Talk:Masanobu Fukuoka/Archive 2

Chronology
Hi.

I moved the Chronology section into the biographical part. To be honest, I think the "travelogue" guide to Fukuoka's life is not that great and could be summarised down to "travelled widely teaching and demonstrating seed balls and practising de-desertification". Much of it is fairly lame and much of the really interesting stuff has not made it onto the topic yet. Sorry but it really is not that great a deal to have travelled to places these days. I'd like to see some foundation of why those places and events were notable.

Just out of interest, can we confirm he work has actually had a lasting effect in the field? I know a many project which were started with great flourish but have since died off, or folks lost interest.

Separate issue, if he has a "movement" of followers in India, then perhaps it could be documented?

Iyo-farm (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Can we please use descriptive edit summaries. The recent summery
 * rvv:again:WP:POV-WP:BURDEN-WP:!-WP:ENC-WP:BIO–WP:Wikipedia is not just an encyclopediaWP:COMPREHENSIVE-WP:V-WP:HEREWP:SPAWP:ORWP:OI-WP:IDHT-WP:RSWP:AGFMOS:OPEDWP:TEWP:COI–福)

seems more like an attack than anything else, and made me want to revert it on the spot. For starters do not call good faith edits vandalism, vandalism is very specific insertion of rude words etc it does not include content edits which you may disagree with. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia is an essay about the community aspects of the project, and seems to be used in the wrong context. All the other tags do little to explain the edit.

Looking at the edit summary history some of User:Iyo-farm summaries seem to be blank or very short.

A little more WP:CIVIL WP:AGF etc. would go a long way.--Salix (talk): 06:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As amply clear, especially regarding sources and POV, and as amply demonstrated here in talk, it is not a good faith edit—a third repeat of POV vandalism without consent, against all reliable sources, as cited already, and contrarily against WP:CLAIM.


 * All that was required was "rvv". I gave a hell of a lot more edit summary effort and information than that. Personal judgements of it don't count here.


 * I agree that a hell of a lot of WP:CIVIL WP:AGF is needed, and WP:BURDEN, and all the additional WP pages i took a substantial effort to cite the first time it happened; Which were ignored and which no reliable sources have been provided for three edit sets; Constituting gross vandalism against all the reliable sources anyone here has cited.


 * Pick on the real wrongs Salix before you play with edit summary trivialities.--macropneuma 06:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Salix here that the edit summary is largely meaningless and seems to have resulted in a bit of 'boy who cried wolf' disregard since you keep throwing around the same policies over and over without really explaining clearly what you think is wrong. Your approach seems largely to be to tar the entire article with the same brush of 'unacceptable' but both in the past when I've appealed to you for explicit case-by-case details of what you have problems with, as well as now with Iyo-farm's edits, I am having great difficulty understanding the specifics of your objections.


 * I don't agree with all of Iyo-farm's edits, for the record, but I also think some are justified and I'm sure he would also like to know what particularly it is you have a problem with. We can't discuss and resolve the issues if there isn't adequate communication. And remember, communication is about the other person understanding what you're saying, not simply the fact that you're saying it. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As an example of how illogical it is, why does he slap a NPOV tag on it when it is the way he wrote it? Why?


 * I am sorry but it is, what, the third time we have had an alphabet soup of a summary and all it really is, is a huff because he is not getting his way writing an elegy to Fukuoka.


 * OK, my notes, apart from Fukuoka's name, Kanji is superfluous and adds nothing to the topic. Once for anything is enough. Enlightenment/satori? Even the Buddha only gets "a reputed 49 days of meditation, at the age of 35, he is said to have attained Enlightenment", so I am afraid Fukuoka has to have similar. Utterly false titles under photos? Out. These are the facts. Chronology? Out. Reduce it to a biography.


 * Specifics like "alternative movements" instead of "counter culture movement"? There is no reference for his "counter culture". I don't class permaculture as "counter culture". Out. Non-notable individuals? Out. Works? Not all reference there are his "works", so resources or something else. DId I miss anything?


 * External links, all references, might need looking through to remove more blogs, mailing list etc. Iyo-farm (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you read this (質問) 「貴方は馬鹿ですか｣ ?

As a matter of record the history says this, with the last three characters truncated because of too long an edit summary; Truncated by only the last three characters (the Japanese for 福岡正信 (Fukuoka Masanobu) which i also did edits of).
 * rvv:again:WP:POV-WP:BURDEN-WP:!-WP:ENC-WP:BIO–WP:Wikipedia is not just an encyclopediaWP:COMPREHENSIVE-WP:V-WP:HEREWP:SPAWP:ORWP:OI-WP:IDHT-WP:RSWP:AGFMOS:OPEDWP:TEWP:COI–福岡正信

This is better (without the dashes), as an example of the would be quotation, if it will fit also:


 * rvv:again:WP:POV WP:BURDEN WP:! WP:ENC WP:BIO WP:Wikipedia is not just an encyclopediaWP:COMPREHENSIVE WP:V WP:HERE WP:SPAWP:ORWP:OI WP:IDHT WP:RSWP:AGFMOS:OPEDWP:TEWP:COI–福岡正信

No time for rubbish, nor for grossly evident and hollow double standards.

— --macropneuma 09:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You are asking me if I am stupid? Really, you are telling that you think I am stupid? I would have written "あなたは馬鹿ですか？".


 * Why did you use brackets?


 * Macropneuma, discuss means discuss. Throwing a line of acronyms at us means nothing and only underlines your eccentricity. Iyo-farm (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Macropneuma, please attempt to discussion changes first.


 * To repeat what has been stated above:


 * a) It cannot be "works" because not all the "works" are Fukuoka's works, some are about him not by him.
 * b) MOS states lower case except for proper nouns. I am quoting many reliable sources that use "Natural Farming" as a proper noun to denote Fukuoka's style. I will admit that other reliable source also use "natural farming" but I think this is confusing for most readers and an oxymoron, because (ultimately) no farming is "natural".
 * c) "Recent farming" ... there is no "Recent farming". He is dead. Fukuoka Masanobu farms no more.


 * As to the removal of the photos ... that is just being churlishly insulting and provocative. What point are you trying to make? It is no secret that the family does not follow his philosophy. Personally, I find it terribly sad and hypocritical that the money from his estate and the sale of his books etc is going to carry on his work. Iyo-farm (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding (a), I haven't reviewed every one of the items mentioned so can't comment. Regarding (b), I'm not sure on whether or not 'Natural Farming' should be treated as a proper noun or not so I haven't involved myself in the changing back and forth. I tentatively support it being treated as a proper noun in this context to differentiate it from the common word sequence 'natural farming'.


 * Regarding (c), this is an odd debate to begin with considering the article is about Masanobu Fukuoka, not about Natural Farming. While it's certainly relevant to include information relating to the sole cause of his notability, the content of this article currently is gradually approaching the need for a split. For now, remember that the content should be connected in some way to Fukuoka, not just to Natural Farming. What is happening at his farm after his death is probably suitable, but should be carefully worded to stay relevant.


 * Regarding the photos, I agree wholeheartedly. I can't see what the problem is and the quoted WP:OI says nothing that would prevent their inclusion. I've sanitised the captions for now seeing as they're apparently controversial, but I really do fail to see how stating that the land is now conventionally farmed is 'unbalanced' or POV - that much should be absolutely clear just from looking at it. I'd propose re-adding the line with a simple source confirming that the farm is now conventional. There must surely be one out there somewhere.


 * I've changed 'he claimed to have a satori' to 'he stated he had a satori'. I think 'stated' is a reasonable and neutral statement that clearly places the authenticity of the event itself in the realm of 'he said' and not the purported fact that the previous 'he had a satori' implies. I think it's reasonable that the reader can make their own assessment of 'he stated he had a satori' with respect to whether or not it was real or delusional. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously you're not welcome to call me Jase, my username is Macropneuma. Many non-sequiturs and worse personal attacks, for example your evident eccentricity labelling my person who you do not know at all eccentric, if i was i'd be glad to be so, of course. Can't you admit it, in good faith, those points when clearly you're wrong? All fallacies or worse (a, b, c and 'd'), and in a slippery talk way, no specifics, nor reliable sources, were mentioned in any of the above. Repetition of well known hearsay, fallacies, misinformation and vested interests' propaganda (disinformation) are unacceptable, and disgusting for such a notable, famous in numerous countries, and awarded person. Undeniable is that he is the author of all these books and papers, and the 'star' 'actor' of the film. Grossly unbalanced (in many aspects) because of course it misrepresents at best only part of the reality, or none of reality, as if it were the whole reality. For example: different parts of the farm are and were farmed in different ways, including experiments being conducted by him and his son since the 1980s and continuing today after his death which was in fact less than 3 years ago. Jesus and Buddha lived in ancient historical times and not from the past 3 to 98 years ago—and they didn't have appearances on at least 13 national Japanese television station (NHK) documentary programs since 1976—about both his farming and his philosophy. Reliable references' sources available on request and will be updated here later when time permits. --macropneuma 05:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is an ex-porn star in Japan that has had and gets considerable more TV coverage. That does not make her enlightened.


 * Macropneuma, what you are doing is not "disputing" neutrality. You are against it being neutral. The topic is very neutral now. You really cannot complain. What I feel you are doing is wanting to turning the topic into a romantic mythology of the man, a memorial, and the Wikipedia is not the place for that.


 * You say, "All fallacies or worse (a, b, c and 'd') " ... are you telling me Fukuoka is not dead!?!


 * The farm stopped being farmed according to Fukuoka's method a long time ago. Well before his death.


 * Macropneuma, the situation in Iyo is a little strange. Fukuoka and his methods were always pretty reviled locally. The family are happy, and the farm more commercial viable, farming more conventionally. They are really not that interested in all the fuss around him and some of the eccentric fanatics that come telling them how to run their farm! Obviously for the fanatics to come back to their "Mecca" and find out that "the religion" is not being followed is a bit of a disappointment but Fukuoka is dead and the real world is carries on. To cast the changes as "experiments" is just not true. The hill with the pagoda is neglected and not shown to visitors. It would take a lot of work to restore, more than they can afford to. The fields on the plains are being farmed in neat tidy lines under black plastic to stop weeds etc. I think the family are just wants to fit in much more.


 * The problem with Fukuoka is that he was a bit of a guru figure and a sort of cult or religion has been built up around him and his philosophy. That cult, of which I would consider you part, obviously wants to portray an overly romantic view of the man and his work to sustain their own faith ... to create hagiographic view of their guru. Fukuoka was able to do what he did because he was privileged and charismatic. His family are more ordinary and face today's reality.


 * To portray Fukuoka in an "encyclopaedic manner", one has to filter out a little of the fanatical rose tinted view and bring it all down to earth a bit. Endless lists of information or very minor details do not necessarily improve the topic. Nor should it be a place to their venerate his "apostles", or faithful devotees.


 * Sadly, I think there is very little really good analysis of Fukuoka, his method and his influence. It is a little strange that a real biography of him has not been written yet.


 * As I say, I know his philosophic influence is much broader that any reliable sources note but there is nothing we can do about that until references emerge. I mention much of this merely as context for my point of view. I know someone who works on the farm and am in touch with local Japanese supporters. I could say much more if you are interested in the reality of it. Iyo-farm (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Evident straw man and evident psychological–projections (shadow boxing) more personal attacks towards my person, who you don't know at all.


