Talk:Yukio Mishima/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Question as to the cause of jeering and mockery

I've heard conflicting accounts of this, and hopefully someone can clear this with a reputable source. We all know that Mishima's final speech went somewhat awry. However, the current article states that, due to the poor reaction from the crowd, he could not be heard and thus ended his affair rather early. By contrast, I've previously read that technical difficulties (either insufficient sound or faulty equipment) prevented him from being properly heard, and thus the crowd voiced their frustration. If a fellow user would provide insight on this matter, it would be greatly appreciated. --AWF

The soldiers were not sympathetic (he was generally looked on as a buffoon because of his publicity stunts) and heckled him; also he was drowned out by the helicopters. There is a partial recording though. Xanthoxyl 15:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Kimitaké

Wow, a whole article and redirect. Thanks Kimitake for writing under a pen name! Um, I had found this whole long list of works and I tried to just use the most common or well known novels. Did not include information about his wife and children because I didn't think they're really important. I'm sure they were to him, but ...

Wikipedia naming policy is to use the better known of the names as the main entry, even if it's a pseudonym Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). I moved this entry from Mishima's birth name (Kimitake Hiraoka) to here and put a redirect from the other to here. --Zippy 08:54, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Somehow this was moved away to the inverted name order, by which Mishima is not known in English. Moved back to "most common name". -- Someone else 02:43, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Explanation request

It is not clear from the aarticle what his cause was that he tried to convince the army of. Can anyone explain? Rmhermen 15:38, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

He didn't really have a point, just kept talking about it being time for the SDF to "be men" and "act now that the time is right". There's a vague idea of him wanting the SDF to force the government to amend Japan's constitution to allow a military force but even that is an obscured theme in the speech. HaydenDerk —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC).

Essentially, he wanted to restore supreme command to the emperor. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

While at the same time saying that the Emperor should have abdicated the throne in honor of the war dead? I think the idea that the Emperor as the supreme command is a bit of a generalisation. If anything, I'd say that he wanted to return to an Imperialist government with supreme control resting in the hands of the people's military. The Emperor to Mishima wasn't necessarily an ideal monarch but the symbol of Japan so it makes sense that he would want the Emperor restored to his former place of glory (i.e. the Chrysanthemum of Japan) without giving him any specific governmental powers. Put simply, a return to Imperialism with more than a touch of militarism. HaydenDerk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.230.156 (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobel nomination

During the 1960s, Mishima wrote some of his most successful and critically acclaimed novels, acted in films, and was nominated three times for the Nobel Prize.

This is a little bit misleading - there are no official nominations for Nobel Prizes like for the Academy Awards. Who nominated him for the Nobel Prize? --zeno 14:49, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

When organisations like PEN nominate a writer for the Nobel Prize for Literature, it is usually announced. In this way we know, for example, that the Esperanto poet William Auld has been nominated at least three times, and Maria Luisa Spaziani several times. I do agree that we should find a citation for this. Crculver 17:47, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here is one source on the nomination I could find: http://www.vill.yamanakako.yamanashi.jp/bungaku/mishima/nenpu/his65_70.html . Apparently he was nominated in September of 1965. Hope that helps.

Everything's in German!

I have translated this page (with minor changes) into german. Hope this is ok. fp

Mishima and militarism

I don't think Mishima wanted a return to militarism. In fact, if I recall correctly, he wrote that the Japanese army's manipulation of the emperor (who was essentially reduced to a figurehead) during World War II was shameful excess. Rather, Mishima only wanted to use the army to restore the emperor to his rightful place and remove the corrupt democratic government. So, unless you can find a citation stating that militarism was his goal, I will remove that portion in a few days. Crculver 17:52, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me (my opinions come almost exclusively from Henry Scott Stokes' book) that there are two difficulties here. First, it's not clear what is meant by militarism, and that doesn't seem like a very meaningful way to describe a form of government. Second, it's not really very clear what Mishima was trying to accomplish. Judging by the speech he gave that day, he apparently wanted to the Self-Defense Forces to stage a coup, at least in that they would declare themselves independent from the democratic government and separate power center. Complicating this is the fact that, whatever he was up to, Mishima apparently didn't expect to succeed. So you could say that his goal was a high-profile suicide. As for the question of militarism, I'm not sure that anyone in Japanese history would describe themselves as militarists -- almost all of the various soldiers to control the government would have said they were doing it in the interest of the emperor, and a lot of them probably believed it. If the pre-war Japanese system is what we mean by militarism, Mishima had expressed his preference for it pretty clearly. The fact that he saw World War II as "excessive" doesn't mean much. For one thing, that's easy to say in hindsight; for another, Mishima retroactively backed a different faction of militarists, the ones that lost in the Ni Ni Roku incident. If we define militarism more broadly as a government where the military has a lot of influence, then anyone who would stage a military coup clearly fits the bill.

Despite the fact that one can make a solid case that Mishima was a militarist, I propose that we hedge by simply saying that he wanted the SDF to stage a coup. - Nat Krause 07:52, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Done. Crculver 18:58, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

The Henry Scott-Stokes, whoever mentioned him, is totally untrustworthy and it's pretty bad journalism-- and it is journalism. There is a lot in the Scott-Stokes biography which sticks out like a sore thumb to anyone who's read Mishima in Japanese. For example he makes a pretty egregious mistake when he says that Mishima chose the name 'Yukio' so that it would sound like the word snow. Also this is just hearsay from people who were around then and involved in that community but Scott-Stokes seemed to be very keen on spreading the rumor that he had been involved with Mishima himself at one point. None of this can be substantiated but Scott-Stokes is not really taken that seriously. I mean Mishima is not really taken that seriously to begin with, but for English-language biographies the John Nathan is really pretty good.

I don't think a solid case can be made at all that Mishima was a militarist and I think it's valid to remove that portion.

Scott-Stokes is not gay, and while the biography he wrote contains some errors and some naive remarks it has more detail than any other. Xanthoxyl (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

His "attempted coup" and suicide seem to be imitating events in his book "Runaway Horses," which were also doomed to failure from the beginning, and when he discusses his ideas about glory and death in "Sun and Steel" it seems like by staging the "coup" he was trying to have a high profile suicide but most importantly to die in a manner he percieved as beautiful or glorious. I don't really think militarism necessarily was a motive for the coup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.208.17 (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

While I like RH and the other 3 books, Mishima was for Japanese nationalism (empire, think Malcolm X). Japan wasn't merely an island back then. You'll only understand why Mishima would not go well with the Koreans, the Chinese (ever hear of Manchuria?), the Western outposts (e.g., Hong Kong and Macao) by talking their fear of invasion (which is why it's called a "Self-Defense Force"). Japan arms, it's neighbors get nervous (more so than Germans in Europe).

Get over the gay bar thing. Gay bars in SF are tourist spots which also get straights looky-looing. It's a different thing over there.

The events which led up to Mishima's big event, his men's training, use of Self-Defense Force bases, etc. was cause for the neighbors to be nervous. 198.123.48.30 (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Manner of death

The decapitation article claims that Mishima was decapitated. Anyone know? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:08, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

I believe that he first stabbed himself in the gut, and then one of his associates cut off his head. - Nat Krause 06:44, 25 May 2004 (UTC)~

I was the one who added him to the decapitation article. I do know that he was beheaded by his associate (rather clumsily by the sounds of it), and I have (involuntarily) seen pictures of his severed head in a book on him in Japan. Read the seppuku article for more:

The last known people to commit seppuku were famed author Yukio Mishima and one of his followers, who committed public seppuku at the Japan Self-Defence Forces headquarters after an abortive coup attempt in 1970. Mishima committed suicide in the office of General Kanetoshi Mashita. His second, a 25 year-old named Morita, tried three times to ritually behead Mishima but failed; his head was finally severed by Hiroyasu Koga. Morita tried to follow Mishima in committing seppuku; although his own cuts were too shallow to be fatal, he gave the signal and he too was beheaded by Koga.

-- Tlotoxl 09:40, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I have to imagine that, even with a very sharp blade, it takes a certain degree of upper body strength to sever a human head with a katana. I'm not terribly surprised that it took more than one go at it. In any event, thanks for the confirmation. While I'm at it, anyone want to help add more decapitees to the decapitation article? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:36, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Quick question. Are there special laws in Japan that would protect Koga from a murder charge? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:36, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know, but Koga was convicted of something and sent to prison. They committed several crimes that day. - Nat Krause 03:55, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

In Japan, there is a crime named Jisatsu-Houjozai(自殺幇助罪), namely aiding and abetting suicide. Morita and Hiroyasu Koga killed Mishima of Mishima's own will - So the prosecution thought they were mere agents of his suicide. --07:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)1523

For anyone who is interested, and if your library carries back issues of Life magazine you can see the pictures from Nov the 25th at the army headquarters, including one (in black and white) with Mishima's and Morita's heads set upright on the floor. You need the issue from the second or third week (I forget which but they are usually bound together anyway) of December 1970.MarnetteD | Talk 16:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The Photo

Can anyone vouch for the legality of including this photo? Unless someone can say something about its copyright status, I'll take it down one week from time. Curtsurly, you've been warned before about not respecting the copyright of photographs, so please don't add photos to articles without making some sort of statement about them on the Talk page. Crculver 14:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The status is "unknown". I should not have assumed fair use. Curtsurly 19:34, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was wondering since you guys are talking about photograph(s), I have had this one [1] of him for a while I can not remember were it came from nor can I find any website that uses it on it or any information on it. So if someone could please help me out I would really appreciate it. Alus 1:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Links

