts of any edits with which you disagree say otherwise, mind you), but my pointing out that your off-topic claims are untrue is off-topic and inappropriate for the article talk page? Seriously? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- My original version mentioned science fiction. My second version mentioned postmodernism. TH1980's version mentioned magical realism. These are all fine to mention. Ideally I would just chose one from a representative source to prevent the section from getting to long, but I guess we could combine all three or a selection of these three.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- The idea is to summarize post-war Japanese literature, not to provide a long list of every genre one particular writer has ever kneaded into his published work. Both the summary of post-war Japanese literature and the description of the particular writer have been a complete botch in every conceivable way. Dealing with your messes is exasperating. Stop it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- You still haven't mentioned what problems you have with either my own version #2 or TH1980's version of the Haruki Murakami information. Both of them were fairly short and only mentioned a few characteristics of his work. Also, you didn't mention what problems you had with the references in the article to Kawabata and Mishima. A variety of well-researched proposals were inserted into the article, and while we might be able to reach consensus on one version or another, more clarity is needed on how specifically the text can be improved. If you have any ideas we can discuss it, or alternatively, if you're still conducting research we can wait for you to finish your research first. If you're planning on spending more than a month on your research though, we might want to insert a basic outline into the article now, which could be fleshed out after you finish your research.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- You're only incriminating yourself when you say "A variety of well-researched proposals were inserted into the article". It was not well-researched—stop saying that. It was half-assedly slapped together in a manner that demonstrated a gross disregard for the subject.
- You still haven't mentioned what problems—yes, I have. Repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind "One contemporary author of popular fiction who has received broad recognition both in Japan and internationally is Haruki Murakami." Just about any source giving an introduction to Murakami in English will likely support this. This would mean mentioning the distinction between "popular" and "pure" literature and naming some producers of the latter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I guess you could try that. Some of the sources I consulted did mention him as an author of popular fiction, though incidentally, the last source I used in the article, "The Columbia Companion to Modern East Asian Literature" states that his works "fall outside the parameters of established categories such as 'serious' and 'popular'". Thus, the Columbia Companion argues that his works are neither popular nor pure. Still, you could try inserting your own proposal. What source were you planning on using?CurtisNaito (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- You still haven't mentioned what problems you have with either my own version #2 or TH1980's version of the Haruki Murakami information. Both of them were fairly short and only mentioned a few characteristics of his work. Also, you didn't mention what problems you had with the references in the article to Kawabata and Mishima. A variety of well-researched proposals were inserted into the article, and while we might be able to reach consensus on one version or another, more clarity is needed on how specifically the text can be improved. If you have any ideas we can discuss it, or alternatively, if you're still conducting research we can wait for you to finish your research first. If you're planning on spending more than a month on your research though, we might want to insert a basic outline into the article now, which could be fleshed out after you finish your research.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- The idea is to summarize post-war Japanese literature, not to provide a long list of every genre one particular writer has ever kneaded into his published work. Both the summary of post-war Japanese literature and the description of the particular writer have been a complete botch in every conceivable way. Dealing with your messes is exasperating. Stop it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- The article talk page is for discussing article content. Arbcom cases are a separate matter. The best way to move forward is to deal, one at a time, with issues directly relating to the text of the article. Recently I have swapped the sources for Haruki Murakami and have presented an alternative version of the text.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I believe that I did consult the relevant sources, though I understand that we disagree on which sources to use. If you discover a good alternative source to use, don't hesitate to say so. Nihonjoe of course told us both to leave the article, but personally I think it would be better for everyone to work together. I'll try modifying the text to deal with the concerns.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- You did not "consult the relevant sources". Stop saying that. You completely botched that paragraph and have demonstrated you have no understanding of what is wrong or what is required to fix it. Please, please, please leave it alone. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I consulted the relevant sources and inserted a basic summary of those sources. I think you're more so disagreeing with the sources I mentioned than with me personally. Having said that, I think I understand your concern that Murakami perhaps should be mentioned in a broader context. I'll look into making some modifications using different sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- The Murakami aritcle does not call him a scince fiction author and does not mention science fiction in the body. Are you going to continue to insist he is a science fiction writer, that he represents Japanese science fiction, and that you have extensively researched this fact and put it in an appropriate context with due weight? Seriously, just get your hands off it. You can't handle this. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- The editors of the Wikipedia article on Murakami Haruki apparently didn't see any problem with mentioning science fiction as one of his genres of writing. I suppose some sources, including the ones I cited, view science fiction as somewhat more important than his other genres, but I can understand that there is more to his career than that. I certainly have demonstrated my competence, but with this section all I was trying to do was make a brief summary, not an in-depth analysis. I'll try to make the coverage a little broader by using different sources. I hadn't yet read Tsutsui at the time I initially added the information, and Henshall only mentions Murakami in the context of the 1995 sarin gas attacks which are not referred to in the current version of the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Both Henshall and Tsutsui (both of which you have access to) mention Murakami, and neither say a word about sci-fi. So in light of your extensive research you believe that in the History of Japan article Haruki Murakami is most appropriately presented as typical of Japanese science fiction? Okay—please keep your hands off the article and let those of us who know what we're doing handle it. You have demonstrated that you lack even the most basic competence. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
known as the "Meiji leaders"
It seems to me that we shouldn't be using this wording with the quotation marks unless we can say who knows them as that on the talk page -- is this a term used exclusively by western scholars, and if not what is the Japanese term? I looked a bit into it and the closest I could find was ja:明治の三傑, which refers to three specific individuals (not something our article currently implies), and if that is what is being referred to then we should probably wikilink our article on the topic. The problem here is that the sentence in question where known as the "Meiji leaders" appears does not have a source, and the succeeding sentence cites two different sources. Henshall doesn't use this wording; can we get a quotation from Weston? The Weston citation is attached specifically to the claim that the Meiji leaders are "regarded as some of the most successful statesmen in human history", which very obviously does not refer to the three men in the above-linked article but to the broader group who spearheaded Japan's modernization in the Meiji era. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Each statement in the article is sourced to the next citation following it in accordance with the suggestions I was given earlier. That particular statement is cited to Weston, who says "The three dozen samurai who started Japan's modernization are known today as 'the Meiji leaders'". If you prefer we could change it to Meiji oligarchy, the name of a Wikipedia article, because the two terms appear to be used synonymously.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- That is not what was suggested. Having one statement with no source, and the following sentence citing two separate sources, is highly confusing. But yes, I would prefer if we somehow linked the Meiji oligarchy article; it would be better, however, if we could find a source that specifically discusses the hanbatsu, and drop the Weston citation that apparently doesn't use that term. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, I was specifically told that each portion of text should cite back to the next citation listed. The next citation goes to Weston, so there is no ambiguity regarding which source it was cited to. The term Meiji leaders is fairly common, also used by Totman for instance, but I think we can just link "Meiji leaders" back to the "Meiji oligarchy" article, because they appear to refer to the same thing.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- each portion of text should cite back to the next citation listed How do you define "portion of text"? One portion is a sentence and a half, and the next is a half? That's confusing. I prefer to add at least one citation to each sentence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- The term Meiji leaders is fairly common It's ambiguous, and I'm confident that at least half of the instances of its use in English are not referring to a specific closed list of people. If it is the WP:COMMONNAME for the hanbatsu in English, then our article on that topic should be renamed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've been told many times to not do that though. Each statement or set of statements is supposed to be sourced to the next citation. This is apparently Wikipedia's policy on the matter.
- Obviously both Meiji oligarchy and Meiji leaders are very common terms. I don't think that it matter much which of the two common names we select.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have been told many times to not do that though Curtis, I really hope you don't split infinitives like that in the mainspace... Normally I wouldn't bring up grammatical problems with other users' talk page comments, but you used the non-standard/slang-y phrase "based off (of)" in both the talk and article spaces, and when corrected you didn't acknowledge your mistake and did the same thing again later. I really think you need to consult some kind of English writing style guide.
- As to the substance, who told you not to do that? Statistically speaking I've probably been here longer than they have, and I am telling you now that either you misinterpreted them, or they are wrong.
- And if that's the case then can we find a different source and wikilink to our article on the topic?