 * Obviously you're not welcome to call me Jase, my username is Macropneuma.


 * Given that you have told many vilifying lies about me to my face here in talk, then....


 * Opinionated POV fallacies, most of the rest; No sources, reliable or otherwise were provided. Many are available contradicting your personal opinions talked here. According with Wikipedia policy and at all, you and your talk is not a reliable source .--macropneuma 23:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you gonna tell us that you've got reds under your bed next? Joke! so much evidence here that you cannot at all be taken seriously. – --macropneuma 00:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Evidently, you have come here to play Jesus to the lepers in your head. –– --macropneuma 11:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What we seem to have here is two different editors having difficulty working with you and understanding your perspectives and objections. I think both the article and its editors would benefit the most if you would consider taking a step back for a moment to calm down and regain perspective. You seem to be getting very worked up over something here but you're not communicating what your concerns in a way the rest of us can understand. A few key things as I see it: We really need to resolve these communication issues, because as it stands right now I still don't have a clue what your objections with the article are with respect to NPOV and the other cleanup tags you keep putting back on. Yes, you've linked to prior discussions. And no, if I had understood what your issue was from reading them (or participating in them) I wouldn't be asking you over and over to try to provide clear and concise reasoning for your objections. This is something you really need to try to do, because otherwise nothing is likely to eventuate and you'll keep having the same issues ad nauseum. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopaedia. It's not a documentary, a fanpage, a shrine, a narrative and it is most definitely not an apple.
 * This article is on Masanobu Fukuoka. It's not on Natural Farming, though that is Fukuoka's sole cause for notability. It's not on Okada, nor on Nature Farming, nor on seed balls. It's not an article on quantum physics.


 * i can't help you read.--macropneuma 07:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Evidently immediately above, you have come here to play Jesus to the lepers in your head. –– --macropneuma 11:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK That last one is an unambiguous WP:NPA. These do not help the discussion move forward. If you continue to disparage the other editors in this manner I'll report you on Wikiquette alerts or WP:AN/I.
 * Part of the problem is that the discussion has got very long, and it becomes harder to see what the original objection was. It might be a good idea to start with a clean sheet and restate the objections.--Salix (talk): 15:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

One reliable primary source quotation, as part of what above was promised
Masanobu Fukuoka [1984 Japanese original] (1987 translation) The Road Back to Nature-Regaining the Paradise Lost translated by Frederic P. Metreaud; Japan Publications, first edition 1987 Aug. 377p 8p of plates, out of print ISBN 978-0-87040-673-7.

—Quotation from chapter 4 beginning, as promised.

The point i promised is covered here, and more & different sources are available on request and forthcoming.

Another major point of evidence here is that he was in the role herein in 1975 of advising Mokichi Okada's Sekai Kyūsei Kyō (the Religion for the Salvation of the World).

[Chapter]

4 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––  Natural Farming:

A Personal Testimony –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

The Principle and Practice

of Natural Farming ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Here is the text of a speech outlining my experiences and approach to natural farming that I gave before members of the Sekai Kyūsei Kyō (the Religion for the Salvation of the World) in January 1975.

*            *             *

I graduated from Gifu Agricultural College and at the age of twenty–five joined the plant inspection division at the Yokohama Customs Bureau. There I did research in plant pathology and worked as a plant customs inspector for a while. I spent countless hours looking through the eyepiece of my microscope. As I did so, I noticed that the tiny worlds of the fungi and bacteria have something in common with the vast universe of heavenly bodies. There are males and there are females in those little fungi too. At the time, I was working on crossing molds. Molds bear a close resemblance to man not only in their shape, but in everything they do. While I was pursuing these thoughts, filled with doubts and wonder, I fell ill [pneumonia]. Then one day [15 May 1937], prompted by a chance incident, I underwent what I suppose you could call a conversion of faith. It was a turning point. I'm not going to get into that here, but I had the feeling then that science was some sort of outrageous monster.

Sensing that everything is utterly meaningless, I quit my post at customs and headed back to Shikoku. I didn't head straight back, though. I traveled around a good bit, during which time I conceived the idea of natural farming [自然農法]. On my return to Shikoku, I retreated to my father's orchard to try this out. This was during the early years of the war. As the war escalated, a life of leisurely isolation in the hills became impossible, so I joined the agricultural testing station in neighboring Kōchi Prefecture, where I was placed in charge of insect damage and worked through to the end of the war. While at the Kōchi testing centre, I did scientific research on farming methods and ran around providing guidance and instruction to the local farmers on growing rice and barley and on encouraging seed germination. Our goal at the time was to maximize food production for the war effort. At the same time, however, I had this idea of natural farming [自然農法] in the back of my head [mind]. So along with the scientific research I was doing, I also did some research of my own on natural farming. When the war ended, I was free to go at last and become a farmer as I had desired. I wasted no time in putting my ideas into practice.

So I was still a youth when I happened upon the idea of "do-nothing" farming. But although I knew that such a way existed, I had no idea at first how to carry it out in practice. I didn't know the methods. For thirty years since then I've farmed in search of those methods. Eventually, I came to have some idea of what these are.

Is "Do-Nothing" Farming Possible? ––––––––––––––––––––––

...

The Paradoxes of Scientific Farming ––––––––––––––––––––

...

Naturally Farmed Rice ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

...

The Pit of Knowledge –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

...

Ignorant Agriculture, Misguided Medicine –––––––––––––––

...

Is Natural Farming Catching On? ––––––––––––––––––––––––

...

My Method of Natural Farming –––––––––––––––––––––––––––

...

Nature as Teacher ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

...

*            *             *

I delivered this lecture before the Sekai Kyūsei Kyō more than ten years ago [in 1975]. Today things are a little different on my farm [ca. 1986]. About four years ago, I stopped having students stay at my orchard huts and retired into a solitary life of seclusion and study. My son and his wife care for half of my orchard, while I manage the other half and a little over an acre of rice paddy, where I do as I please.

Depending on how you look at it, this orchard may seem disorderly wilderness now, but I think that in the space of a few short years it will gradually take on the form of an integrated farm, something which I await with great anticipation.

As for the rice field, for thirty five years now I have employed a direct–seeding, no–till, rice/barley succession in a green manure cover [since 1950]. But because it has become clear to me what methods can be practised anywhere and by anyone, over the past few years I have made some significant changes in my methods [early 1980s].

–– --macropneuma 09:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

–– --macropneuma 08:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Point Of View is not neutral
Point Of View (POV) is not neutral and not verifiable, lacking the reliable sources.

Refer to the first of numerous POV disputes, at: Talk:Masanobu_Fukuoka

–– --macropneuma 06:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm also a bit confused as to which parts of the current article are being challenged about POV. Is it that you think the two quotes should be included. Quotations indicates that quotes should be used with care. In particular it cautions about overuse of quotations WikiQuote might be a better place for some of the quotes. WP:PRIMARY may also apply here as his own writings count as a primary sources, a secondary source backing up that this was an important aspect of his ideas might be useful. --Salix (talk): 08:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

removal of tag
I move that the topic is now neutral enough and tidied up enough to meet general Wikipedian standards. Iyo-farm (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Go straight to ... the section above (a quotation: Do not pass go. According with Wikipedia policy cooperative editing is not a game of ... .—I have a sense of humour, as all of us normal natural people do.) Obviously the POV dispute is not resolved. Obviously, this section's existence is only one uncooperative... individual editors opinion. Most fundamental in Wikipedia is reliable verifiable (cited evidence) sources.--macropneuma 23:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See comment above, "I'm also a bit confused as to which parts of the current article are being challenged about POV."


 * I agree, and despite pages and pages of screed, I do not think we are anywhere near finding out ... which is why it is coming back off again until he tell us clearly and simply.


 * And if macropneuma cannot condescend to communicating with us in an ordinary, concise manner, then I suggest we go back to 'Plan A' and have him restricted from editing on this topic. Iyo-farm (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent developments - section
The Recent developments section seems to suggest that the farm is being maintained in the traditional way, yet the photo credits "Place of Fukuoka's family farmlands, now farmed in a modern, conventional manner." suggest otherwise. What is the real situation now and does that section need to be reworded? --Salix (talk): 16:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the land is now farmed conventionally and the photo seems to lend itself to this. It has been contested by Macropneuma though so I believe secondary sources are being sought at this stage to confirm. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is Masanobu Fukuoka. Not about farming per se, of any way. Section headings must relate to the article by its title, according to basic Wikipedia policy. It is nonsense to say Masanobu Fukuoka's "Recent developments". From User:?Iyo-farm?'s first edits' changes it was always about the subject of recent farming practises since his son started to take over management in the 1980s—To continue with the Nature/Natural Farming section. It has no good reason to be separate from that Nature/Natural Farming section. Click the following links and follow their links in turn:

Esu Coop Osaka exchange visit to Fukuoka Masanobu's son's family's nature farm (page posted 2004 Dec) -includes great photos of the farm having interesting and helpful captions' text, eg. 91 year old Mr. Fukuoka; the Ama-Natsu-Mikan and their orchard; Daikon radishes growing in the Ama-Natsu-Mikan orchard; a current serious pest problem of white spotted longicorn beetle; Family, young people and employees working there and nearby; A ginko orchard part of the larger whole orchard, etc.

Elder Mr. Fukuoka meeting again with owner of Mahoroba Natural Foods store, with many details, as at 2008 Feb, including of Fukuoka Masanobu's advanced age condition; the condition and running by his Son and his Wife of the Nature Farm, and so on.

It says, the Pagoda is desolate, as the owner is no longer there, and therefore lectures are no longer held there by him, respectfully addressed as late Mr. Fukuoka Masanobu.

It says, the mountain mud walled hut where he stayed decades before 2008 is weathering, as if it wouldn't. My home, my late father's small farm house inside our SE Australian wet forest microclimate is only 20 years old and is really weathered too, from that same wet humid climate. These don't and can't be made to say or mean some grandiose interpretation about the entire farm's management.

I will translate the messages of more of this later when time permits. All our disruptor–here had to do to go wrong as they evidenced, was to badly read some Japanese sources and blow them out of all proportion and perspective... .

Farmer Philosopher Masanobu Fukuoka (1) Humans must Strive to Know the Unknown Japan Spotlight 2008

The set of links herein in turn (summer 2010)

As i have written above, and linked immediately above, i have secondary, third party, reliable verifiable sources from a professional journalist in Japan who was invited by the Fukuoka family to tour, write about and photograph the farm last year, summer 2010.

I have already provided above links to his reliable sources of the farm status. His sources in full in his Japanese original writing and photographs, and his own English succinct summary description: (again) the set of links here—click through all the links and pages to read the succinct English, the photographs, the full Japanese description and photo captions, and on his site's other pages see his credentials as journalist in Japan.

Above in talk i discreetly discussed the making of those photos from him available more on a public site, including seeking his permission to make them available here.