That link sounded very promising:

• Short piece comparing Mishima with Baader-Meinhof and other violent demonstrations against governmental rule

I was intrigued to know what the similarities were besides having an opinion far from the majority and using violence. "Another advocate of futility and practitioner of violence" That was all of the comparing part. "Short piece" is an understatement. Furthermore, I didn't find information about Mishima that isn't in the article. So I removed it. 217.81.76.124 09:45, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

His name

John Nathan's biography suggests that Mishima never changed his official name, being Kimitake Hiraoka up until his death. Mishima was the name used for public activities, but Kimitake Hiraoka was used for everything in his personal life. Therefore, there needs to be an indication that both names were used throughout Mishima's adult life. Crculver 17:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but "pseudonym" isn't the right word. Exploding Boy 17:06, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Well, while he is buried in Tokyo in the Hiraoka family grave and as Kimitake his descendants are known as Mishima. His wife is Mrs. Mishima. I don't think the division is quite so clear between personal and private life; particularly with a writer like Mishima, who in fact self-consciously blurred those distinctions. One problem I am having with a lot of this account of Mishima is that it fails to take a more critical stance that much of the way that Mishima has been mythologized (more by Scott-Stokes, less by Nathan) has been a combination of his own doing and the way people have been kind of blown away by said myths.

"his descendants are known as Mishima" - this is not true. His son is known as Iichiro Hiraoka, Iichiro has never called himself Mishima, nor has his daughter. --1523 10:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused by the term public name used in the introduction in this article. What is it supposed to mean? --Himasaram 09:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In Japan, many people in the arts use a "public name" or "professional name" to signify that their persona as an artist is distinct from their everyday personality -- on a higher plane. It's not the same thing as a pen name; it is not intended to hide the artist's real name. For example, the painter Katsushika Tokitaro took the public name Hokusai, which means "North Star Studio" (he belonged to a Buddhist sect associated with the north star, and "studio" refers to the room where he did his painting.) The karate teacher Gichin Funakoshi used the public name Shoto ("wind in the pines"). The Sumo champion Chad Rowan used the public name Akebono ("rising sun".) And so on. Fumblebruschi (talk) 07:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hist political views: rightist?

The first sentence describes him as a "rightist political activist". Later in the article, in the afterword, it says "he was neither 'rightist' nor 'leftist'". Was he rightist? If not, the first sentence should be changed. --203.217.46.130 10:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

There are various opinions about his political stance - but he died crying "Tenno Heika Banzai", so it is quite natural to view him as a rightest.--1523 09:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think so-- there is nothing 'natural' about Mishima to be totally frank. I don't want to essentialize him but his views fit neither the views of the rightists or the leftists; both sides absolutely loathed him by the time of his death. If you want to talk about his politics you are going to have to talk about the fact that he was a huge aesthete, not this rightist/leftist junk. Mike

Seicho-No-Ie, which greatly influenced Mishima, Furu-Koga and Chibi-Koga, is very rightist, anyway. --1523 14:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in being rightist. If Mishima is rightist then lets indicate it. Not all writers are left wing.

I always thought of him as a romantic more than anything else, although I realize that is not saying a lot about any particular political ideology he might have subscribed to. I agree that it's not entirely correct to call him a rightist. He probably would have made the point that the Emperor is beyond politics anyhow. Also, his militarism definitely had a religious/ascetic aspect to it that is completely lost on typical rightists. The article should be expanded to include more on his political views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.35.199 (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy of his final speech

Is there a webpage that has one?

It's in Scott-Stokes's biography, I believe. CRCulver 06:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath

In Japanese and Anglo-American academies today, Mishima is virtually unspoken of, although he is undergoing something of reappraisal amongst critics interested in the critique of Japanese capitalism.

What is the source for this somewhat ambiguous statement? What are these "academies" and what does it mean that Mishima is "virtually unspoken of"? I fail to see how one could have a discussion of post-war Japanese literature and not speak of Mishima (and I say this as someone who is not particularly a fan of his). CES 01:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not that Google searches are the best measure of popularity, but other than Murakami Haruki, no one of the dozen or so leading/popular Japanese authors I did a Google search on had any where near that number of hits Mishima did (~800,000). If this article is going to portray him as some fringe or "cult" figure in Japanese literature, we need some credible citations or else I will remove it as POV. CES 16:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The quotes that the academy has forgotten about Mishima are, I believe, from the second edition of Scott-Stokes' biography and from Starr's book Deadly Dialectics. I regrettably don't have access to the Japanese-literature portion of my university library this week, but someone should be able to find these two books and do a proper reference tag. Also, no one disputes that Mishima is popular among laymen in a sense, for his books sell well (although apparently not well enough to justify translations of more material than is already available in English). The Google search reflects that. However, there is very little publishing on Mishima in the academy. CRCulver 18:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the citations ... still, the wording needs to reflect that he still remains popular outside of academia. The current wording makes him sound like he's just a cult figure for gay men. CES 20:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the reference to that music group, unless someone can argue relevance. CES 20:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Bisexual?

Did Mishima really visit gay bars or are those just rumors? Obviously if that is the case he would then be bisexual since he married and had affairs with women. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.3.106.29 (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

This is an unusual case for me in that I thought he was just homosexual. (Marriage, especially among traditionalist Japanese, is often not about love or sex) Although several things indicate he was sexually ambiguous and hinted things about his sexuality that may or may not have been accurate or sincere. Bisexual sounds like the best guess. Still it's mostly agreed that he had a strong taste for masculinity, which came across as blatantly homoerotic at times.--T. Anthony 10:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think to anyone familiar with Mishima its fairly obvious the man was bi-sexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.236.146 (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the gay bars rumors there isn't anything in his work that would suggest he was bisexual, (Confessions of a Mask might but its possible to write about homosexuality without being a homosexual). Most of his ideas focus around physical discipline and beauty and masculine ideas of glory and heroism. Which does at times come across as homoerotic but I don't think we can say it was obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.208.17 (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There isn't anything in his work that would suggest he was bisexual!? What a crock! Forbidden Colors is gay, Confessions of a Mask is very gay and anyone who's read the Sea of Fertility can sense a heavy air of homoeroticism. --HaydenDerk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.169.110 (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Bisexuality seems most likely, according to one of his female lovers as well. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 04:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That he had male lovers is fairly well documented, Miwa Akihiro being the best-known. But he was also married to a woman. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Being married to a woman means little or nothing when it comes to determining a man's sexuality. William S. Burroughs was married to Vollmer and, despite having sex with her, was totally gay. Mishima's marriage, as is known by anyone who has read him or biographies of him, was an arranged marriage orchestrated entirely for social reasons and to have his mother, whom he thought was dying at the time, granted the chance to see her son taken care of and passed from her hands into the caring hands of another woman, namely his wife. Having children with his wife doesn't make him any more bisexual than throwing an orange seed on the ground makes you a gardener. HaydenDerk —Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

I agree, but people around him claimed he was bisexual and not a homosexual. Forbidden Colors deals with a male homosexual marrying a woman, that would have been an obvious sign to those around him; yet nonetheless he was considered bisexual by them. Anyway, it's up to scholarly debate, but bisexuality is a strong possibility and it has nothing to do with his marriage. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 03:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's up to scholarly debate so much as never solvable speculation. The fact that he was married to, and had children with, a woman and had male lovers suggests that he was bisexual, although his culture and era may be mitigating factors. What others say about him is largely irrelevant. The only one who knew for certain (if he did know) is dead, and in the absence of any documented self-labelling there's nothing more we can do. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This article explains very little about what Mishima wrote/believed

As a general reader I happened across this page. I still don't know anything important about this man. What were his writings about? What did he believe? Why did he desire a coup? Were his political beliefs reflected in his writings? etc.... I get the feeling that this fellow believed something a bit out of the mainstream, and that he believed it very strongly. He did, after all, commit suicide for his beliefs it seems. At best, based mostly on the first sentence of the final paragraph, I can determine that he was some sort of ultra-nationalist/militarist, but at the same time he was homosexual-introvert (at least in childhood). There's a lot of information missing here, and it sounds very interesting. Imagine if someone wrote an entry for Ayn Rand without ever mentioning objectivism or any other aspect of her personal philosophy; and instead just recounted the factual details of her life, the publication dates of her books, and who she married - that is what this article reads like.208.194.97.9 21:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem with describing Mishima's writings is that he was so prolific and varied with subject matter and themes that the summary itself would span an essay so long you could liken it to something by the late David Foster Wallace. His beliefs are a matter that little or no scholars agree upon and his bibliography contains work from multiple vantage points and themes. Also, in many cases, his short stories and smaller works were written in such a style that even to express the basic premise of a piece would ruin the work for future readers. HaydenDerk —Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

Nonetheless, I think we can sum it up much better than it is summed up now. Also, the perception of his writings, is not so broad as the writings themselves. Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters presents the way he is generally viewed by many of his readers in the West, focusing on his sexuality, ultra-nationalism, and his view of himself as an artist. I guess we should keep in mind WP:UNDUE. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 03:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Upbringing

Was he or was he not brought up as a girl by his grandmother? re:[2] --maxrspct ping me 19:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Brought up in a feminine way, not necessarily as a girl. Think of it as brought up as if groomed to be a sensitive and fragile intellectual. HaydenDerk —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

His First Novel

On the page of Yukio Mishima it states that his first novel was Tōzoku (Thieves.) I went onto the link for his other novel "Confessions of a Mask" and it states that THIS was his first novel. If anyone can clear this up, It would be appreciated. Thank You. Jordon Vandyke 03:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Confessions" was his first major novel. Xanthoxyl (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandfather's name

Mishima's grandfather was 平岡定太郎, former governor of Fukushima and governor-general of Karafuto. But what is his first name (定太郎)? This article and several English biographies of Mishima give it as Jōtarō, the Japanese article on the man himself as Sadatarō, and an info page on his grave (that the Japanese article links to) as Teitarō. All of these are possible readings, of course, but surely there should be one over the others? Akmoilan (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Speech length before suicide

I don't think "He finished his planned speech after a few minutes" as written in the article. From what I read elsewhere, he planned a speech of half an hour to two hours (depending on what you read), but he couldn't continue it past a few minutes because the people below were simply just being an annoyance and thinking he was nuts. 115.128.19.184 (talk) 07:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Boyfriend?

