Talk:Ikki Kita

Copy Editing Needed
The comment below was placed on the page itself by this user editing as 82.11.0.134, and I have moved it here to keep for reference.

(Recently amended and corrected by Nik Howard: 11th February 2009; I take responsibility for this material explicitly and, if someone decides to change this material I am posting here, I hope they will at least attach my additions/contribution in some form that can be accessed at this wikipedia website on Kita Ikki)

I also added the copyedit template. I am no stylistic expert, but in brief I think the article suffers from too many run-on sentences of excessive length, far too many (and too lengthy) parenthetical asides, and a lack of good overall structure / section divisions, despite the chronological order the facts are presented in. in brief, a wealth of good, factual information appears to have been added in good faith, but it really needs some stylistic sorting out. --Shorn again (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've given it a going-over, but yes, it needs more help from an expert. I've excised the parenthetical asides into footnotes; it may be that they stray far enough off-topic that they merit outright deletion. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

See also links

 * Double Leaf Society
 * Tosei-Ha
 * Koda-Ha
 * Imperial Way Faction

I removed these. While Kita Ikki may have influenced them, These links should only be included if there is evidence that Kita Ikki either was a member or if these groups quoted him in their programs. -- Mkill 17:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Kita Ikki was the ideological sponsor of the Imperial Way, or Kodo, faction, and thus the link between him and the kodo-ha (NOT koda-ha, by the way), should be restored.- [Non User] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.152.170 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 2 March 2006.

Passive Voice
I think there is too much passive voice in this article. For example, interested editors need to rewrite the fragment "...are believed to be one..." to specify who believes this, when they believed it, why is it important that they believe it, and provide a source. Also rewrite the sentenct that starts with "Many argue...." who are these people arguing and why are their arguments importants. Rewrite "it appears that..." to whom does this appear? Thanx.TheRingess 06:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Terrible Writing
The writing in this piece is turgid and overly subjective for a Wikipedia article. References to scholars' interpretations of the period and movements are a distraction from understanding who Kita Ikki was, and can be condensed, with appropriate footnotes as needed. There is a tendency in the article to want to copy an academic style, but it tends to obfuscate instead of clarify the material. Someone needs desperately to clean this piece up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.16.117.94 (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tried to clean this up, and I've removed the worst of the original research and synthesis. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)