In sum a variety of practises are nowadays carried out in different areas of the farm, including as some areas continuing straw mulched cropping, without using seedballs, and including some areas of standard no-till, organic farming (not conventional as no chemicals are used), some areas of no-till weed-mat covered row cropping (yes plastic weed mat), etcetera. Masanobu Fukuoka sowed without seedballs many of the crops, but he did use seedballs for the rice crops, anyways. This rice with seedballs has been clearly stated as not continued now. The orchard has some areas continuing with the same trees and with some areas of continuing self-reproducing wild vegetables underneath those old trees, including daikons, mustards, turnips, and more i don't know nowadays all about the varieties that are growing, as much as i would like to know, as a farmer myself. They have in other areas changed practises from old orchard trees to new varieties of citrus, and new fruit trees altogether, as already documented. They have been growing those Shiitake mushrooms in shady areas of the maturing woodland. A photo of this, Shiitake mushrooms in the maturing woodland, is publicly available in the existing cited sources linked above, along with more photos of the above variety of kinds of farm areas, from 2004, 2008 and summer mid 2010.

More sources and even more reliable sources again, are available as already said many times.

I have more than 100 Japanese newspaper articles from the 1980s till very recently, consisting of a mix of those by other journalists about Masanobu Fukuoka and by Masanobu Fukuoka writing himself, in Japanese majors newspapers for example the Asahi Shimbun. I have to go through all—eventually... . i will copyedit this text above later ––--macropneuma 07:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I took and uploaded the photo largely because macropneuma was having hysterics about some edit I made and accusing me of all sorts of things. I think mostly being you in disguise Salix. He refused to believe I knew the farm, and took great offence at my user name. To anyone who knows Fukuoka well, it fairly matches other photos of the guru and it proved how the land is now farmed. It must be tough to follow a religion whose founder's family has largely deserted it (whilst still making money out of selling the books).


 * I posted another one of Fukuoka's hill with the sub-title "sadly neglected" (Fukuoka = Happy Hill), which macropneuma - in denial - persistently removes.


 * For me, this is part of the problem with macropneuma's editing. Despite having many old resources, as a fan or devotee of Fukuoka macropneuma swings from denial about the reality of the situation to gross or glowing exaggerations that suggests to me he wants the topic to read like an advert for the man. "Weathering" is a typical defence. The mud hut stinks of tanuki, is leaning at an angle, and is falling to pieces. If you knew what it is like, you would laugh at the suggestion it was "weather". Other huts on the hill have already decomposed. It is a shame. Actually, it is a bit short-sighted of the family really as many people are interested in Fukuoka, but they are not really.


 * Fukuoka's lands were spread over the plain, the famous hill, and around the tops of other hills near by. On the plains there is some rice and some vegetable and they are farmed conventionally (albeit perhaps organically*), e.g. using black plastic to suppress weeds, farming single crops in straight lines etc. The hill is neglected, the entrance roped off and it is not shown to outsiders. The other hill tops are 'loosely' farmed as Fukuoka did but not intensively. They focus on stuff that can make money, e.g. kiwi, some citrus. Actually, for all the discussion of them, the lands are surprisingly small.


 * I add this not for inclusion but merely as a context. The topic should be a sober reflection of the man and his work not the deification of him. It is no big deal to have shiitake growing in the forest, that is just how it is done all over Japan. They need the shade, humidity and relative coolness but they are derived from artificial plugs or spores, drilled into oak logs and laid out in neat rows these days. Iyo-farm (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (*I don't know Okada's followers but, in practise, Japanese organic practise is not as high or rigid as other countries.)


 * Firstly, 'Recent developments' is no less legitimate than 'Recent farming' in my opinion. Perhaps the section would be more appropriately titled 'Legacy' and/or subtitled 'Family farm'? What happened to his family farm after his death certainly seems relevant to his biography.


 * Secondly, as I can't read Japanese myself I can't objectively assess the links provided. The English language parts I read didn't seem to suggest the farm was still using Natural Farming techniques, and indeed, Macropneuma, your summary seems to suggest that the farm uses everything but chemical-based farming and full fledged Natural Farming techniques.


 * It seems reasonable to say that a variety of farming techniques are employed; are there any sources that objectively confirm the presence or absence of Fukuoka's Natural Farming techniques on the farm today? I've found it remarkably difficult to find any reliable information on the state of the farm since Fukuoka's death and there may be credence to Iyo-farm's comment that the family might be trying to suppress the details for various reasons. In any case, we can't say that the farm is or is not still using Natural Farming techniques unless we have a reliable source that confirms it one way or the other. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see that section develop and document the influence and effect but it seems that there is not much documentation of these. In other words, his influence has been philosophical and poetic rather than practical. But it is a fact, that whilst taking the money from the book sales, his family don't follow his system (and I suspect they are a bit relieved to be free from his yoke and on better terms with the neighbors).


 * I don't see this as a negative thing. It is a purely practical consideration. Let's face it, Fukuoka was also bit of a dilettante who could afford to play the mystic because he had his father's land and money behind him. It is not a way for everyone, especially people that have to work to survive in a capitalist system, especially one with very high land prices like Japan.


 * Perhaps "hated" is too strong a word but he was not loved and respected by the locals in Iyo. Despite being by far the most internationally famous and respected "son" of Iyo, there is no memorial for him at all. Nothing. They are glad he has gone. Once that hut falls down, there will be nothing left but compost. Sad really. Iyo-farm (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Nature Farming
Just to flag up other action going on elsewhere. There was another mental vomit all over the topic Nature farming, (here), which underlines Macropneuma agenda over this whole "Nature Farming" versus "Natural Farming". I am sorry but it is an awful petty, one man argument regarding the translation of the kanji shizen nōhō.

Yes, I agree, there was a little confusion in this area. It is the nature of Kanji that they can be translated in many ways and it is difficult to argue which one is "right" or "wrong". However, I think there is an overpoweringly strong argument to say that "Nature Farming" for Okada and "Natural Farming" for Fukuoka has been adopted as convention internationally. Especially by Okada's followers, who appear far more numerous than Fukuoka's, and have established schools and associations etc in the name of "Nature Farming".

I reject absolutely any mishmash confusion of the two differing methods. I am sorry Macropneuma but if you cannot see how badly composed and confusing those edits were, you really should not be editing the Wikipedia.

This makes me very suspicious about the claims he is making over the renaming of Okada's method to shizen nōhō in 1950 and I'd like to see better references to support this. It strikes me it is symptomatic of his obsession with Fukuoka. Okada's work does, of course, pre-date Fukuoka. I am reading this as a suggestion Okada was influenced by Fukuoka or 'stole' Fukuoka's terminology which I doubt. Iyo-farm (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This can be dealt with objectively. If there are reliable sources confirming the statement, it should be added to the article. If there aren't, the statement should be removed or tagged for a week or two to encourage people to try to fix it. If it can't be sourced, it should be removed.


 * On an unrelated note, it appears you may have accidentally referred to Macropneuma as 'Jase' in your reply (accidentally since you did refer to him by his username earlier). It might be worth taking care with respect to his request not to be referred to by that name in the interests of maintaining as friendly as possible an atmosphere. And similarly Macropneuma, I'd appreciate if you restrained yourself from making personal attacks (per Salix above) and repeated undue accusations against myself and Iyo-farm. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, it is shorter t type. I changed it but he is still named "Jase", by his own use and preference, all over related topics on the Wikipedia. Iyo-farm (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Split into two topics; Nature Farming for Okada and Natural Farming for Fukuoka as per 'Sustainable Agriculture: Definition and Terms' published by the Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. I moved content from this topic so it can focus on the man, rather than the agricultural technique or philosophy. They are both 'work in progress' and need development. Thanks. Iyo-farm (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a stub for Yoshikazu Kawaguchi and "Category:Natural Farming" if anyone cares to join me. There are many more references in Japanese. Iyo-farm (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Silence
Ah ... silence.

Nothing but the sound of the higurashi to disturb one in one's garden.

How can I add a soundtrack to the Fukuoka topic? Iyo-farm (talk) 09:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Would it be appropriate to have a phonetic pronunciation of Masanobu Fukuoka's name? (For Westerners / English speakers) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WideEyedPupil (talk • contribs) 06:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Lazy use of citations are misleading
If one actually reads reference 26, which is cited in the Criticisms section ('Body and Earth Are Not Two' : Kawaguchi Yoshikazu's NATURAL FARMING and American Agriculture Writers), one would understand that that particular passage of it is not critical of Fukuoka at all. What it is trying to say is that, though Fukuoka's specific practices on his farm are not universally applicable (due to the obvious fact that ecosystems and climates vary from location to location, among other things), his principles can still be universally applicable. Kawaguchi is the farmer who described Fukuoka's method as being a "grow-nothing" method, only because he tried to apply the same exact techniques to his own farm and failed. It took him years of following Fukuoka's principles before he finally succeeded at developing his own form of natural farming that worked for him personally. The article cited goes on to say that it should not be called "Fukuoka's Method" because the "methods" of natural farming will necessarily be as numerous as the farmers who practice them. All farmers can follow Fukuoka's principles, but must ultimately come to create their own particular method.

This aspect of the article is not a "criticism" at all and is instead a clarification. Whoever wrote the Criticisms sections was being misleading or simply did not fully understand the article they cited.

An earlier citation of this article in the "Influence" section, uses the article to claim that Fukuoka's techniques are too technical for many people to understand. There was no study of any kind conducted to confirm this. This is merely the anecdotal experience of one man, Kawaguchi himself. If we're going to talk about the supposed difficulty and technicality of Fukuoka's techniques, we must mention that it is only in the opinion of Kawaguchi. Furthermore, the likening of Fukuoka to an authoritarian grandfather figure is made only by the author of the article. Why should we state the opinion of this one man as if it is a widely accepted criticism? We need to properly attribute these criticisms so readers have a better understanding of where the criticism is coming from and what is its scope. Berserk798 (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Perfunctory editing and sourcing.
First read User:Berserk798's talk section here. User:Berserk798's salient, non–perfunctory, start, to making an assessment of the sourcing of this article, before i even get started on criticising the further depth of poor sourcing. Especially the poor sourcing spread through it, in over-statements and unverifiable sources, misdirecting impressions against the reliable source evidence. Those over-statements and mis-directions not based on reliable sources.

——--macropneuma 11:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read Berserk798's personal opinion but I disagree with it and, from my point of view, I wonder how much he knows to suggest other don't.


 * Firstly, the source is a reliable one and Yoshikazu Kawaguchi, as he runs his own school of natural farming, is better qualified than most to make the comment. I don't think it is unreasonable and I think most people accept it. Indeed, if you read Fukuoka's own work he often said as much himself.


 * Time for the land to readjust and recover, and the very strong likelihood of "failure" especially when in transition, is part of the way. The only thing that allowed Fukuoka to play the role of mystic farmer was that his family owned the land and he had financial backing. It would be wrong for us to present his system as something magical that 'just works' and produces bountiful harvests every year.


 * There is a tendency of adherents to deify Fukuoka and the method and it would be wrong of us to reinforce this and not to include some criticism.