The Akihiro Miwa page says Mishima considered Miwa his "life long love." However, the Miwa article doesn't really have many sources. If this is true, I also find it strange that whoever has worked on the Miwa article hasn't bothered to include a link to it from the Mishima page.

The only thing that is certain, is that they both played roles in the Black Lizard (film) movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.37.172 (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Same question LGBT in Japan also mentions this relationship any source?

Movies are listed incorrectly

The two movies in 1985 are not movies by him, but are movies about him and should be moved below. ----DA 2008-12-17

"Yukio Mishima Incident"

I propose that the section that was titled "Yukio Mishima Incident" be called something else. It's a bad title and gives readers no idea what the "incident" in question is supposed to be (the "incident" didn't consist of Yukio Mishima but in the fact that he did something). Since the article says that, "His speech was intended to inspire a coup d'etat restoring the powers of the emperor", I honestly can't see why the section shouldn't be called "Coup attempt", and the revert by MarnetteD was not informative. UserVOBO (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Draft dodger ?

I watched a 1985 documentary and in it says that he faked his disease. In both words of people being interviewed and in quotes by Yukio himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.158.196.131 (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Did Yasunari Kawabata view Mishima's body at Jietai headquarters?

An article published on November 26, 1970 in the L.A. Times states that shortly after Mishima's seppuku, Yasunari Kawabata "arrived at the headquarters and was admitted to the bloody death scene." I don't recall any mention of Kawabata being present at the headquarters in either John Nathan or Henry Scott Stokes' biographies. A trifling concern really, but I would like to know if there is substantiation of this, especially if it were in the Japanese media. Zengakuren (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Post-War Literature section needs clean-up

This section is being organized both chronologically and by theme, and the results are awkward. I don't know enough about his life to know how best to correct it, but I know that it needs to go either one way or the other. Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Mishima's Influences

I'm interested in filling out a section in the Author box on influences. I put some things in that I was able to find in articles about Mishima. Maybe, however, the authors/things I put in aren't the most representative of his influences. If anyone else could find some more influences, or help correct what I've added, I would welcome the help.

FYI, here are the passages I used.

On the other hand Mishima was well versed in European literature. Raymond Radiguet and François Mauriac, for instance, are among those writers to whom the young Mishima looked for inspiration. Again, one of his plays was adapted from Racine's PhAdre. It is easy enough to detect in his work literary elements of European origin, such as the Greek idealization of physical beauty, Sadism, Satanism of Baudelaire's type, and so on.

(Mishima Yukio and His Suicide. Author(s): Hisaaki Yamanouchi Source: Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1972), pp. 1-16)

More than once he invoked bumbu-ryodo, referring to the dual pursuit of letters and the martial arts, particularly as propounded by Heihachiro Oshio, a nineteenth-century warrior-scholar whose brand of Wang Yang-ming philosophy stressed the obliteration of all contradictions and dichotomies by harmonizing thought and action.

If Mishima revered bumbu-ryodo, he also, especially in his early career, admired Thomas Mann, praising his work for the marvelous architectural solidity a structure of contrasting elements achieved. And scattered throughout his writing are references to the Apollonian and the Dionysian-the result of an ardent reading of Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy, whose division of Greek culture between those two concepts Mishima applied with youthful zeal to the immediacy of his own life.

In an interview in early 1970, the year of his suicide, Mishima noted that he had read a great deal of Nietzsche and had derived "great strength" from his The Birth of Tragedy.

(Yukio Mishima: Dialectics of Mind and Body. Author(s): Dick Wagenaar and Yoshio Iwamoto. Source: Contemporary Literature, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Winter, 1975), pp. 41-60)

Valkotukka (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Kosaburo Eto

This material is copied from my talkpage

Hi Mr VsevolodKrolikov.
You noted as original research in the Edit Summary of Yukio Mishima, Have you read 三島由紀夫2000『決定版 三島由紀夫全集〈35〉』(新潮社）in Japanese? --Watson system (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I've only read fragments in that work about Kosaburo Eto that I can track down on the internet (to check what the reference says about Eto), but that's actually not the point here. What "original research" means precisely this - a Wikipedia editor takes two ideas, or two sources, and puts them together to make a statement that cannot be found in published reliable sources. In this case we have:

• In 1969 Mishima mentioned (and only very briefly) the recent suicide of Kosaburo Eto in one of his writings.
• In late 1970, he committed ritual suicide (in a very different, much more traditional manner).

You're putting these two together to say

• Yukio Mishima's decision to commit suicide was significantly influenced by Kosaburo Eto's example.

This third idea is your own conclusion, also known as "original research". There are several biographies of Mishima, and as far as I (or another editor) know, none of them refer to Eto's actions as having an influence on Mishima's decision to kill himself at all. Obviously, Mishima's suicide has been considered by a lot of scholars. If Eto's actions were an influence on Mishima's they would mention it. They don't appear to.

The connection you make isn't obvious, either. Maybe Mishima saw his own and Eto's suicides as fundamentally two different acts (after all, self-immolation and seppuku are not the same). Maybe he had largely forgotten about Eto (he doesn't appear to mention him closer to his death, for example). Maybe Mishima had decided on this course of action long before Eto's death. Your idea is one of many imaginable possibilities, and most importantly, it's not an idea that published scholars have suggested.

The thing is, you may be perfectly correct that it was a big influence on Mishima's decision to commit seppuku. However, being correct is not enough for Wikipedia. In order to provide readers with assurance that this view is correct or established, we need a published expert to write about it. We don't have such a source, so we shouldn't publish the idea on Wikipedia. We're not an academic journal that publishes new ideas, no matter how good they are. This encyclopedia reflects current scholarship; it does not write it.

If you feel very passionate about this, you'd be better off trying to get your ideas about Kosaburo Eto published somewhere (an academic journal, a book etc.).

I'll copy and paste this to the Mishima talkpage, as it's more appropriate there.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Signature for this pageVsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I second everything that VsevolodKrolikov has written. Their is little evidence for this connection and Wikipedia has strict policies regarding WP:OR, WP:POV and edit warring Please read these policy pages before editing further. MarnetteD | Talk 16:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Real name not showing on the side box

Real name (Kimitake Hiraoka) it is missing from the side info box. I suggest to either change it in the first line or add an entry called "real name" listing Kimitake Hiraoka above "pen name". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.174.173.53 (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

His last speech

Hello,

I have made a copy of his last speech from Henry Scott Stokes biography about him. The speech is apparently made from the people who experienced his failed coup and from tv broadcasts. I myself was very interested in hearing his last words before he died, and I also think many of his fans would be. So, I thought maybe we could add the speech in the article? I also made it possible for people on youtube to see the speech, and many seems very interested in it.

Sincerely, Jacob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.114.174.183 (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like a great idea. Since this is an encyclopedia article, a long speech doesn't fit. Maybe wikisource or wikiquote would be better. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I would be very interested in reading the speech and could help you find a repository for it and link to it in this article if we could sort out the copyright issues. Do you have any idea about the copyright status of this copy you made? Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello again,

There is many whom have asked for his last speech, so it seems like many would be interested. The book I took it from, was made by his agent, and I think it is 20-30 years old, so the copyright could have expired. None the less, I cannot be completely sure. Here is the speech: I will not add in the soldiers who mock and insult him.

"It is a wretched affair, to have to speak to Jieitai men in circumstances like these. I thought, that the Jieitai was the last hope of Nippon, the last stronghold of the Japanese soul. But..... Japanese people today think of most money, just money. where is our national spirit today? The politicians care nothing for Japan. they are greedy for power. The Jieitai, must be the soul of Nippon. The soldiers! The army! But.... we were betrayed by the Jieitai!

Listen! Listen! Hear me out!

We thought that the Jieitai was the soul of national honor! The nation has no spiritual foundation. that is why you don't agree with me! You don't understand Japan. The Jieitai must put things right!

Listen! Be quiet, will you! Listen! Don't you hear! Listen! Hear me out!

Just listen to me! What happened last year? On October 21? There was a demonstration, an anti-war demonstration. On October 21 last year. In Shinjuku. And the police put it down. The police! after that there was, and there will be, no chance to amend the Constitution.