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I never use slang, but naturally there are different styles of English and split infinitives are very common nowadays even in formal writing. I've been told that "You can read the policy for yourself at WP:CITE; nowhere does it state that every sentence needs to be cited and I've even had objections from some other reviewers that once per paragraph isn't strictly required either." He told me that if anyone ever asked me to cite every sentence then I should ask them to "show me the exact source of their onerous requirement". Though Meiji leaders and Meiji oligarchs are equally common terms, if you prefer the word oligarch, I can change the article based off a source which uses that word.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes Curtis, I know "to boldly go where no man has gone before" is perfectly acceptable in modern English and "boldly to go where no man has gone before" sounds awkward. I also know "the school I went to was on the outskirts of town" is more natural English than "the school to which I went was on the outskirts of town". That's why I said "split infinitives like that" (emphasis added); the way you used a split infinitive was informal and slang-y, and while it is acceptable here you should refrain from using it when editing articles, as you should refrain from saying "based off (of)". And I didn't ask you to "cite every sentence" (sic); I asked you not to use a confusing style where one sentence is cited to a ref halfway through the next sentence, not the ref at the end of the following sentence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Meiji leaders" and "Meiji oligarchy" contain grammatical overlap. I believe both terms could be used interchangeably if need be.TH1980 (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- No. If our source says they are known as "Meiji leaders", and we are following the source in doing so, we can't change the word given in quotation marks to something else. One solution would be to remove the phrase "they were known as" entirely, and just say "These Meiji leaders were...", although I would prefer some verification that Weston is actually discussing the same people our article is about. What does everyone think of this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Weston refers to the Meiji leaders as the key former samurai leading the Meiji government. Most of the sources currently cited in this article use the expression "the Meiji leaders" in a generic way to refer to all the key figures in the Meiji government. In general Meiji oligarchs is used to refer to the same people. Admittedly, Stephen Large says that the term "Meiji oligarchs" only refers to a group of seven late-Meiji figures, but in general I think most authors used the term Meiji oligarchs as broadly as they use the term Meiji leaders. I changed the article's source to one that uses the word oligarchs.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- No. If our source says they are known as "Meiji leaders", and we are following the source in doing so, we can't change the word given in quotation marks to something else. One solution would be to remove the phrase "they were known as" entirely, and just say "These Meiji leaders were...", although I would prefer some verification that Weston is actually discussing the same people our article is about. What does everyone think of this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I never use slang, but naturally there are different styles of English and split infinitives are very common nowadays even in formal writing. I've been told that "You can read the policy for yourself at WP:CITE; nowhere does it state that every sentence needs to be cited and I've even had objections from some other reviewers that once per paragraph isn't strictly required either." He told me that if anyone ever asked me to cite every sentence then I should ask them to "show me the exact source of their onerous requirement". Though Meiji leaders and Meiji oligarchs are equally common terms, if you prefer the word oligarch, I can change the article based off a source which uses that word.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, I was specifically told that each portion of text should cite back to the next citation listed. The next citation goes to Weston, so there is no ambiguity regarding which source it was cited to. The term Meiji leaders is fairly common, also used by Totman for instance, but I think we can just link "Meiji leaders" back to the "Meiji oligarchy" article, because they appear to refer to the same thing.CurtisNaito (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- That is not what was suggested. Having one statement with no source, and the following sentence citing two separate sources, is highly confusing. But yes, I would prefer if we somehow linked the Meiji oligarchy article; it would be better, however, if we could find a source that specifically discusses the hanbatsu, and drop the Weston citation that apparently doesn't use that term. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I never use slang
- 02:27, 6 May 2015: You use the non-standard/slang-y "based ... off" on a talk page.
- 11:12, 11 May 2015: You use the non-standard/slang-y "based off" on a talk page.
- 04:08, 12 May 2015: You use the non-standard/slang-y "based off" on a talk page.
- 22:21, 12 May 2015: Nishidani tells you on the talk page that this is not correct English
- 22:48, 12 May 2015: Nishidani reiterates that this is ungrammatical.
- 20:23, 15 May 2015: You insert the same bad grammar ("based off Korean models") into the article in question afterengaging in discussion with Nishidani over this.
- 15 May 2015: You and TH1980 edit-war with Nishidani and Ubikwit to keep this ungrammatical slang in the article.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't use any slang, but if you favor one form of English over another, like the split infinitive for instance, you can go ahead and try to insert your preferred version in the article. However, I don't think that this particular expression is used anywhere in the article, so discussing your preferences in style on the talk page is in this case not relevant to article content.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- "based off (of)" is slang, whether you want to admit it or not. I am giving you a general caution not to write ungrammatically and/or informally in the mainspace, as you have done both in this article and in many other articles. Your "good" version of this article did indeed feature the equivalent and equally-slang phrase "modeled off" -- and you were the one who added it -- so it isn't off-topic. I would provide these general cautionary messages on your user talk page instead, but last time I posted there I was met with a string of very aggressive personal attacks/threats so I'm somewhat reluctant to do so again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Basically, it's an issue of stylistic preference. I suppose you can use the method that you prefer, but the point you brought up above wasn't even in the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- (EDIT CONFLICT) No, it's not an issue of stylistic preference. Wikipedia articles should not be written in slang. You have inserted non-standard, slang wording into this and other articles, and when told to stop you have either ignored us or insisted that what you were writing was standard written English. You will never see any piece of formal writing in English (and that includes encyclopedia articles) that use wording like "The new capital city was constructed in a grid pattern modeled off Chang'an", because this is slang. I am not saying it is "wrong" or that you can't use it in talking with your friends or even posting it on talk pages, but please learn to stop writing it into the article space. As for "the point you brought up above wasn't even in the article" -- what point? Everything I accused you of adding to the article space was backed up by diffs indicating that you did add it to the article space -- multiple times, after being told that it was wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- From what I can tell "based off" in the Korean influence article was originally added by TH1980. This may be common usage, but I wouldn't have stopped you from changing it to the alternative version if you had done so. Ultimately, the issue was not highly relevant because the expression is not used in the article at this point.