 * I am sorry but I have to reject strongly any efforts to turn the topic into some romantic hagiography. I am pro-Fukuoka but also pro-reality. --Iyo-farm (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree with above user's disagreements full of straw man argumentation for defending perfunctory sourcing and misleading use of those for statements for which they are unreliable sources or which they didn't say at all, lacking any serious engagement with User:Berserk798's criticisms' details—carefully, non-perfunctorily written up criticisms. (added later to clearly state strong disagreement with above.) ——--macropneuma 15:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop backwardly trying to lecture us editors that, quote: "(no farming is "natural")". Don't you realise how wrong that makes you look. Since when are humans not natural? Since when is the careless, perfunctory, thoughtless vernacular usage of an English language word to the exclusion of all other usages of that word, more acceptable than the Oxford English dictionary full set of usages of that word, or than the vast body of English language scholarly literature studies of that word. Since when is nature not meaning the entire physical universe? Since when is the most prestigious English language, peer reviewed, international scientific journal Nature not allowing science studies of humans. Since when does even wikipedia itself, by its own policy: un-reliable to itself as a source, have a page that defines the word nature, totally, as excluding humans. Since when is the phrase in common English usage: human nature, incorrect English? I don't accept any of your nasty mischaracterisations of me, or my English abilities. For example, your writing mis-characterising me as if idiosyncratic, does actually and only reflect on yourself, the images in your thoughts at that time, and not on me at all. Your word idiosyncratic reflects on and is an understatement of the repetition in your own writing of the patent nonsense that, quote: "(no farming is "natural")". For another example, your first coming into wikipedia nastily attacking me in writing mis-characterising me as if it's me who hasn't ability in English language, does actually and only reflect on yourself, the images in your thoughts at that time, and not on me at all. By your own admission, your "(no farming is "natural")", struggles with English language and meaning, of the most basic word nature "from Latin natura ‘birth, nature, quality’, from nat- ‘born’, from the verb nasci" –Oxford English Dictionary, does actually and only reflect on yourself, your own images of your own English language struggles in your thoughts at that time, and not on me at all. What don't you understand about the word nature being a social construction, wherein it has been constructed to mean many levels of nature and varied parts of nature/the physical universe and parts of it exclusively—in exclusion of the totality of nature/the physical universe. Where the majority of the population of the world (India, China, Indonesia, Africa and so on) still today hold the best standard of peasant farming practises of nature/natural farming ways as wholly natural, as a part and as parcel of nature. Furthermore, as per the spectrum of nature, from: human–domination from within, of the rest of nature; to: human–mutualism wholly within nature; to: human–abandonment of the rest of nature—denial of humanity's life within nature, which is then misconceived as some lacking–humans wilderness—meanwhile airplanes fly over it, human-induced exaggeration of climate change disrupts its processes and drug crops growers trespass in it for the mutual destruction of both it and all associated with the drugs produced. There's a vast English language body of scholarly literature on this subject of nature and of the word nature in English usage. This vast English language body of scholarly literature overrides any of your perfunctory "(no farming is "natural")", struggles with this English language and meanings. Do you request one of the hundreds of scholarly, reliable English reference sources on this word nature? The full in meaning and advanced English language usages of the word nature in the official Oxford English dictionary, make very stark your writing's usages of it here in WP as in your own admission of, quote: "(no farming is "natural")" struggles with that usage of it—Very stark contrasts between appreciating those full English usages and that usage of most perfunctory nature. That reduced usage of the word nature is the simplest of all native English language socially–constructed puzzles, and English language self–contradictions. This puzzle and contradiction which by your own admission, you, quote: "(no farming is "natural")", struggle with, is the first step you have to overcome before you can begin to comprehend a different culture and social–construction, of Japanese society's—culture's backgrounds of thousands of years of nature–culture, until recent centuries of technological advancement, industrialisation and westernisation, in the Meiji, and moreso in the post–WW2 eras. Of course your double–speak words, perfunctory sourcing, severe selective bias interpretation mis-use of those unreliable sources, and by your own admission struggles with own misconceptions, etc., can't be taken seriously or bothered with by non-perfunctory encyclopaedia editors.


 * ——--macropneuma 15:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC) ——last sentence direct wording (expansion) clarification—--macropneuma 00:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 10:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 13:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Macropneuma, several editors have told you your style of English is unconventional and strange. Each time, instead of listening to them and acknowledging that your use of English may not be in alignment with the norm, you attack the other person, blaming them for not being able to understand you and repeatedly asserting that you're an excellent professional writer, despite evidence to the contrary. Fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't require you, personally, to be an excellent professional writer or have a solid grasp of English fundamentals. It's a collaborative project in which people can work together, complementing each other's strengths and covering for each other's weaknesses. This collaborative environment breaks down when you refuse to acknowledge what other people tell you about your style of writing, or attack them for making good faith corrections to your choice of prose or layouting.


 * Why you bothered to write this lengthy diatribe that obsessively focuses on one parenthetical opinion of an editor you seem to have an irrational dislike for written on someone else's talk page is beyond me. Nothing you wrote here serves any benefit whatsoever to improvement of the article, which is the sole purpose of this talk page.


 * And for what it's worth, Iyo-farm's statement shows no misunderstanding of the word 'natural' at all. From the Oxford English Dictionary, which you quoted above, the primary definition of 'natural': 'existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind'. From Merriam-Webster: 'growing without human care; not cultivated'. From Google's dictionary: 'existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind'. From the World English Dictionary: 'not affected by man or civilization; uncultivated; wild'. I could go on, but I believe my point is made. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  23:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)




 * And why the long winded summaries, and ?


 * Yes, please, work on your own version on your userpage until you are 100% happy with it, and then let us see it but leave the topic alone. Can't you see how the stuff like the authormask being set to 3 screwed up the formatting by blanking his name off ? There are specific guidelines for its use. --Iyo-farm (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

X ——--macropneuma 10:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Why remove the articles section macropneuma? I mean, it might be the right thing to do, or perhaps they could be incorporated into the topic as they are published, but I have no idea what you are up to or why? . Thank you. --Iyo-farm (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)



{{Quotation|

Template
Cite book may be used to format bibliography entries; for single-author lists, use authormask to avoid repeating the author's name.}}

——--macropneuma 10:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 21:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 22:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There are two types of bibliographies - a list of cited works in scholarly writing (a reference list, basically), and the list of works by a particular author. cite journal (and cite book by extension) is the problem here, it's more intended as an actual citation rather than use in 'list of works by an author' bibliographies. In a bibliography we already know the subject is an author. We don't need the 'access date' because we're just listing articles the subject has contributed to, not citing them directly as a source. It's questionable if we even need the page number or ISSN, since they have no bearing on the article itself but relate to just one particular publication that it appeared in. For that matter I also think the ISBNs aren't needed in the book bibliography section but I left them there in my last cleanup until there's consensus if they could be removed as clutter.


 * Remember, the bibliography section here is not a citation section. Its only real purpose is to list documents authored or co-authored by the subject. Translations are borderline, reprintings aren't really relevant. The Articles section would probably be better formatted manually, removing the cite journal template and just placing the relevant information inline. That would make it more consistent with the books section and eliminate debate over whether dashes should be used to remove the author's name. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  22:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ... Error of fact rhetoric, and many more... . Rhetoric without citing any policies, manuals of style, in this English Wikipedia the WikiProject Japan, etc. Translations are not borderline at all, etc. ... etc. ... Clearly one point of agreement, re-printings ed's without revision "aren't really relevant", eg. the New York Review Books 2009 The One–Straw Revolution reprint. Discuss please.
 * NULL, i don't know what you are meaning by, facilely covering up flagrant iyo-syncracy's flagrantly erroneous point scoring, anonymous ad hominem attacks of me since their outset with inversion mis–characterisations, even one of the least of them, idiosyncratic, and all of them inverted errors of fact. All barking up the wrong tree. I'm not dignifying any of this kinda stuff with any response. I'm not brilliant, nor did i ever describe myself that way, despite accusations to the contrary. I am competent. I have the 'reliable sources' to prove so. Furthermore, i've never meant (nor taken) ownership. i have taken responsibility in a 'milieu' here flagrantly lacking it. Are you both up to mischief, trying to keep this article stonewalled, beneath even WP minimum standards (rhetoric by me for defence (only) of encyclopaedia and myself – WP:POINT).

——--macropneuma 05:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear on how your response relates to what I wrote above, which was about article content and had nothing to do with either iyo-farm or yourself. Translations aren't typically written by the original author, I don't see why they should be mentioned in that author's bibliography, we don't do it for other authors. For example, German authors Cornelia Funke and Hans Werner Richter only list their original works and not translations in their bibliographies. Russian authors Leo Tolstoy and Maxim Gorky similarly don't include translations. Costa Rican author Tatiana Lobo, Cuban poet Reinaldo Arenas, Swedish poets Nils Ferlin and Gustaf Fröding, French authors Roger Nimier, Luc Dietrich, Violette Leduc and Claude Simon, French poet Jacques Dupin, all the same. Japanese author Hyakken Uchida, poet Takashi Nagatsuka and the certainly well-known Osamu Dazai and Edogawa Rampo are the same. Only original works are on their lists, despite translations existing for the majority of them. There's no compelling reason for us to include works that Fukuoka didn't author himself in a list of works by Fukuoka. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  06:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, now we got the article down to a fairly modest norm.


 * Please don't mess with the topic too much.


 * Is there anything of any real importance or substance to add? Let's keep discussion on topic and to the point. --Iyo-farm (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ———In that kinda stuff above, who do you think you're kidding—unambiguous dictating of WP:OWNERSHIP—of a way below standard article—WP:STONEWALLING—WP:Stonewalling. ———Em dash aversion therapy (diffs)!———
 * Quotation from above:
 * Have you learned anything on WP "specific guidelines"—please discuss. ———--macropneuma 10:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC) ———--macropneuma 10:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC) ———--macropneuma 11:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 11:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

So, User:NULL (you've my consensus on experimentally trying that point:) remove the translations you suggested, and we'll see?? ——--macropneuma 10:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 11:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Source: Professor Kato Sadamichi "'Body and Earth are not two' : Kawaguchi Yoshikazu's natural farming and American agriculture writers"
{{Quotation|

Lazy use of citations are misleading
If one actually reads reference 26, which is cited in the Criticisms section ('Body and Earth Are Not Two' : Kawaguchi Yoshikazu's NATURAL FARMING and American Agriculture Writers), one would understand that that particular passage of it is not critical of Fukuoka at all. What it is trying to say is that, though Fukuoka's specific practices on his farm are not universally applicable (due to the obvious fact that ecosystems and climates vary from location to location, among other things), his principles can still be universally applicable. Kawaguchi is the farmer who described Fukuoka's method as being a "grow-nothing" method, only because he tried to apply the same exact techniques to his own farm and failed. It took him years of following Fukuoka's principles before he finally succeeded at developing his own form of natural farming that worked for him personally. The article cited goes on to say that it should not be called "Fukuoka's Method" because the "methods" of natural farming will necessarily be as numerous as the farmers who practice them. All farmers can follow Fukuoka's principles, but must ultimately come to create their own particular method.

This aspect of the article is not a "criticism" at all and is instead a clarification. Whoever wrote the Criticisms sections was being misleading or simply did not fully understand the article they cited.