So, the Jiminto (the Liberal Democratic Party), the politicians, decided that they could use the police. The police would deal with the demonstrations, Don't you see?

Look! The government did not use the Jieitai. The Armed Forces stayed in their barracks. The Constitution is fixed forever. There will be no chance to amend it. Do you understand?

All right. Listen! Since last October 21, since that time, it is you who protect the Constitution. The Jieitai defends the Constitution. There will be no chance to amend it. Not for twenty years! The Jieitai waited for that chance, with tears in their eyes. Too late! Why don't you understand? Think about October 21 last year! Since that time I have waited for the Jieitai to act! When would the Jieitai come to its senses? I waited. there will be no further chance to revise the Constitution! The Jieitai will never become an army! It has no foundation, no center! The Jieitai must rise. Why?

To protect Japan! You must protect Japan! To protect Japan! Yes, to protect Japan! Japanese tradition! Our history! Our culture! The Emperor!

Listen! Listen! Listen! Listen!

A man appeals to you! A man! I am staking my life on this! Do you hear? Do you follow me? If you do not rise with, if the Jieitai will not rise, the Constitution will never be amended! You will just be American mercenaries! American troops!

I have waited for four years! Yes, four years! I wanted the Jietai to rise! Four years!

I have come to the last thirty minutes, Yes the last thirty minutes. I am waiting, i want...

Are you bushi? Are you men? You are soldiers! Then why do you not stand by the Constitution? You back the Constitution that denies your very existence!

Then you have no future! You will never be saved! It is the end! The Constitution will remain forever. You are finished! You are unconstitutional! Listen! You are unconstitutional! The Jieitai is unconstitutional! You are all unconstitutional! Don't you understand? Don't you see what is happening? Don't you understand that it is you who defend the constitution? Why not? Why don't you understand? I have been waiting for you. Why don't you wake up? There you are in your tiny world. You do nothing for Nippon!

Will any of you rise with me?

You say that! Have you studied Bu (the warrior ethic)? Do you understand the way of the sword? What does the sword mean to a Japanese?... I ask you. Are you men? Are you bushi?

I see that you are not. You will not rise. You will do nothing! The constitution means nothing to you. You are not interested. I have lost my dream of Jieitai!

I salute the emperor! Tenno Heika Banzai! Tenno Heika Banzai! Tenno HeikaBanzei!"

-End- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.114.174.183 (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is from "The Life and Death of Yukio Mishima, by Henry Scott Stokes London : Owen, 1975 ISBN 0-7206-0123-1" JoshuSasori is correct that it is too long for this article. Wikiquote has a portion of it and you might see if they will allow the full text to be posted there. I just added a link to that wiki so that his quotes there can be accessed. You should probably be aware that Scott Stokes biography - while it is authoritative and was written by someone who knew Yukio - is just one persons view of Mishima's life and there are those who would disagree with some of its assertions. That is true of all biographies (often you will learn as much about the biographer and their bias and view of the world as you will about their subject) of course but it I think it is a good idea to read as many as you can find to build an overall view of a given person. As to this specific speech be aware that this is a translation of what Mishima wrote down as the speech he intended to give. There may be some variation to what he actually said. The extant footage can be seen on the documentary "The Strange Case of Yukio Mishima" that is on disc two of the Criterion Collection DVD release of Paul Schrader's "Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters" (Schrader's film uses Scott-Stokes wording verbatim if memory serves) and it is pretty hard to hear him with the yelling of the crowd and the sound of the helicopters so he may or may not have said all of this. Thanks for bringing this up your efforts are appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 22:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead changes

@Supersize Moi: The edit does not reflect what the article currently says. Instead it is full of personal opinion. It replaces that Mishima "is considered one of the most important Japanese authors" with "was one of the most famous and controversial". It then omits cited information on his Nobel prize nominations with uncited information on his best-known works. Then it replaces a cited description of the author with the editor's own description. (None of this is present in the body so it is not a summary of already cited information) Then it embellishes his suicide with a gratuitous description while removing its common name ("The Mishima Incident") which might have lead readers to the article. Finally it removes the information that a prize was established in his name, which is certainly information that belongs in the lead. Again, I don't see how any of this improves on what was there before, especially when it replaces cited content with information not substantiated in the body of the article. I've retained the information on his militia since that is supported, and his best-known works might belong in the lead but they need a citation or else it is just personal opinion. Opencooper (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Also it is indeed quite well-known as the Mishima Incident if one bothered to search. You bring up a valid point about who considers him the most important, but replacing that with "was one of the most famous" is not any better. Opencooper (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I support Opencooper's post here and endorse the return to the version of the lede that existed before these changes. BTW Supersize Moi editing under your user name and then switching to an IP is not a good idea. It violates several guidelines and does not engender WP:AGF. Chose one and stay with it. MarnetteD|Talk 17:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Yukio Mishima. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20150221212112/http://www.glbtq.com:80/literature/mishima_y.html to http://www.glbtq.com/literature/mishima_y.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081121134553/http://www.jlit.net/authors_works/mishima_yukio.html to http://jlit.net/authors_works/mishima_yukio.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yukio Mishima. 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/20041010211118/http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/mishima.htm to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/mishima.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox not needed

The "coup infobox" is not needed. The event was not an attempt to overthrow the government. It was an artistic moment for Mishima. The mention of the event is absolutely fine the way it is. On another note navboxes must have the article in them before being placed in an article. MarnetteD|Talk 01:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

He EXPLICITLY SAID he wanted to overthrow the government. EVERY SOURCE LISTS IT AS A COUP D'ETAT. It was not an art piece. You don't perform seppuku unless you've humiliated yourself. Mishima failed his coup and humiliated himself, justifying seppuku.

If the article describes it as a coup d'etat, the sources describe it as a coup d'etat, and Mishima himself described it as a coup d'etat, THEN IT IS A COUP FASTING D'ETAT. Of all people, a professional editor such as the man who vandalized this page should know better than to gut entire sections of an article because he doesn't like a correct use of the coup template. Mishima committed Seppuku because he failed to convince the JSDF to overthrow the government.

If you want to move the Mishima Incident to its own article, fine. If you think the template doesn't belong and think it should be in the Mishima Incident article, fine. I added the temple to the Mishima base page because there is no page for the Mishima Incident.

Furthermore, adding an infobox for the Mishima Incident does not breach the Undue doctrine, because it was a significant historical event in the sense that it was the last coup ever attempted in Japanese history. If anything, the big hullabaloo about him being LGB is less relevant than a literal attempt to overthrow the government.

I believe that the Mishima Incident should get its own article, but until then, the coup info-box should stay.

-2602:306:39D6:CBA0:5CFE:E2BC:DC66:ED71 (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: The Japanese coup d'etat list does mention the Mishima Incident, and it has for some time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:39D6:CBA0:5CFE:E2BC:DC66:ED71 (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• The template doesn't belong. It's ridiculously overblown; coup d'etat or not, it was not a "military conflict". You want to get on this, please start with solid, reliable sources. And for now I see no reason to have this as an independent article, simply since--as far as I can tell--it doesn't seem to mean something outside of Mishima. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• Something else: please use Preview, and try to avoid the half-dozen copyedits after every post. And sign it. The edit conflicts are really irritating. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not saying the info about his last day should be removed - just that the infobox is makes the event into something it was not. As to the navbox it needed a tweak to indicate that it directs to a specific spot in this article. I took care of that and restored it to the bottom of the page. MarnetteD|Talk 02:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

If he was born in 1925, how can his sister, who died at 17 in 1945, be older than him?

From his article:

"He had an older sister, Mitsuko, who died of typhus in 1945 at the age of 17, and a younger brother, Chiyuki.[3]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.115.53 (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. It seems this wording was changed in this edit. I've reverted it, thanks. Opencooper (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Three Nominations for Nobel Prize?

The statement "On three separate occasions he was considered for the Nobel Prize in Literature" is most likely incorrect and unsubstantiated. The website of the Nobel Prize states clearly: "All information concerning the nominations and selections of the Nobel Laureates is kept secret for 50 years.", the last information is from 1965 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/literature/1965.html) In the previous nominations he was not listed three times, the link is dead and no secondary sources could be found.RazaGramci (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The item did not say that he was nominated. BTW your edits are not minor and should not be marked as such. See WP:MINOR. MarnetteD|Talk 17:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is an archive of the dead link which says "He was nominated for the Nobel Prize for Literature three times." However, it is a biography by a library so that might not be the most reliable source. However, the Japan Times reference said: "The vexed question of the Nobel Prize is addressed at length. It becomes clear that Mishima was, throughout the 1960s, a strong candidate to become Japan’s first laureate in literature." and "According to Inose and Sato, the prize almost went to Mishima in 1968 but was given instead to Yasunari Kawabata". The Japan Times is a reliable source and it is referring to the Persona biography on Mishima. I think a close consideration for the Nobel prize is quite important information to include regarding a subject's notability; so while the information about "three occasions" might be unsubstantiated, the rest of the information is supported and should be put back. Edit: Another article from the Japan Times clears things up: "The Nobel committee has a 50-year restriction on disclosing its proceedings and from the information released in January this year we know that in 1964 there were three other Japanese writers — apart from Mishima — considered for the prize." The article also discusses how he was a strong favorite for the prize which explains why sources could say he was considered before the information was released. Opencooper (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent research Opencooper. If you have the time do you think you could work something up to replace the paragraph at the end of the Post-war literature section. If you feel that it merits mention in the lede as well (I took it out to avoid edit warring) please feel free to work on that as well. Thanks again for your time in working on this. MarnetteD|Talk 00:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, sorry this took me so long to get to, I forgot about it even though I already did the groundwork. It turns out there actually were three nominations according to the Nobel Prize database. The rest of the information was also able to be sourced, but there are also book sources if needed. Opencooper (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this is helpful but he was nominated in 1964, four Japanese authors were that year, and some thought Junichiro Tanizaki won, but it was awarded to Jean-Paul Sartre that year who didn't wnat it! --WikiGeoffrey (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Source for his anti-marxist views