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- The one Nishidani discussed (with you) was TH1980's, but the one you later edit-warred over, the one you added to this article, and the half-dozen I just removed from articles linked on your user page were all apparently yours, and you are still now arguing that it was acceptable ("This may be common usage"). This is relevant because you are essentially threatening to continue adding this ungrammatical slang to the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't recall saying that. I just didn't think there was a point in discussing an issue at length which doesn't exist anywhere in the article. It would be more useful to discuss the article itself.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- The one Nishidani discussed (with you) was TH1980's, but the one you later edit-warred over, the one you added to this article, and the half-dozen I just removed from articles linked on your user page were all apparently yours, and you are still now arguing that it was acceptable ("This may be common usage"). This is relevant because you are essentially threatening to continue adding this ungrammatical slang to the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- From what I can tell "based off" in the Korean influence article was originally added by TH1980. This may be common usage, but I wouldn't have stopped you from changing it to the alternative version if you had done so. Ultimately, the issue was not highly relevant because the expression is not used in the article at this point.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- (EDIT CONFLICT) No, it's not an issue of stylistic preference. Wikipedia articles should not be written in slang. You have inserted non-standard, slang wording into this and other articles, and when told to stop you have either ignored us or insisted that what you were writing was standard written English. You will never see any piece of formal writing in English (and that includes encyclopedia articles) that use wording like "The new capital city was constructed in a grid pattern modeled off Chang'an", because this is slang. I am not saying it is "wrong" or that you can't use it in talking with your friends or even posting it on talk pages, but please learn to stop writing it into the article space. As for "the point you brought up above wasn't even in the article" -- what point? Everything I accused you of adding to the article space was backed up by diffs indicating that you did add it to the article space -- multiple times, after being told that it was wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Basically, it's an issue of stylistic preference. I suppose you can use the method that you prefer, but the point you brought up above wasn't even in the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- "based off (of)" is slang, whether you want to admit it or not. I am giving you a general caution not to write ungrammatically and/or informally in the mainspace, as you have done both in this article and in many other articles. Your "good" version of this article did indeed feature the equivalent and equally-slang phrase "modeled off" -- and you were the one who added it -- so it isn't off-topic. I would provide these general cautionary messages on your user talk page instead, but last time I posted there I was met with a string of very aggressive personal attacks/threats so I'm somewhat reluctant to do so again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't use any slang, but if you favor one form of English over another, like the split infinitive for instance, you can go ahead and try to insert your preferred version in the article. However, I don't think that this particular expression is used anywhere in the article, so discussing your preferences in style on the talk page is in this case not relevant to article content.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Earlier in this thread you said "I never use slang", and immediately above here you said it "may be common usage". You can't seriously think you can get away with denying this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think I used any actual slang. However, if you have any problems with the language currently used in the article you could certainly bring it up.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- You've used the phrase "based off" dozens of times in the article space -- how much more evidence do you need? Or are you actually arguing that "based off" is not WP:SLANG and you should be allowed continue using it in the article space? Because if so you definitely need to stop. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, it has just been brought to my attention that Nishidani and I are not the only ones who consider "based off (of)" to be ungrammatical. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think I used any actual slang. However, if you have any problems with the language currently used in the article you could certainly bring it up.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Earlier in this thread you said "I never use slang", and immediately above here you said it "may be common usage". You can't seriously think you can get away with denying this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I give up
I can't believe how much time I've wasted on this article. It's sucking my soul dry. This article will never become what it should be with CurtisNaito and TH1980 standing guard.
CurtisNaito has demonstrated a superficial knowledge of a very important subject, has put virtually no research into the article, and relies staggeringly on a couple of sources (primarily Totman and Henshall) which he misinterprets with an astonishing regularity. Despite his protests he shows no willingness to cooperate—he has taken WP:OWNership of the article and refuses to let go, no matter how much damage he does to it. All effort that could go into improving the article instead goes into exasperating circular soul-draining debates. I feel like I'm in a Beckett novel.
CurtisNaito is well aware that TH1980's have been minimal at best, but more realistically actively disruptive with his mind games. He has demonstrated next to no knowledge of the subject matter, yet CurtisNaito calls him "well versed in Japanese history". This is not an honest mistake—CurtisNaito is aware of his falsehood.
I'm going to step away from this article. I'd love to work on it—I have the sources and with two dozen FAs behind me I have the skills to do something good with it. But interacting with CurtisNaito will only drive me to therapy I can't afford. It astounds me that the community will not deal with this level of disruption on one of its most important articles. Shame on you, Wikipedia community. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think we are making progress, slowly but steadily. If we just make a request for comment concerning the organizational issue, then I think we can move beyond the single biggest sticking point. If we can thus get a clear consensus, I'm sure that I and all users will accept that consensus as a basis for making real improvements to the article in a collaborative manner.CurtisNaito (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep messing with people's heads. It's the only thing you're good at. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)