An earlier citation of this article in the "Influence" section, uses the article to claim that Fukuoka's techniques are too technical for many people to understand. There was no study of any kind conducted to confirm this. This is merely the anecdotal experience of one man, Kawaguchi himself. If we're going to talk about the supposed difficulty and technicality of Fukuoka's techniques, we must mention that it is only in the opinion of Kawaguchi. Furthermore, the likening of Fukuoka to an authoritarian grandfather figure is made only by the author of the article. Why should we state the opinion of this one man as if it is a widely accepted criticism? We need to properly attribute these criticisms so readers have a better understanding of where the criticism is coming from and what is its scope. Berserk798 (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)}}

Please read all that is relevant and discuss. ——--macropneuma 15:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Kato source: This source doesn't say what has been stated in the article here—editor's mis-interpretation synthesis not attributable to the source. Kato writes: (– my italics and my bracketed Kawaguchi name added)


 * The opinion of the author of the article is a perfectly valid source for criticism. The author doesn't attribute the opinion to Kawaguchi, and neither do we. It's not misinterpretation at all. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  21:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree. Kato, the author, for emotively dramatising his own writing to make a clear emotional impression (' "grow–nothing" ') on the reader says: Perhaps he, implicitly of course referring to Kawaguchi, should, not does, have called them "grow–nothing" techniques because he, implicitly of course referring to Kawaguchi, failed completely, harvesting almost no crops for two years. The following sentence implicitly of course is about Kawaguchi: "However, he persisted with Natural Farming, not as ‘techniques’ but as a set of principles, and after struggling for ten years he finally succeeded in finding his own way of farming." Then the next following sentence implicitly of course is about Kawaguchi: "He did so by observing the four principles laid down by Fukuoka, that is: no plowing, no fertilizers, no weeding, and no chemicals." Then the next following sentence makes it explicit again that the continuing primary foreground subject of all the foregoing sentences is Kato talking about Kawaguchi, and comparing his learning to do nature farming, to a secondary background subject of Fukuoka "do-nothing" farming. Of course no criticism of Fukuoka is stated, nor implied there at all. Emotive use of words is of course for effect on the reader, to evoke the reader's understanding at an emotional level as well as an intellectual level. Every native English speaker knows this paragraph's common written and spoken form of expression. That is, the reason the phrase "grow–nothing" is enclosed in quotes, again, is to clearly write it as a made up phrase with emotional effect but no farming practice literal meaning. Any Kawaguchi farm field that had failed to have his chosen crops successfully grow for two years, will necessarily have 'weeds' growing, and cannot possibly be described as literally "growing nothing". It is Japanese Professor Kato's skill in English language showing in this his use of this literary device for clearer communication with his readers. Obviously not any criticism of Kawaguchi's initial trial two years of failure, nor of Fukuoka's own example in 1979 of 30+ years of success, after his own initial 3–10 years of mixed results with different crops (initial failures with mikan trees and rice and so on, and successes with them and others too at times and in different places in his farm), since 1947 [1937]. ——--macropneuma 00:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your argument is not persuasive, and your personal interpretation of Kato's use of the English language is a subjective one that I do not concur with. The opinion of Kato, a professor and expert in the field, is valid criticism of the technique. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  07:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

State of the Family Farm today, better sources essential
Source: Japan Spotlight 2008 161th promenade: unreliable on that state today. From the journalist's visit prior to publication in Sept/Oct 2008, it clearly states organic farming, strictly not conventional at all, and states a lot about natural farming with Etienne. We know from better, more specific sources and better photos that the farm has areas of both, areas of organic farming in the scientific sense and natural farming, with straw mulch in the terms of late Fukuoka, Masanobu.

The better 2010 source, already provided, by professional journalist, Brian Covert, including his photos, who was invited to the farm, not a misconstruing uninvited person, has much clearer again descriptive writing that both organic farming and natural farming areas continue to be practiced in different parts, but not any kind of conventional farming. 161 promenade source does not say they are tilling, anywhere, i read it (again now). Selective bias using this photo without inckuding photos of the nature farming areas..

——--macropneuma 19:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Brian Ohkubo Covert is a friend of yours from your natural farming Yahoo group. The only person who claims he's a journalist is himself. From what I can tell, he's not accredited and doesn't appear in any publications that exercise editorial control, which is what Wikipedia requires to identify usable journalistic sources. He's also not mentioned in any of the sources in the article dated 2010, which source are you specifically referring to that is in some way 'better'?


 * The 161th promenade doesn't say tilling, no. It says the farm employs 'organic farming'. Organic farming is a technique that makes use of tilling, pesticides and a number of more conventional (note the word more) farming techniques than natural farming. The photo you object to shows tilled farmland, and your objection was that it was original research because it introduced an unpublished idea. It's plainly not an unpublished idea that the farm uses organic farming techniques, of which tilling is one.


 * It's not selective bias to not use photos of areas featuring natural farming when the sources indicate Masato and his wife do not use natural farming any more. Can't include an image of something that no longer exists. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  21:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * He's a freelance journalist more again independent than many of those. That's an unjustifiable nasty personal spray at him and again me. Rhetoric appearing defamatory of a living person. Worse in substance is essentialism. A source is reliable for a statement it is used for or not (see herein: Context matters), not essentially—not in some essentialist imaginary drama. He's not my friend at all nor my enemy at all, he & i are total strangers, having exchanged two or so messages in that discussion group. Apparently he's been too busy and hasn't replied to people's private emails—to mine not at all. The Yahoo group Fukuoka Farming was started and moderated by Stephen Canner from southern USA twelve years ago, in the last year or so Indian moderator(s) have taken up the responsibility, not me at all, i contribute. Worse in substance are rhetoric errors of fact: I have seen citations of many of his writings published in mainstream Japanese newspapers, in Japanese writing—he's written published articles for Japan Times, Mainichi Daily News, Daily Yomiuri, Intenational Herald Tribune, etc.—(several more Japanese newpapers listed in his archives—Google caches of his newspaper articles archives, from his website within web.mac.com domain, recently all taken down by Apple as their old services, in their transitioning everyone to iCloud services. i haven't found his new website yet). Central is, as a journalist in 2010 Covert was invited to Fukuoka family farms by the family to personally do a piece of journalism on it. The only nit-picking one could have with that is that this piece of journalism was personally published and is the reason i have not immediately used it without first emailing him, with no reply. His Fukuoka family farm photos have no doubt about authenticity of their subject of the farm, and the pagoda on the hill is shown in his high quality close up photos, obtained by his getting invited there and elsewhere through the farm;


 * There's much scientifically based organic no-till farming around in vast Australia and some more parts of the world, but i understand not much in north America, and certainly not the majority by area of organic farming in the world. Assumptions based on the single–majority rules idea (also essentialism) to the exclusion of all else are not acceptable in WP, even where wider society perceives that way (mob rule mentality). Wikipedia pillar policy requires all non-fringe viewpoints to be represented, in this case practices: organic tilling and no tilling farming, to fairly represent all significant viewpoints, practices, that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, practice. i expect you to read this policy again in every word without skim reading, as one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, with much written there which has already resolved the unnecessary problems, stereotypes and essentialisms. Simplistically global scale diversity, plurality of viewpoints, practices, etc. is covered by English wikipedia, not dramatised stereotypes, not essentialist dramas and not Anglophone–centric stereotypes, essentialisms, monocultural simplifications. The many international conferences and literature publications on it are getting themselves organised and unified under the 'brand' of Conservation Agriculture, although substantially some is organic, it's not necessarily at all organic.BrkyBsh It has been very influential over vast parts of Africa, by many sources.FMNR Organic no-till farming is not at all 自然農法 nature farming. No farming is natural when one betters that nonsense with asking is farming nature, of course it is. Again, nature farming resolves the English language contradictions for humans who don't think of themselves as excluded from the physical universe, the earth, Christain God's creation, science's/atheism's nature, Australian Aborigines' religions' meanings of Country and Dreaming creation stories., Buddhism's Pratītyasamutpāda and so on. Again, your essentialist stereotypes of organic farming essentially making use of tilling are not supported by all the better sources in Fukuoka Family farming practices, and are not attributable to this source, and world-wide not valid even as stereotypes because of contrary diverse practices including no tilling/plowing, see much Conservation Agriculture info online. Rhetorical errors of fact, just like ?Iyo-farms? unsourced rhetoric of all the farm not natural anymore in conflation with their own admission of "No farming is "Natural"" language struggles. Brian Covert's 2010 images of their farm orchard areas of natural farming are indisputable as are the many written Japanese sources far superior in reliability and currency than the Japan Spotlight journalist's fleeting relationship and visit. Reliable sources are also not essentialist stereotypes but evaluated independently, according to Wikipedia identifying reliable sources policy, for each statement being made in the article, and likely to be challenged. I have successfully mounted a sustained challenge in this long paragraph here and throughout talk and edits over more than one year since ?Iyo-farm? broke so many policies blanking much of my work, mostly correct according to policies not understood by them, and gratuitously waging a war of ignoring stereotype words at me personally.

——--macropneuma 03:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Self published sources such as personal hosting (web.mac.com) are not reliable sources, you're already aware of that fact. You can't use his writing even if you did have his permission, it fails WP:RS. The fact remains that Covert has no demonstrable press accreditation and no articles appearing in newspapers or journals subject to editorial control. Your unfounded opinion on how iyo-farm took his photos is a personal attack and I've removed it - if you continue to attack iyo-farm, we'll take the process to dispute resolution instead. There is no evidence that natural farming is still practised at the Fukuoka farm, and there are sources (both usable and not) stating specifically that natural farming is no longer practised there. It's not a matter of representing all viewpoints, there is simply no evidence that natural farming is still used there. There is no 'war' being waged here, macropneuma. Thinking in that manner is WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and it's little wonder you're so aggressive and combative if you believe that is what's going on here. We're here to edit the encyclopedia. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  07:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms section
Definitely better sources—original criticisms publications—not citations of other people's/these criticisms, and more likely reliable and more reliable sources, are the following two examples:





Can anyone readily send full copies of them please? I can get them later taking a bit more time.

——--macropneuma 21:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See: WP:SOAPBOX, (also WP:NOTMEMORIAL). Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages.


 * You're being overly sensitive Macrop. You're coming across like some sort of defensive cult member in denial about any problem or failing of their guru or the guru's system. Some mention of the difficulties of Fukuoka's approach is perfectly valid and needs to be in the topic so that its readers are not misled. It is required for balance. I suspect part of you is here seeking to be a great "defender of the faith". I am not against it. It's just that the topic should be grounded in realities.


 * Here's the reality. On the flat lands, the Fukuokas use polythene encasing, crops in neat furrows, a tractor and other mechanised equipment. The hill and pagoda are roped off and neglected. The old huts where the original students lived have either collapsed or are in a state of serious disrepair and stink of tanuki and, n.b., organic standards in Japan are not as rigidly adhered to as in developed nations (hint).


 * I've read your personal attack and theories about the cultural barriers etc but, frankly speaking, having a home a cycle ride away from Fukuoka's farm, living with people who have social connections to them, a relative who rent lands off Kawaguchi and studies with him, and having worked on the Fukuoka farm myself, I think I am more qualified than you to report what is. To add WP:OR as you did about Kawaguchi's lands having significantly different climatic influences is ridiculous (they are just a few hours away), it's a fact that transitioning can lead to total crop failure. Look at Fukuoka's own experiences.