It is said in the opening statement that Mishima fiercely criticized Marxist ideologies; where is the source for this? My deletion of the passage was reinstated by MarnetteD as it was supposedly "mentionned with sourcing later in the article". I have looked for said source but it is nowhere to be found: neither Marx nor communism are ever mentionned again in the article. Could someone enlighten me? Thank you. Arhelt (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I have made a minor change to the text and added in a reference showing that the KGB thought he was anti-Marxist. The source is Radio Free Europe and a letter in the KGB archeive written in 1979 after the author's death. I have not been able to find anything yet to completely validate that he was 'a fierce crtic of Marxist ideologies' but we do know he was critical of much and many! --WikiGeoffrey (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and the change you made, but I have to say I remain sceptical. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reliable source for information, and basing the introductory paragraphs of one of the greatest 20th century authors on assumptions diverges from what one could call "being a reliable source for information". Saying that he was a fierce critic of Marxism implies that he took a positive stand against Marxism, which is something I never found any reliable source for. That he may have opposed student movements and / or Zengaruken is a thing - and I have to say that we also lack a source for this -, that he fiercely criticized Marxism is another. If we cannot find any written or spoken word from the author in which he does criticize Marxism, then I believe we should remove this part of his introduction - leaving only the "described as anti-Marxist by the KGB" bit. Arhelt (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Picture in Coup Attempt and Ritual Suicide Section

When one clicks on the picture in this section, the source is " http://www.toqonline.com/2009/06/yukio-mishima/", which leads to a 404 page. Either another source must be found, or the picture must be removed.Atkhiar (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Not so much. Try many options first. wayback machine, etc... besides, you've been on Wikipedia only a couple weeks and you are in a huge rush to delete one picture.....why?? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

" averse to moving the Japanese people rootless"? seems like a bad translation

I don't have access to the 3 sources for this sentence, but it doesn't make sense. Was he adverse to migration? Or just a general concept of "rootlessness?"

Could somebody with access to the material provide a better translation? Citizen Premier (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for my poor English... Mishima was worried that the Japanese would become "rootless". "rootless" means that Japanese lost cultural and history roots. "rootless" is "déraciné". --みしまるもも (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'd suggest rewording to "Mishima was bothered by the thought that the Japanese people would lose their distinctive heritage". P.s. I do speak Japanese, though not to a fluent extent, so maybe I could help with refining the wording of this article. HĐ (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mr. HĐ. I'm glad. Mishima used the words "Déracine" and "根無し草"(literally means "rootless grass" in Japanese, in other words, separated from history), so I would like to use that word as it is. Mishima worried that the Japanese lose the spiritual culture and soul that they have traditionally inherited in Japan's long history, and he worried the Japanese would be changed by the postwar global society and become non-Japanese "Déracine".
So, how about the following rewording as below; "Mishima was worried that the Japanese people would lose their distinctive heritage and they would change into "Déracine"(rootlessness) who abandoned the inherited culture through the Japanese long history” If it seems like a bad translation, please give me some advice.--みしまるもも (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC) rewrite --みしまるもも (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC) rewrite --みしまるもも (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

"Sun and Steel"

I have summarized the work of "Sun and Steel". I hope it will serve as a reference for the explanation of "Sun and Steel" in the section "Harmony of Pen and Sword". I would be grateful if you could translate it.--みしまるもも (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

1965年から雑誌に連載されていた三島の自伝的随筆「太陽と鉄」が1968年10月に刊行された。三島が「告白と批評との中間形態」と呼び、「私のほとんど宿命的な二元論的思考の絵解きのようなものであり、二元論的思考の発生の生理学的必然性の物語でもある」と自作解説しているこの「太陽と鉄」は、肉体と精神、生と死、文と武（文武両道）を主題に書かれたもので、三島の文学、思想、その死（三島事件）を考察するにあたり重要な作品である。
この作品では、「太陽」との2度の出会い（20歳の時の1945年夏の敗戦における「死のイメージ」と、27歳の時の1952年の初の海外旅行の船上における太陽との「和解」）を振り返りながら「思考」が語られ、「鉄」は、ボディビルの鉄塊の重量（「肉体をあるべきであった姿に押し戻す働き」）として「筋肉」との関連で語られている。そして、「太陽」と「鉄」によって耕された「肉体」から、存在と行為の感覚を体得した三島が「肉体の言葉」を学び、最終的には、「言葉」 を超えた、さらには自分一人の「肉体」をも超えた「集団の悲劇」への同一化に対する強い指向が語られている。

Mishima's autobiographical essay "Sun and Steel," which had been serialized in magazines since 1965, was published in October 1968. Mishima called it "an intermediate form between confession and criticism," and saying, "It's like a illustration of my almost fateful dualistic thinking, and it's also a story of the physiological necessity of the development of dualistic thinking.". This "Sun and Steel" was written on the themes of body and spirit, life and death, and literary and military arts ("Harmony of Pen and Sword"), and is important in considering Mishima's literature, thought, and his death (Mishima incident).
This work is telling about his "thought" in his looking back on the twice meeting of "Sun" (the "image of death" in the defeat in the summer of 1945 at the age of 20. and the "reconciliation" with the Sun on board his first overseas trip in 1952 at the age of 27), and is telling "Steel" related to "muscle", as the weight of bodybuilding iron ingots ("the works on the body pushing back to what it should have been"). Then, Mishima, who attained the sense of existence and action from the "body" cultivated by the "sun" and "steel", learned the "words of the body", and in the end, he told about his strong orientation toward identification into a "group tragedy" that goes beyond "words" and even beyond his own "body".

--みしまるもも (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Coup attempt and ritual suicide: Morita

Just before his seppuku, Mishima tried to stop Morita's death and said to him, "Morita, you must live not die.".

"Morita" is then introduced for the first time in the context of this article in the next sentence. Could someone rewrite this section to depict the events in a less confusing manner?  Aar  ►  21:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

This item does not match the Scott-Stokes or Nathan biographies. According to their bios Mishima did say that commandant Mashita should not follow him in death. Two things to note 1) Schrader's film depicts Mishima and Morita telling the two Koga's and Ogawa that they should not commit suicide and intimates that they were prepared to do so 2) the thing that strikes me as odd is that the other three did not try and stop Morita after Mishima's telling him he should live. Now I can see Mishima having second thoughts about Morita dying in the last few moments of his life. I also freely admit I shouldn't be using the film as a source and that both bios I cite are from the 70's and much research has been done since then. It is just that I can't check the refs by Mochi and Ando used for this item. Those of you who are putting in so much work on this article might double check those and add some clarification to the section - maybe in the form of a footnote if you feel the explanation is too cumbersome to add to the prose. MarnetteD|Talk 22:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. I am currently in the process of revising that section, and one of the things already on my to-do list is introducing the coup attempt participants at the beginning. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I explain the process. According to court records and testimony of surviving members, initially, four members of Tatenokai wanted to die with Mishima. Mishima dissuaded it, and the three were understood, and, only Morita didn't accept it. He said "I can't let Mr. Mishima die alone." As a result, Mishima and Morita would die. Even after that, Mishima was thinking about Morita, who had a girlfriend, and tried to stop him from dying, but Morita's determination was firm. According to the surviving member Masayoshi Koga (小賀正義), even just before Mishima was seppuku, he said, "Morita, you must live not die." --みしまるもも (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC) fix --みしまるもも (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC) person name supplement --みしまるもも (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for these clarifications! I have added them to the article. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

About Morita

I have summarized Masakatsu Morita's short profile. I would appreciate it if you could translate it.--みしまるもも (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

1967年6月19日に開かれた早稲田大学国防部代表との会合で、三島と森田は初めて会いました。その後、森田は1968年3月の自衛隊体験入隊に参加し、祖国防衛隊の一期生になりました。その時から森田は三島を深く尊敬するようになり、「先生のためには、いつでも自分は命を捨てます」と速達で礼状を送りました。それに対し三島は、「どんな美辞麗句をならべた礼状よりも、あの一言には参ったよ」と森田に告げました。森田は北方領土返還運動などもしながら、祖国防衛隊（楯の会）の活動もしていて、1969年10月に楯の会の二代目の学生長になりました。

Mishima and Morita met for the first time at a meeting with the representatives of the Ministry of National Defense of Waseda University held on June 19, 1967. After that, Morita participated in the Self-Defense Forces experience enlistment in March 1968 and became the first generation students of the Japan National Guard (祖国防衛隊). From that time on, Morita began to respect Mishima deeply and sent a thank-you note by express delivery saying, "I would lay down my life for the teacher at any time." In the response, Mishima told Morita, "You really got me, that words sensuous more than a thank-you note with any rhetoric." Morita was active in the Tatenokai while also campaigning to return the Northern Territories (Kuril Islands dispute), and in October 1969 he became the head of students (the second) in the Tatenokai.

--みしまるもも (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC) fix--みしまるもも (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC) --みしまるもも (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

In my view, this is way too detailed for the Mishima article. To avoid the Mishima page becoming too long, we should put details like this in the separate Wikipedia article for Morita. People who are interested in Morita can find it there. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

References

About "shichishō hōkoku" (七生報國)

About "shichishō hōkoku" (七生報國) , its meaning changed "Would that I had seven lives to defend my country," from "if he is reborn seven times, he will destroy enemies of the Emperor to serve the country every time he is reborn.". However, "shichishō" (七生) means "reborn seven times" or "reincarnate seven times",「七回 生まれ変わる」, so, "shichishō hōkoku" (七生報國) means "If I am reborn seven times, I will destroy enemies of the Emperor to serve the country every time I am reborn." or "If I am reborn seven times, I will defend (or serve) my country" 「七たび生まれ変わっても、朝敵を滅ぼし、国に報いる」(何度生まれ変わっても、国に報いる). 「七」(seven) number means "many" (「数が多いこと」を意味します). And, the original person who said the words is Masasue Kusunoki (楠木正季) who was younger brother of Masashige Kusunoki. The source can be viewed here too. 七生報国,七生,七生報国 Masasue committed suicide with his brother Masashige when they lose the battle. This words was what Masasue said at that time. --みしまるもも (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC) supplement --みしまるもも (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

How about the following sentences? Please fix the strange grammar.

Mishima wore a white hachimaki headband bearing the Chinese characters "shichishō hōkoku" (七生報國), meaning "To be reborn seven times to serve the country," written on it, the red sun at center. "shichishō hōkoku" is the famous last words of Kusunoki Masasue (楠木正季) who was younger brother of the 14th century imperial loyalist samurai Kusunoki Masashige, they died fighting to defend the Emperor, the two brothers lost the battle, Masasige agreed with the Masasue's words, and they committed suicide together.

--みしまるもも (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC) typo--みしまるもも (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for these clarifications! This is extremely helpful! I have edited the main article text accordingly. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Mr. Ash-Gaar.

And, another point, about “white hachimaki headband”, according to the sources, it is a hachimaki with a red circle (meaning Rising Sun, Hinomaru, 日の丸) which has been set at center onto a white background. It will be more accurate if this point is added. --みしまるもも (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I added it. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

To Ash-Gaar

Thank you for fixing the strange part of the grammar. But, there are some important parts were deleted, or some parts have been modified to be incorrect. so please agree in this note.

For example, the fact that Mishima entered the "Ministry of the Treasury" has been deleted. And, also deleted that Mishima published "Forest in Full Bloom" as a posthumous book. It is literary important that the ending of "The Sea of Fertility" which is Mishima's true last book, is very similar to First book "Forest in Full Bloom", so the deleted part is the related information that should be in the literary history of Mishima.

And, summary of "The Middle Ages" is modified to be different from the actual content, and the summary of "Madame de Sade" is need to be a more correct and solid summary. This English article of Yukio Mishima is not enough to aim for a high rank. because of the content about each work is poor. In the future, I'm planning to create a section "Literary Style" to enhance the article, so I would like to ask for your cooperation in translation if possible. Sorry poor my English. First of all, I will write a Japanese summary of "Madame de Sade" later. Thank you. --みしまるもも (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I understand your concerns, and I am happy to help! If you put Japanese versions of the content that needs to be added here on the Talk page, or else on my user Talk page, I will translate them into English for you so they can be added.

Regarding the "Ministry of the Treasury," I deleted that part because it already said he joined the "Finance Ministry" in the previous sentence. Aren't these the same thing? Aren't they both referring to the 大蔵省? It is weird to say he joined the "Finance Ministry" and then he later joined the "Ministry of the Treasury." For now, I have changed "Finance Ministry" to "Ministry of the Treasury," since I think that is a slightly better translation of 大蔵省.

In any case, thank you for all your hard work on improving this article! Ash-Gaar (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for about 大蔵省. However, it has been deleted more and more without any agreement since then. Some of your edits are a bit of a leap, with the addition of something that doesn't write in the original source. Would you please stop editing and wait for me, and please calm down a little more slowly edit without continuous.--みしまるもも (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC) add--みしまるもも (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I am deleting very conservatively. I am only deleting when the sentences do not make any sense at all in English. This is English Wikipedia, so if the sentences are not in comprehensible English, they don't have a special right to remain in the article while we debate on the talk page. That said, in almost all the cases, I am trying to fix your sentences into readable English, rather than delete them. Sometimes it is very hard, because I do not know exactly what you are trying to say, but I am doing my best. If you put Japanese on my user talk page, I will gladly translate for you. Ash-Gaar (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It is very frustrating that I spend a lot of time and effort improving your English sentences, and then sometimes if you find one small error, you don't fix the error, but just copy and paste back your earlier, poorly written sentences exactly as they were before. If you find a mistake in my corrections, please correct the corrections, rather than just reverting back to the original, entirely uncorrected text. Ash-Gaar (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Then why do you mistakenly change the date Mishima received the notice of the draft inspection? Your edits will be false modifications.--みしまるもも (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

That was my mistake. Thank you for correcting! Ash-Gaar (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I can't understand why do you modify Mishima's original words? "Small nihilist"（小さなニヒリスト） is Mishima's word as it is.

As I already mentioned, "small nihilist" doesn't make sense in English. You cannot just directly translate Japanese phrases into English like this. That's not how translation works. In this case, you would need to translate it into something like "petty nihilist" or "two-bit nihilist" or something like that, depending on the original context. However, "nihilist" is already a very strong insult in English. Perhaps we can just leave it as "nihilist" and not worry too much about how to translate 小さい in this case? ニヒリスト was clearly Mishima's word, so we are not misquoting him, just using a slightly shorter quote. Ash-Gaar (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

About "posthumous book", how about the following sentence?

Mishima published this book as a last book of keepsake, assuming that he would die in the war.

This makes much more sense! I will add it back! Thanks. Ash-Gaar (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, you say "We should stick to the main information that is directly relevant to Mishima." But you deleted important information related to Mishima, and you're adding "Other literary figures became leftists, joining the Communist Party and advocating socialist revolution.". but that wasn't written in the original source. It is a violation to delete what is written in the original source and rewrite it in your own research. Could you please respect what I wrote faithfully to the original source a little more. Instead of highhandedly deleting it, point out the strange grammar in this note page in advance, and come up with an improvement plan.

Other person fixed the grammar already, but no one like you strongly considered it a problem and deleted it. Your way feels a little arbitrary.--みしまるもも (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I imagine other people just left the worst sentences alone because they did not know how to fix them. Looking at the history, people only fix the small, obvious errors. Maybe when deleting, we can also move those sentences and references to the talk page for your clarification? Ash-Gaar (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I have added a "Needs clarification" subsection below. In the future, I will move unclear passages to there. Ash-Gaar (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not deleting information because it's not important. I'm deleting it because it doesn't make any sense at all. Minor grammar errors are one thing, but completely incomprehensible sentences cannot be allowed to remain in the main article. By definition, it cannot be copy-edited. As I said, I always try to improve it if I can. Whatever you were saying about leftists and communists didn't make any sense, so I was trying to make it make sense in English. I don't have all your original sources in my hands, so I don't know exactly what they say. I'm trying to guess your meaning from your very garbled English. Ash-Gaar (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I will propose the mirror image opposite of what you propose. Instead of you posting incomprehensible sentences that you do not even take the time to check for grammar, why don't you post those sentences here first, so we can make sure they make sense in English? In your current way of editing, you just want to be allowed to post all your garbled, badly translated sentences, and you get upset when people try to make good faith efforts to improve them. If your English is not good, you should not vandalize articles with your bad English, and then constantly revert copyedits you don't like back to the bad grammar, without any changes. You should check your English first somehow, and then make your edits. I would not go to a Japanese Wikipedia article and start posting all sorts of bad-grammar Japanese edits, and then revert them back if Japanese native-speakers try to improve them. Why do you think this is okay to do in English? Ash-Gaar (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking at this Wikipedia page on "contributing to articles outside your native language," it strongly suggests that unless you are close to fluent, you should put your proposed edits on the Talk page first. It is not fair to the readers of Wikipedia to leave garbled sentences whose meaning is unclear on the main article for many months or years. Ash-Gaar (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The following sentences you rewrote is not accurate as Mishima's biography, and his essay. Because, it invites misleading as if Mishima was wondering whether to turn to the left. it is a misunderstanding modification.

In addition, literary figures, including many of those who had been close to Mishima before the end of the war, were branded "war criminal literary figures." Other literary figures became leftists, joining the Communist Party and advocating socialist revolution.[49][50] Although Mishima was just 20 years old, he worried that his type of literature had already become obsolete. [25]

The exact content according to the Mishima's essay and his biography is as follows

In addition, literary figures, including many of those who had been close to Mishima before the end of the war, were branded "war criminal literary figures." instead, leftists, communists, and opportunists became highhanded, and their influence had increased in the literary world. Mishima who was belonged to Japanese traditions sect, had already became "obsolete" in the postwar literary world, so he at the age of twenty, had felt impatient.”