 * One of the problems with many of the write ups of Fukuoka is they are written by "cult members" who come seeking some kind of Shangri La and sustaining their own confirmational bias. I think the vision is a wonderful vision but it just not real.


 * The family do not follow his method any more. You might ask why not, if it was so great. When tourists come over they are given "the tour" but they are not shown or told everything. One one hand, I'd like to encourage you to come and see the reality; on the other hand, I would not want you to waste the family's time. They have a business to run and, to be honest, they are tired of nuts who turn up wasting their time.


 * Yes, I know and have been to the other hill where mixed crops are grown, and who grows them, and I would describe it as fairly tokenistic. --Iyo-farm (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Pronounciation
Would it be appropriate to have a phonetic pronunciation of Masanobu Fukuoka's name? (For Westerners / English speakers) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WideEyedPupil (talk • contribs) 06:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Off Wikipedia canvasing and personal attacks
Nice work Jason ... ,

"Seriously sadistic--masochistic--self-destructive and seriously defamatory ... a really genuinely evil person, a real devil as sneaky and devious as they are ... a consciously, deliberately sadistic person" (that me folks!).

See: WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS --Iyo-farm (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Macropneuma, these accusations you level against Iyo-farm are both vicious and unfounded. You've been told countless times not to treat this article like a battleground, not to personally attack other editors, to provide reliable sources for your claims. I'm extremely disappointed that you seem incapable of or unwilling to contribute to Wikipedia in a collegial manner that is expected. I've done my best to assume good faith on your behalf but this vitriol-laden email to your Yahoo group is beyond the pale. You have grossly mischaracterised the situation here and the objective reasons why you're encountering resistance. You've repeatedly and aggressively accused Iyo-farm of lying about who and where he is without any evidence to support you. You've accused him of committing criminal action, trespassing to take photos solely because you don't like the story those photos tell. You've lied in implying we as editors are attempting 'to insinuate that the farm is ruined by the family' when you know perfectly well that the only thing being said about the family farm is that they use more conventional organic farming techniques and no longer use natural farming - a statement backed up by reliable sources.


 * Your enraged tirades are completely unacceptable, both on- and off-wiki. I regret that I can no longer assume you are acting in good faith. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  04:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've issued an oficial warning on User talk:Macropneuma. In response to this first and foremost, act calmly (even if difficult). No personal attacks says the best response is not to respond at all. If matters continue it may be time to enter the Dispute resolution process.--Salix (talk): 09:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Macropneuma’s return
OK, I am a little apprehensive about Macropneuma’s return to this topic for reasons documented previously on this talk page archive.

An immediate repetition of the whitewashing dispute and FUBAR edits such as do not do much for my confidence. I've removed "natural philosopher" from the biographical box as natural philosopher has an entirely different meaning in English and some of the bitty, extraneous fritters that do nothing but complicated the article.


 * Is there any chance you can complete your revision of the article in your sandbox and then we discuss it, Jase?

You've got a tendency to be a little obsessive over details that really do not matter and over complicate things, e.g. there is no harm to changing all of the 'ref names' but it really makes no difference to the reader, it is merely for the sake of the code.

I also still argue that Natural Farming should be capitalized as a proper noun to differentiate it from the purely adjectival (and misleading) use of the term "natural".

Thank you. --Iyo-farm (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Silly actual obsessions, for detail falsehoods: (diffs (amongst others)) –fixed, again (B&W references’ quotations on request). The knowledgable reader can see the values from the and utilize them, including me.


 * Calling deliberate, full testing, temporary edits with good faith, no harm and edit summary sense of humour, as "FUBAR edits" just seeks to insult. Don’t be so silly. (diff … diff diff –glad i did –show of flexibility.)


 * Natural philosopher, deliberately was not wikilinked, so it’s fine there in the InfoBox in its general English language sense for readers and as readers would take it in plain and simple English—fine for everyone, except those biased, trying to minimise his credit. The English language is not restricted to special definitions from Wikipedia.


 * Please desist from rhetorical questions for the purpose of dictating, and cease your aggressive, covetous, WP:OWNERSHIP. Attacking me doesn’t take away my responsibility and sense of responsibility for much of this article’s sentences, still unchanged since i wrote them. Don’t be so silly as to attack responsible editors, me, as WP:OWNERSHIP.
 * Please, different responsible editors, who are my peers or better competence, join this article and better edit it. i wish!—together with me—and have wished so, forever".


 * Bluntly, obviously don’t know what a proper noun is, properly, nor: "Latin natura ‘birth, nature, quality’, from nat- ‘born’, from the verb nasci ." the etymology of the word nature –Oxford Dictionary of English 3rd edition © 2010 by Oxford University Press, Inc. (–or is it pretext for an underbelly of a reason of pushing brand name recognition (& PR) and ownership (on the internet &c.)?)


 * Pneumonia identical to depression? There has been a tendency of writing deliberately ignoring words on subjects not known about, which should not be written about at all. "Another disgusting attempt in the history of doing a form of neo–colonialist occupation." <–Lastly, not prose. <–Of my agency, the poetic close.


 * "One more thing" –with the late Steve Jobs. There was actually one very poorly cited reference in there i hadn't noticed before, a genuinely good reference someone (?) added in there, the citation of which i fixed up and provided the link to the online paper for, today; hope it doesn't get "deleted by occupation":
 * --macropneuma 14:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I have not got a clue what point/s you are trying to make. Unless it is in simple, clear English, no one can understand what you are saying. The Parnwell reference, above, is still part of the article (no. 32) and so I don't understand what point you are making there either. The article is fine as it is and it is hard to see how it is missing much. I'll update it with news of the 100th year anniversary celebration this year, when it happens. --Iyo-farm (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Bad BS! Patent nonsense (content guideline), eg. do not randomly, for BS reasons, delete the Parnwell ref also.


 * Fukuoka Masanobu's 100 year anniversary has nought to do with you. The organisers are in email contact with us, told me they're initiating it at the Opera, and we all know about you—Patent nonsense by anonymous; cannot report news of anything—doesn't even give a name let alone own a newspaper nor own any publications—Wikipedia : Patent nonsense per WP:RS –in this case do not look up the online Australian urban dictionary for "RS" even though it might seem appropriate for it—engaging sense of humour. If you were sorry, rather than facetiously saying so, you'd have contrition. Who pays you? --macropneuma 01:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Not agreed; matters of facts (from reliable sources available on request), silliness, falsehoods thrown at Fukuoka now repeated again (mud slinging), and of undue personal comments. To say the least, disappointed. Hmm, BTW, in case you haven’t noticed i’m exercising my sense of humour at the silly attack.

Re: diff: Re: diff: Direct quotations in context:

Please, different responsible editors, who are my peers or better competence, join this article and better edit it. I wish!—together, with me—and i have wished so, forever. --macropneuma 13:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, we have been over this 'article of faith' of yours before too. Unfortunately we only have his own autobiographical report of what ever happened and that really does not pass as a 'reliable source' by Wikipedian standards. It's basically "self-published material" or claim and without qualification from "an established expert on the topic". If we accept that he did not feel better until after his experience, which is what the quote says, then surely "during" recover. --Iyo-farm (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:SELFSOURCE (Wikipedia policy). Bad BS! Patent nonsense (content guideline). Your woolly words (muddled) themself (surely "during" recover) answer the question—don’t know what you’re talking about. Don’t use, don’t cite sources. The question always was about the sentence subject of pneumonia from his own writings of the sequence: suffering pneumonia, hospital release w. body’s recovery. Pneumonia identical to depression? --macropneuma 03:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You are correct but see: "1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". I would say that to claim one is "enlightened", or had an "enlightenment experience" without qualified third party ratification is self-serving or an exceptional claim. There is no record of such. Because of your past record, and because of your style/conduct and obvious personal antagonism towards me, I want to progress step by step and discuss and agree the need for any changes with others beforehand.


 * Thank you. --Iyo-farm (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Undue personal comments, inverse, bad BS, "…record…" blah blah blah. Those undue comments, have been since your first mass blanking edits years ago, in 2011 Feb.; having not stopped even until now. Your WP conduct, personal and editing, ongoing ever since your first mass blanking edits years ago disgusts me so much, that i cannot entirely describe. Back to Wikipedia policies &c.. Discuss first? Pneumonia identical to (non) enlightenment?
 * A little refactoring : When i’m talking/writing about pneumonia, i am not talking/writing about depression; apparently and incredibly, you seem to be (writing, conflating pneumonia and depression as identical). When i’m talking/writing about pneumonia, i am not at all talking/writing about the subject of enlightenment; apparently and incredibly, you seem to be (writing, conflating pneumonia and the subject of enlightenment (non– in you) as identical). Simplistic logic: If a person gets struck down to be bed-ridden with h5m1 influenza and at the same time suffers from obsessive compulsive anxiety, medical people do not then invent a conflated together diagnosis (no, not perhaps giving a name to it of influeobsessions (nor pneumodepressounenlightenment). In reality, if they did they would be quickly stripped of any medical practise licences and disbarred. Woolly, totally careless, thinking, to such a degree—to say the least.
 * This is all only about one user’s personal make–believe, interpretations, opinions, sans any sources WP:RS. You’re wrong, in WP, much more so than me and even more than i am right/perfect. No-one’s perfect. Imperfections are of course not condemnable, not assailable. Intentional bad conduct is, due, for censure. --macropneuma 06:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Can I remind you both of No personal attacks: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks."


 * I know the two of you don't get along but can you please just talk about the article and not insult each other or question editor motives.--Salix (talk): 09:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes and no, Salix. For me, this is not a personal issue it is about what goes out there into the real world. I do not consider I am making any "personal attacks".(1) Macropneuma has an extremely idiosyncratic editing and communication style which is hardly comprehensible.(2) It places an unfair burden onto other editors. Half the time I have not a clue in the world what he is trying to say. I do not believe others do, and I do not consider that anyone should have to makes attempt to decipher it.


 * If one cannot communicate in simple, plain English, then one probably does not belong in a project creating an encyclopaedia for general readership.(3)


 * If it carries on, I am thinking of referring his conduct to something like a WP:RFC, e.g. User conduct to get a second opinion.(4)


 * In the meanwhile, I think it would be best if he carried on development of a parallel topic in a personal sandbox.(5)


 * I have to put my foot down and say any development should be agreed in advance first, and I don't see much or any important development in his latest salvo.(6) --Iyo-farm (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To say the least, there’s no truth in the hate speech thrown at me together with pre-emptive denial and dictating, above (again) at 13:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC). Not safe to work with. Not dignifying it. Of course, i don’t take silly, patent nonsense, personal attacks; i’m not shy of standing up with evidence and i do not start cycles of personal attacks. Who’s behind this?