The thing that the left and the communists had power in the literary world after war is very inconvenient for Mishima. And it is common sense and important point Mishima's history. Please edit it accurate as described in the original source (Mishima'essay and his biography).--みしまるもも (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

First of all, you are quoting here a very old version of my corrections. I already edited that passage significantly several different times to address your concerns. Please read the latest version. Second of all, your proposed text still doesn't make much sense. We cannot call people "opportunists" and say they were "highhanded." These are very loaded words in English, which violates Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View" policy. We cannot narrate historical conditions from Mishima's personal point of view without any qualification. We have to be a neutral observer of Mishima. If we want to convey his point of view, we have to say "Mishima said" or "Mishima wrote" or "Mishima claimed" etc. Also why do you want to say that Mishima felt "impatient"? That doesn't make any sense in this context and seems like the wrong word in English. Frankly, I feel like my current passage is already saying what you want to say, but makes much more sense in English compared to what you have here. Please review the current text, and let me know if anything still needs to be changed. Ash-Gaar (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Needs clarification

"Immediately returning on the same day from convocation, Mishima's parents were so happy that he didn't have to go to the battlefield. Mishima was vague about it due to a high fever and tiredness of traveling, he muttered “I wanted to join the Tokko-tai (特攻隊, "Japanese Special Attack Units")”." -> How do we know his parents were happy? Who reported Mishima muttering? Encyclopedia articles in English cannot be written in this type of narrative mode. Can we just say something like Mishima recalled his parents were happy and later wrote that he wished he had been able to join the Special Attack Units?

Also, why does it matter that his parents were happy? We can assume they were happy. Any parent would be happy. The emotions of Mishima's parents on that day are not relevant to an encyclopedia article.

Thanks, check. I rewrite this part.

Immediately returning on the same day from convocation, Mishima's parents were so happy that their son didn't have to go to the battlefield. But, only Mishima was vague about it due to a high fever and tiredness of traveling, then his father heard Mishima's murmur as follow,“I wanted to join the Tokko-tai (特攻隊, "Japanese Special Attack Units")”. At that time, Mishima wrote praises for the Kamikaze Tokko-tai in his letters to friends and his private notes.

--みしまるもも (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

"then leftists, communists, and opportunists who had been making their influence in the literary world." -> This is not a complete sentence. The first half seems to be missing. "Opportunists" is not a factual term but an opinion or insult. What is the meaning of this phrase? Who is saying this?

In fact, it is true that there were opportunists, and Mishima criticized them in his letters to friends.--みしまるもも (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

"and he barely passed the test in second-class on 16 May 1944." -> please explain what kind of test it is, what the test is for, and what "in second-class" means.

"second-class" is 「乙種」. It is Lower level (grade) than 「甲種」. No.1 level is called「甲種」. So this sentence may rewrite to follow.

and he barely passed the test on second-level (乙種) on 16 May 1944.

Thank you.--みしまるもも (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Mishima said, "Since Lafcadio Hearn called the Japanese "Greek of the Orient", the Olympics were destined to be welcomed by the Japanese someday."

Numerous issues: this sentence doesn't really make sense and the grammar needs work. More importantly, why is this extremely minor detail important to an encyclopedia article about Mishima? What does this tell us about Mishima himself? When did he say or write this? Why does he say Japan would welcome the Olympics "someday" when in 1964 Japan was already hosting the Olympics?? --Ash-Gaar (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your check. The original text of Mishima's words are as follows.

小泉八雲が日本人を「東洋のギリシャ人」と呼んだときから、オリンピックはいつか日本人に迎えられる運命にあったといってよい。

— 三島由紀夫

The words are the Mishima's report of the opening ceremony. Maybe you have such a question because you don't know how Mishima was excited at the Tokyo Olympics. No one has such a question in the Japanese Wikipedia. This addition is meaningful as the symbolic words of how Mishima was waiting for the Olympics in Tokyo, and the words were the beginning of his reports. In the Japanese text, it has more details, how Mishima was impressed by the opening declaration of the Emperor at the opening ceremony, and how he was impressed by the final torchbearer Hinomaru (日の丸). And, Mishima loved reading Lafcadio Hearn when he was a boy, and often wrote about Lafcadio Hearn's view of the Japanese in various essays. It would be nice if I could write more details about how Mishima was impressed at the Olympics, but since there seem to be various restrictions on English Wikipedia, I chose only the opening words of Mishima. If「いつか」 is strange on "someday", could you please make it some proper English? --みしまるもも (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

How about this?

Regarding the long-awaited Olympics in Japan, Mishima expressed his excitement in the opening ceremony report, "It can be said that since Lafcadio Hearn called the Japanese "Greek of the Orient", the Olympics were destined to be welcomed by the Japanese eventually."

--みしまるもも (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay! This is much more clear now! Thank you so much for the clarification and further explanation. I have added the improved sentences back in to the main article. Please check it for any errors. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Mr. Ash-Gaar. --みしまるもも (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Mishima said that “As the duty of a human, our Majesty should be a God” in "The Voices of the Heroic Dead."

This quotation doesn't currently make sense in English, so I don't know how to copyedit it. Can you provide the original Japanese? Thanks! --Ash-Gaar (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The following are the sentences including before and after the remark. 「二度」 means that when the February 26 Incident and after the defeat. Thank you.

陛下の御誠実は疑いがない。陛下御自身が、実は人間であったと仰せ出される以上、そのお言葉にいつわりのあろう筈はない。高御座にのぼりましてこのかた、陛下はずっと人間であらせられた。あの暗い世に、一つかみの老臣どものほかには友とてなく、たったお孤（ひと）りで、あらゆる辛苦をお忍びになりつつ、陛下は人間であらせられた。清らかに、小さく光る人間であらせられた。それはよい。誰が陛下をお咎めすることができよう。だが、昭和の歴史においてただ二度だけ、陛下は神であらせられるべきだった。何と云おうか、人間としての義務（つとめ）において、神であらせられるべきだった。この二度だけは、陛下は人間であらせられるその深度のきわみにおいて、正に、神であらせられるべきだった。それを二度とも陛下は逸したもうた。もっとも神であらせられるべき時に、人間にましましたのだ。

There is no doubt about His Majesty's sincerity. As long as His Majesty himself is said to have been a human being, there is no doubt that his words will be irrelevant. Ascending to the Imperial Thrones, His Majesty has been a human being all the time. In that dark world, His Majesty has been a human being, with no friends other than a handful of old vassals, and with all the hardships he had to endure. His Majesty was a pure, small, glowing human being. That's good. Who can blame His Majesty? However, in the history of Showa, His Majesty should be a god only twice. What shall I say, His Majesty should have been a God as in duty of a human. Only these two times, His Majesty should have been a God, in the depth of human nature. His Majesty missed it twice. He had been become a human when he should be a God.

--みしまるもも (talk) 07:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)　add my translation --みしまるもも (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a second called "Harmony of Pen and Sword" but the phrase "harmony of pen and sword" is not explained and does not appear anywhere in the section. Where does this title come from? If we don't explain at all, we should probably change the section title to a different title. What do you think about this? --Ash-Gaar (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"Harmony of Pen and Sword" means 「文武両道」. This words was used by Mishima in many essays such as "Sun and Steel". So, even in the film "Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters", the Mishima's words was used as one title of chapters. The following is a famous sentence that Mishima said. It might be more appropriate to explain "Sun and Steel" a bit in that section as well. It is well known that Mishima, after training his body, was aiming for "Harmony of Pen and Sword". Also, Mishima said, "Protecting culture is the principle of the "sword".".

「武」とは花と散ることであり、「文」とは不朽の花を育てることだ、と。そして不朽の花とはすなわち造花である。かくて「文武両道」とは、散る花と散らぬ花とを兼ねることであり、人間性の最も相反する二つの欲求、およびその欲求の実現の二つの夢を、一身に兼ねることであった。（中略）「文武両道」はその絶対的な形態をとることはきわめて稀であり、よし実現されても、一瞬にして終るような理念なのである。

And, I don't agree with the section name like as "Turn to the right wing", because it's a misunderstanding in the research of Mishima.(Perhaps foreign people don't know much about Mishima, so they have such a false perception.) Because Mishima was a nationalist and right-winger before the war, so there are no leading researchers who misunderstand that "Mishima has changed to the right wing." --みしまるもも (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah! Yes, I suspected this was probably a translation of 文武両道. Your suggestion sounds good. I will put in a section on "Sun and Steel" when I next have some time. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Hasuda told Mishima the last words, "I entrusted you with the future of Japan"

This Hasuda’s words are influenced Mishima’s after life. This is a common sense among Mishima’s researchers, and important thing. So, many researchers have talked about the relationship between Mishima and Hasuda, and many Mishima researchers have written that this word is very important. I have received the highest rating of Rank A in the articles by Yukio Mishima and Zenmei Hasuda. Could you please count on me and believe me. I will review the grammar.--みしまるもも (talk) 08:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay! I believe you if you say it is important. The main issue was that the sentences were incomplete. The quotation itself also needs to be translated better. Right now it doesn't quite make sense. Ash-Gaar (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

How about something like: "I leave the future of Japan in your care." Ash-Gaar (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Part of the problem is having the verb be in past tense. We can't really do that in English when we are talking about the future. Ash-Gaar (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• I tried to rewrite it, please check it. By the way, maybe you are Japanese? Somehow it feels like that. Then good night.--みしまるもも (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

In October 1943, the day of embarking to the Java, Singapore, Johor: the Southern Front of the Dai Tō-A Sensō (大東亜戦争, "Greater East Asia War"). Hasuda told Mishima the last words, "I leave the future of Japan in your care.". The words entrusted from Hasuda was the "Important thing" for Mishima and had a great impact on his later life.