 * On the subject of No personal attacks, I refuse to be drawn into personal attacks nowadays, thanks, so repeating again: No personal attacks anywhere and emphatically, adding the reference to the plain policy: Don't lie. --macropneuma 02:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've restored some of Iyo-farm comments which macropneuma, claims as a personal attack. I've marked these as (1)-(6). It looks to me that macropneuma is not willing to try to resolve the dispute or understanding that he may be in error. There is a problem with your sentence structure and grammar which looks to me like your not a native English speaker, if that is so we can try to accommodate that. But you need to try harder to write so other can understand what your saying. --Salix (talk): 17:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * By the single indenting i was referring to your talk on the subject of No personal attacks in what i wrote above "I refuse to be drawn into personal attacks nowadays" (clarified above now). This must not to be brutally misconstrued. In reality, my own native English language has for decades been rated, as native, as professional (officially, see the following), as having a sense of humour, as not taking myself too seriously and as just fine for communication purposes, but not pretending to perfection nor word perfect. Straight talking free speech by a free man! Thanks are due to those who care for me and who do not hate, including, officially, those people in one of my past jobs, in an agency of the Federal Government of Australia. --macropneuma 23:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The written word is different discipline. Here's some good advice on the matter, plainlanguage.gov.


 * To paraphrase Jonathan Culler, words are just signs or representations and but a way to get at reality, truth, or ideas. They should be as transparent as possible not get in the way, nor affect or infect the thought or truth they represent. --Iyo-farm (talk)


 * More WP:BAIT. I don't need, links from demonstrably lesser writers to, advice. I’ve always had far better writing guides than that. Risibly ridiculous personal attacks not based on anything. Deliberate ignorance as a form of personal attacks. It's my writing, much better than, which still makes up many of the sentences of the article. Not part of my life! False attacking of my writing from jealousy by a British English speaker? Different discipline from what? Over two decades of professional working life, i have been professionally writing constantly in job roles based in offices, totalling more than 10 years of full time. These have been in a few corporations and the majority of time somewhere in all levels of Australian Governments, including an agency of the Federal Government, Canberra. At various other times of the last two decades, some breadth of life experience and diversity of work and life styles, including professional outdoor job roles of field botanical survey, ecological restoration, endangered plants' propagation work in specialist nurseries, GPS data capture, etc., and my nature farm, home base. No cited sources, again; as have been absent most of the time, since 2011 Feb. when arrived, then immediately, intentionally–ignorantly attacked. Attempting to make me lose my self esteem in my own long English writing experience? That failed! Pulling wild speculations out of thin air making them into false personal attacks. --macropneuma 14:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggested improvements
Macropneuma is unwilling to go the sandbox route, so please allow me to start a new section for 'suggested improvements' of the topic. If anyone knows of a better way to lay out such a discussion, please reformat as required.

I'll go through the topic and unpick proposed changes as time allows. If Macropneuma would list his suggestions and justifications here, I would appreciate it.

As a rule, for me, "less is more". I am unconvinced the topic benefits from much of the visual clutter and 'micro-detailing' Macropneuma is seeking to add, but others might disagree with me. Likewise, this is an English language Wiki and so I do not understand the need for extensive Japanese language documentation. Presumably if anyone has that serious an interest they will learn the language and go to the primary sources but it strikes me that, according to policy, English language sources are sufficient. --Iyo-farm (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss.

Natural philosopher in the biographical box

 * Oppose. The reason being is that the correct definition of natural philosophy is what most people now call physics. Fukuoka was not that and so it appears to be a neologism. No references to support. --Iyo-farm (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No sources cited? --macropneuma 14:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Wanting to be an authority figurehead, without having to provide sources. --macropneuma 14:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support as instigator – logically, based on scholarly sources, including his own, about himself.


 * A most general term of the natural sciences, especially physical science, constituted by physics, chemistry, biology and so on like geology, etc.. Contrasted with social sciences such as psychology, social science, political science, etc., and contrasted with mixed sciences such as anthropology/archaeology. At this level of generalisation, a biologist is what late Fukuoka Masanobu was. More narrowly, more specifically, he was a microbiologist, plant pathologist and agricultural scientist, by a combination of University trainings and on the job trainings, operational work and his scholarly papers publications. He wrote numerous scholarly philosophy books (5+) and papers (10+). One of these numerous books discusses the national TV broadcaster NHK's six feature episodes of him in their decades long running series こころの時代 . In these six series episodes of an hour each he is describing, on national TV, his philosophies, with the decades long program host Toshio Kanamitsu. His Japanese books in total selling more than 250,000 copies (ref on the article page: Japan Spotlight 162). His most particular philosophy book is a serious scholarly work including dedicated chapters on each of certain major European philosophers, before his many scholarly chapters of his own philosophies, eg. scholarly chapters on Descartes, Kant and several more. i've only read a few parts of the body text, and the contents and sections very closely, so far. Of course, it is ridiculous, against WP policies, to have linguistic bigotry towards non–English sources, eg.Template:Globalize.--macropneuma 15:00, 4 January 2013


 * See, WP:NOENG. "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones ...".


 * I think you are exaggerating with your use of "scholarly" (and his own opinion on himself would not be a reliable source). Apart from the very few specific scientific papers we know about, in which philosophical journals was he published?


 * Of course one can accept Fukuoka was an agricultural scientist and a popular author, and that he had an opinion on many subjects. Unfortunately, it cannot be said he really made much of an impact onto mainstream/academic philosophical world, nor is he highly regarded by it. Indeed, I would say he is almost unknown by it (for philosophy).
 * Perhaps this is, as you suggest, this is due to ethnocentrism; perhaps it was because he was unschooled in this area; perhaps it is also just too soon to judge; but one thing for sure he was not a physicist, as natural philosophy is physics.
 * What you might be seeking to assert is that he was a "philosopher of nature", which is different, but I think the problem is that in your devotion to him as a guru figure you are trying to raise him to unreasonable or unencyclopaediac heights. I think it is better to keep things down to earth and "author" is good enough. --Iyo-farm (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Plain factually wrong in every point. Plain filibustering and WP:BAIT. Misused WP policy WP:NOENG deliberately ignoring the rest of the policy’s words, eg. English sources are not of "equal quality and relevance" to the very many Japanese sources available; and: "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations.", etc.. In addition, you've previously since 2011 Feb., obviously been mis-using machine translations. Plainly, random personal opinions and conduct thrown at me for stone-walling. In addition trivially and randomly, above you've mis-used italics for a quotation which already is within quotation marks. "English sources preferred" (obviously) – identical with the attitude of?: English language sources bigotry (breaching WP policies)–?? Pfft.


 * His scholarly published works and 3rd party scholars’ works about them, obviously, deliberately ignoring. Obviously, deliberately ignoring, denying hearing and erasing from knowledge this whole body of literature, which the world of true scholars well knows about, for, instead, personal point of view hatred speeches, about his philosophies. Again, pushing personal hatred of his philosophies—admitted elsewhere, sources available online—by factually wrong points about his notability in Japanese philosophy.


 * (Together with mis-leading points, that are not part in WP policies, about Japanese philosophy. As if it is only that written of the non-notable, academic, banal, kind, by persons only known within academia. As if that is mainstream, when that is not mainstream, by the public majority, by encyclopaedias’ terms, by WP’s policies or by 3rd party works’ terms. Wikipedia policies tell us that that only known in academia, without any body of publications, isn’t notable, and to not include it.) –fudging, fudging, every which way; –desperate scrambling and random flailing about for ways of filibustering, –clutching at straws for stone–walling. False personal hate speeches, calling his works merely popular, non-notable or non–mainstream (and calling me "exaggerating", about matters being deliberately ignored). Deliberately ignoring of and plainly not to properly research Japanese sources; –remove your (WP:POV) opinions about these many sources, as opinions based in intentional ignorance.


 * Factually wrong calling natural philosophy, natural sciences, physical sciences identical to merely physics. Obviously, ignorance pulled out of thin air.


 * Conflating the present day usage of the word physics with the word physis? –the etymology of the word physical used for all physical sciences (from the Greek original word: physis –for all nature; "Latin natura ‘birth, nature, quality’, from nat- ‘born’, from the verb nasci ." the etymology of the word nature –Oxford Dictionary of English 3rd edition © 2010 by Oxford University Press, Inc.). Saying biology included as a part of metaphysics? pfft. "Over the last two millennia, physics", "chemistry, certain branches of mathematics, and biology" were parts "of natural philosophy", but have each developed as separate natural sciences in their own rights, from the umbrella of natural philosophy, since the 17th CE scientific revolution.


 * WP:NOENG: "4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;" –my emphasis of one word, added in italics. --macropneuma 07:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose this looks like a translation problem, in the west "natural philosophy" has a very specific meaning which is different to what Fukuoka practiced. I'd be happier with "philosopher" which can cover many things although their may be some variety of Eastern philosophy which better describes what he practiced. "Philosopher of nature" might work as it does not put him in the western reductionist school.--Salix (talk): 08:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed, "Philosopher of nature" hadn't occurred to me. Not too bad. It would be a satisfactory phrase for communicating simply, and a suitable compromise, in the past(!?) chaos here.


 * Furthermore, the argument about, quotation: "as it does not put him in the western reductionist school." is a compelling argument on the ambiguity to readers of whether or not that is the interpretation; (for the phrase natural philosopher has several broad meanings and usages in different usages of English language. There is today not only long established, official language English in India, but in Japan increasingly English emerges in a proper form, not Japlish, as a distinct Japanese English dialect (for your interest).) --macropneuma 09:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Dead links
This article has many dead links in the references notes citations. Please fix the links. I'll tag the dead links, as already did, as was reverted in breach of WP policies. --macropneuma 15:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Just remove the links then and avoid introducing unnecessary cruft into the topic. If the book, journal is referenced, that is all that is required. There is no obligation to have a URL as long as the hardcopy is available WP:CITE. --Iyo-farm (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You fix your dead links by updating them, they’re of many kinds, not all deletable. i’m not your servant or your slave or your fool and i do not take dictation from anyone, let alone hate speakers, engaged in filibustering. --macropneuma 23:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy: Globalize
Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Globalize/West ← see these links of this one example of these policies, also. --macropneuma 09:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent bad faith edits
I am sorry but I have to consider a number of the most recent revision to be quite deliberate bad faith edits on behalf of Macropneuma.

Direct copies of

For example,


 * Why replace a 'cite journal' template with a 'cite book' template when the publication is clear a journal?
 * Why state "discussion is concluded" whilst discussion is still on going?
 * Why replace "natural philosopher" whilst is is clearly disputed and discussion on going?
 * Why continue to add cruft when you have been asked not to?

and if we look at minor details,

I am sorry but, no. Stop reverting. Please discuss your intentions beforehand and justify them.
 * Why bother entitling something a documentary when it is clearly in the documentary section?
 * Why add a note saying there is "no ISBN number"?
 * Why keep removing the photograph of his land?
 * Why multiple examples or multiple signatures on talk page, e.g. in one case, 5 times minutes apart!

You don't have a right to waste other people's time in this manner. Thank you. --Iyo-farm (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Assume good faith. Wikipedia - Don't lie. All false accusations and falsehoods, by above username. WP:BAIT.


 * Correcting again now, back to the corrections already made to mistaken edits earlier made by above username, for no reasons, having ignored the content of the citations and sources, statements and citations they edited were based upon, and obviously ignoring the Japanese sources’ pages.


 * My edits are good faith edits per WP policies WP:3RR, Wikipedia – Don't lie: "Just don’t"; thus this was further breaching WP:Assume good faith. eg. diff
 * If bothered to read the Japanese sources instead of deliberately ignoring the sources in editing, then would know that they are chapters of book series monographs. They have ISBNs not ISSNs, Duh! Don’t deliberately ignorantly revert what obviously is not knowledge held. Drop the sarcasm and falsity. If sorry then they would have contrition. No right to have wasted so much of my time and falsely personally attacked me since 2011 Feb.


 * Since 2011 Feb. a long standing need to change your username, so it is not a falsity (Admins, see the article's edits history.)


 * See: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff edit summaries provide clear reasons why the mis-leading, mis-representative, emotive (for pressure on the family?) photograph has been removed many times by editors.


 * By way of explanation for the long term abuse that has gone on. I have let myself be vulnerable to it for some time. In 2011 Feb and for some time afterwards, as i was focused on content edits i didn't familiarise myself with the dynamics users use with edit warring. I was naive thinking that users would come around to using reliable sources if given encouragement enough. This has not happened and much worse has happened. I've since been forced to become familiar with these dynamics of edits warriors and have stopped playing into their hands.


 * Stop breaching Wikipedia policies of ownership, no personal attacks, talk pages, ownership also of talk page and so on: Policies: WP:TALK, WP:TALKNO, WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:TALKO


 * For one example this talk page contents was badly edited (diff) removing sources of evidence for the username’s false statements. (That evidence provided in talk here remaining only in relative obscurity in this page’s history).


 * See the destroyed content of the talk page, destroyed as shown from the lack of contents inside the collapse box, here: Revision as of 15:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC) by Iyo-farm, compared to the prior not destroyed version, here: Revision as of 14:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC). --macropneuma 06:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've given up trying to speak to you and understand what you are saying. There's just too much noise to filter out in order to find the signal. I've just spent another half an hour of my life trying to make sense of it, here. If you don't like what I am doing, take it to the admins and let them judge. Thank you. --Iyo-farm (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Deliberately ignoring and denying. Dissembling! There’s no excuse—having been engaged in personal attacks, ownership and breaches—doing more of those things here. Being unable to read something, identical with: not having domination and being in control of it? Permission has to be asked for, before changing, on article talk pages, another users comments or signatures. Permission has not been asked for. Permission has not been given. These have not been done which is breaching Wikipedia policies, including Wikipedia – Talk page guidelines. Policy: WP:Refactoring. Stop breaching Wikipedia policies Policies: WP:BEHAVE - conduct --macropneuma 01:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, put up or shut up. Report me to the admins and let them decide having looked at your conduct. At best you're an eccentric who may have some small beneficial details, at worst you can be a time and energy wasting nut. We should not have to deal with your eccentricities.
 * Seriously ... take it to an RFC but, remember, this is where the article started when you had control of it and look at where it is now. --Iyo-farm (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Policies: WP:BEHAVE - conduct ——--macropneuma 01:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that, per WP:NPA, "accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack". Please stop your repeated personal attacks on editors you disagree with. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  03:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That’s exactly what has just been done to me above: "accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack" – again (diff) – WP:BAIT.


 * In reality, my writing abilities are not in doubt. To hate speaking personal attackers, it is my own agency that I do not care to write well to them – again (diff). ——--macropneuma 04:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In reality, your writing abilities are in doubt, both by myself and Iyo-farm. This is a collaborative environment, you need to be able to work collaboratively with other editors here. If you 'do not care to write well' to people you disagree with, this may not be the best project for you. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  04:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Do not misrepresent my words, again. To hate speaking personal attackers, it is my own agency that I do not care to write well to them – again (diff).
 * In reality, officially, and of hundreds of people who are part of my life, my writing abilities are not in doubt. That’s just a two year old mistaken script of hate speech. Initially it was a mistake of unwillingness to understand a Wikipedia article only about one third finished editing, and my going slowly to wait for responsible, peers or better competence editors to arrive and work together with me. Then that mistake of unwillingness to understand, and to understand more broadly Wikipedia’s nature as a constant work in progress, turned into unalloyed hate speech, personal attacks. Many Japanese sentences translations had, and still have, to be done, for one of many examples. ——--macropneuma 05:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You're difficult to understand and you use non-standard English in easily the majority of what you write here, it's not just one revision of an article work in progress. Anyone can review the archives of this talk page and see for themselves how strange your writing is. It's nice that you have hundreds of people who like your writing in your offline life, but that has nothing at all to do with Wikipedia and your ability to write to an acceptable level here. Criticism isn't hate speech, and you need to stop calling it hate speech. Go and read what hate speech is. Your repeated misuse of the term against anyone who is critical of you is a personal attack, as I mentioned above, because it has no basis in fact. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  05:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In reality, factually, wrong. Standard? Bad BS. Every top English language organisation, like newspapers, universities, governments, in different English speaking countries, has different standards. When it is factually wrong, it is hate speech, personal attack, in this case for trying to getting away with breaches of WP policies of civility, no personal attacks, conduct and, obviously, to dominate and own the article. No right to impose personal–attack–motivated so called standard (false), on to me.
 * A standard English writing lead (so called standard) is quoted below. Calling out the standard is one–eyed, black and white, bad false thinking, for personal attack hate speaking. Don’t understand this quotation, either?


 * –By professional maturity, perspective and standard s, better English writing.
 * That "standard" means banalisation? ——--macropneuma 06:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You can nit-pick over the meaning of the word 'standard' as much as you like. I was trying to be polite. If you don't understand polite, I'll be blunt. You use invalid punctuation (particularly commas in inappropriate places), you write run-on sentences, you omit definite and indefinite articles, you chain adjectives or vowels together in ways that aren't valid. These all make it more difficult to decipher what it is exactly you're trying to communicate, as well as the ridiculously long walls of text you've written in the past. You are not a good writer. I'm sorry, it's not a personal attack, it's valid criticism about the way you communicate. Some of what you write is fine, nothing wrong with it, but much of what you write breaks the basic rules of sentence construction in such fundamental ways that make it difficult - and at times impossible - for others to read.


 * As for the quotation you provided, it's perfectly understandable and there's nothing wrong with it. Of course, that should hardly be surprising for a Pulitzer prize-winning writer. If you wrote like that, there wouldn't be a problem here. Instead, you write this:
 * If you honestly think that is valid, normal English, you're deluding yourself. I don't know how else to try to politely communicate to you that there's a problem with the way you write when you refuse to acknowledge even the remotest of possibilities that such a thing could be true. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  07:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Time for formal dispute resolution
This has gone on long enough it is time we moved towards a formal Dispute resolution. There are a number of options I'm not sure if we actually have a content dispute, or if we do its lost in the rest. How should we move forward?--Salix (talk): 09:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Dispute resolution noticeboard a first step for content disputes.
 * 2) Requests for mediation again for content disputes with a appointed mediator to help resolve the dispute.
 * 3) Requests for comment/User conduct specifically about the conduct of an editor.
 * 4) Administrators' noticeboard


 * I think an RFC/U would be the best way forward, honestly. I got the impression from Iyo_farm that he was inclined towards that as well, but I won't speak for him. Unfortunately I've got no experience with RFC/U creation so I'm not sure how to go about it. I do think, at least, that there's ample evidence to be included. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  21:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for coming to this conclusion. I have no experience in creating one of these report but I don't think it should be difficult for any third party to see what is going on. If my own conduct and contributions are brought into question, I am happy to be fairly judged as well. I think what we need is a simple WP:FRUITCAKE alert but I don't know where the right place to make it is.


 * I do not deny that Macropneuma's input may have some value, however, until he is willing able to accept that his idiosyncrasies are just too disruptive and demanding of others time and energy to decipher, his involvement is deleterious. He needs to be able to acknowledge that.


 * Perhaps what he needs to do is to accept a mentor? It's clear that he has no intention to discuss and agree matters. He does not seem to be able to see what is just clear and simple. It's become an irrational edit war for him.


 * Is there an admin with some experience in this topic area which you can approach in person to ask which is the best and quickest avenue to take? --Iyo-farm (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography section
I'm concerned there's an overdose of Japanese text in the bibliography, partly due to the use of the asiantitle template. I've looked over the articles for several Japanese authors and it appears that the usual method for representing written works is to put either the translated title or romaji first, then the Japanese title in parentheses. This makes it easier for an English reader to skim the titles while still presenting the Japanese original title nearby.

Does anyone have any thoughts or preferences on how this section should be formatted? Personally I would prefer to have the romaji/translated title appear first. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  03:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Eww....that's horrible, at least ATM (LOL). I think you'll get cleaner results if you use Template:Cite isbn, at least where you can. It also makes the individual references easier to edit. I'm going to do a quick edit to switch to the template that puts the english first, and see if I can get it better looking.
 * Well, turns out that you can't get the English first, as using any template in the title field breaks things. The 'actual' title first is standard anyhow. I at least fixed the 'Articles' section, which is the part that was full of template errors, and did a little minor cleanup. I'll put this one on my list of things to do in more detail later. Revent (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Masanobu Fukuoka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111002014645/http://www.cosmo-oil.co.jp/terre/12/02-03.html to http://www.cosmo-oil.co.jp/terre/12/02-03.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Masanobu Fukuoka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rbf.org/ramongrant98.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100727162141/http://www.lifepositive.com:80/Body/nature/fukuoka-organicfarming.asp to http://www.lifepositive.com/body/nature/fukuoka-organicfarming.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720070459/http://www.jef.or.jp/backnumber/161th_promenade.pdf to http://www.jef.or.jp/backnumber/161th_promenade.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720070611/http://www.jef.or.jp/backnumber/163th_promenade.pdf to http://www.jef.or.jp/backnumber/163th_promenade.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Replication
The link to http://ir.nul.nagoya-u.ac.jp/jspui/bitstream/2237/7865/1/kato.pdf was interesting, it confirms my own experience, that very few people have successfully replicated Fukuoka's experiment (but a great many, including myself, seem to have tried and failed). Is there any data on this? If I'm correct and the technique is not easily replicable, should Fukuoka really be called a pioneer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pignut (talk • contribs) 05:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Masanobu Fukuoka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201200422/http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/ahri/centres/menzies/research/Publications/LPAS12BillGammage.pdf to http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/ahri/centres/menzies/research/Publications/LPAS12BillGammage.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151210221323/http://trentbrown.in.s205663.gridserver.com/buddhism-and-agriculture-ii-hope-and-despair-on-fukuoka-farm-iyo/ to http://trentbrown.in.s205663.gridserver.com/buddhism-and-agriculture-ii-hope-and-despair-on-fukuoka-farm-iyo/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720070520/http://www.jef.or.jp/backnumber/162th_promenade.pdf to http://www.jef.or.jp/backnumber/162th_promenade.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Masanobu Fukuoka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101206180734/http://context.org/ICLIB/IC14/Fukuoka.htm to http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC14/Fukuoka.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

External links ´One Straw Revolution´: the word Documentary and the duration removed
Sorry, that it is a "Documentary" may be an info there, and the duration (24m 37s), too, please. ´Being´ "Best" and "a Must Watch", if it does not belong to the title, then not necessary. (Revisions) Masanobu Fukuoka: Difference between revisions https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masanobu_Fukuoka&diff=next&oldid=1008334929#In_English Thanks. --Visionhelp (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)