Thanks for this. This is very similar to your original text, but a bit better. It still did not completely make sense, but I read some more about Hasuda and did my best to clarify and add some context so this doesn't suddenly appear out of the blue. Please read the new version and let me know if any facts are incorrect! --Ash-Gaar (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not Japanese. I am American. However, I did live in Japan for many years. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. So, you know Bin Akao, and you are interested in Japan and are familiar with it.(*＾－＾*)--みしまるもも (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Madame de Sade

I would like to add this summary. Please check it. I also added Japanese. Thank you.--みしまるもも (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This work is a dialogic play, in which six women dispute about Marquis de Sade, and revealing the many-sided personality of him who was branded "vice". The play ends with the scene of the one of the six, Madame de Sade Renée's mysterious decision when she heard the news that her beloved husband Sade came back. In this work, based on the historical facts, Mishima explored the mystery of Renée's last decision, and drew it with his own interpretation.

この作品は、6人の女の対立的な会話劇により、悪徳の刻印を押されたサド侯爵の多面的な人物像を浮かびあがらせています。この劇は、愛する夫サドが家に帰ってきた時のサド侯爵夫人ルネの不可思議な決意のシーンで幕が閉じます。史実を基にしたこの作品で三島はルネの最後の決意の謎を探りながら、彼独自の解釈で描いています。

References

This one is a bit more difficult. The Japanese is helpful! I understand the Japanese very well, but I feel that some important context is missing. For example, I have no idea what her 決意 actually was. I am going to do some more reading, and will figure out a way to explain this more clearly in English. Please wait a little bit. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed it. Please check it when you get a chance. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and thank you for the more detailed supplement.--みしまるもも (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The Sound of Waves

I would like to add about Shiosai(The Sound of Waves). Please check it. I also added Japanese.--みしまるもも (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC) supplement and correct--みしまるもも (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The Sound of Waves is set in a small island "Kami-shima" where traditional Japanese lifestyles remain, and this novel had become a bestseller, depicting the simple pure love of young fishermen and ama. On the other hand, the left wingers criticized the Shinto animism behind the work as "Orientalism", and bashed it as "praising traditional Japanese values", and, around this time, some radical Communists called Mishima a "fascist". Mishima later recalled that there was such bashing at that time as follows: "The ancient-style community ethics adopted by this novel was attacked by progressives at the time of writing, but no matter how much the Japanese changed, they hid this sense of ethics at the bottom. It has been gradually proved to be.".

「潮騒」は、日本の伝統的な生活習慣が残っている小さな島「神島」を舞台に、若い漁師と海女の素朴な純愛が描かれ、ベストセラーとなりました。その一方で左翼からは、作品の背景となっている神道的なアニミズムを「オリエンタリズム」と批判されたり、「日本の伝統的な価値観を賛美している」とバッシングされたりしました。また、この頃、一部の過激な共産主義者からは「ファシスト」と三島は呼ばれました。三島は当時そうしたバッシングがあったことに対して後にこう振り返っています。「この小説の採用している、古代風の共同体倫理は、書かれた当時、進歩派の攻撃を受けたものであるが、日本人はどんなに変っても、その底に、こうした倫理感を隠していることは、その後だんだんに証明されている」

References

Having the Japanese is very helpful! Here is my suggested version (Ash-Gaar (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC))...

The Sound of Waves, set on the small island of "Kami-shima" where a traditional Japanese lifestyle continued to be practiced, depicts a pure, simple love between a fisherman and a female pearl diver (海女, ama). Although the novel became a best-seller, leftists criticized it for "glorifying traditional Japanese values" and around this time, some people began calling Mishima a "fascist." Looking back on these attacks in later years, Mishima wrote, "The ancient community ethics portrayed in this novel were attacked by progressives at the time, but no matter how much the Japanese people changed, these ancient ethics lurk in the bottom of their hearts. We have gradually seen this proven to be the case."

Notes:

1. "Orientalism" has a very specific meaning in English which does not apply here and does not exist until Edward Said's book in 1978, so unfortunately we cannot use this word in English to talk about what happened in 1954. We will have to leave it out.

2. We cannot say "radical Communists" because that violates Wnglish Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View" policy. "Radical" has a strong meaning in English and expresses an opinion.

Thank you. If the word "Orientalism" is strange, how about "oriental old things"（東洋的な古くさいもの）. Is it difficult to understanding...? And, the words "some communists" or "some leftists" is more correct than "some people". Also, the words "glorifying old-fashioned Japanese values" may be more appropriate than "glorifying traditional Japanese values", because of the criticism from left side. How about follows.--みしまるもも (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC) add etc.--みしまるもも (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Although the novel became a best-seller, leftists criticized the Shinto animism behind the work as the oriental old things and it for "glorifying old-fashioned Japanese values", and around this time, some leftists began calling Mishima a "fascist."

"Glorifying old-fashioned Japanese values" is very good! Please use that one! Unfortunately the word "oriental" is just too loaded in English so we can't easily translate it. And "oriental old things" sounds very awkward. That part doesn't seem super important, so I think it is best to just leave it out. Even if you leave that part out, it is already very clear that the leftists are criticizing him for glorifying old things, especially if you add "old-fashioned" --Ash-Gaar (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I see. It's a little disappointing because it's not clear that they criticized the atmosphere of Japanese mythology or Shintoism behind this work. However, the American people may not need much detail, so give up. But I would like to this word “Haliotis”(鮑) to be added.

"a female pearl and haliotis diver (海女, ama)"

Because, Hatsue became the best in the competition for Haliotis. And, it was often indicated by the literary researchers that the thing she is a master of Haliotis hunter means the metaphor of Yamatohime-no-mikoto. Incidentally, the title Shiosai comes from the Waka poem (和歌) in the 万葉集.--みしまるもも (talk) 08:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)typo--みしまるもも (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

That sounds good and makes sense to me too. But I think you should go with "abalone" since a casual reader will have no idea what "haliotis" means, and we don't want people to have to stop reading about Mishima to go look up a rare scientific word. Abalone is American English, but that is the word English Wikipedia has used for the title of the article, so it should be fine.

So I would go with "a female pearl and abalone diver (海女, ama)"

--Ash-Gaar (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. "abalone" word, It's okay. --みしまるもも (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The Middle Ages

I would like to add the summary of Chūsei (The Middle Ages). Please check it. I also added Japanese. The publication process of the first half may not be necessary, but I wrote it for reference of translation.--みしまるもも (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC) correction etc.--みしまるもも (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

"The Middle Ages" was written during the war, and on the way of serialization, the manuscript that had been placed at the publishing office was burned down by the Bombing of Tokyo, and the publication was aborted, then, at the recommendation of Yasunari Kawabata, who read and praised the initial, the whole was published in the magazine "Human" for the first time. "The Middle Ages" has the motif of shudō(衆道, man-boy love), and is featuring Ashikaga Yoshimasa (足利義政) in the Japan’s Muromachi period. This work is based on the historical fact of Yoshihisa (足利義尚)’s death at the age of 25 on a battlefield, and his father Ashikaga Yoshimasa’s unhealing sadness. In this story, Mishima set a fictional character Kikuwaka who tried to die after Yoshihisa. is a beautiful boy and once beloved by Yoshimasa and Yoshihisa each. Mishima wrote the story in a gorgeous style leaning from Medieval Japanese literature and Songs to Make the Dust Dance on the Beams, and depicting the dedication of Kikuwaka in the spiritualism for possess Yoshihisa’s ghost to himself, and later his destiny of the double suicide with a shrine maiden who loved him, in Kamo River. In the artificial elegant style and the homosexual motif, we can be catch the germ of his aesthetics. Later 1948, Kawabata who praised this work, published the essay written his experience of falling in first love with a junior boy who is two years younger.

「中世」は戦時中に書かれたもので、連載途中に東京大空襲により出版所に預けてあった原稿が焼失して発表が頓挫していましたが、初回を読んで賞賛していた川端康成の推薦により、雑誌「人間」に初めて全文がまとめて掲載されました。「中世」は衆道的なモチーフがあり、室町時代の足利義政 (Ashikaga Yoshimasa)を主人公にした物語で、陣中で25歳の若さで夭折した息子・義尚 (Ashikaga Yoshihisa)を悼む義政の癒えない悲しみを題材にしています。三島はその物語に、2人に寵愛された美少年で、義尚の後追い自殺をしようとした菊若(Kikuwaka)という架空の人物を設定し、彼が義尚の招魂に献身する様子や、その後に彼が１人の巫女と鴨川で心中する描写を、中世文学や梁塵秘抄の影響を受けた絢爛な文体で描き出しています。その華麗で人工的な文体や男色モチーフには、三島美学の萌芽が垣間見られます。この作品を賞賛した川端は、2歳年下の下級生男子に初恋をした同性愛の経験を書いた随筆を1948年から連載し始めました。

References

Information about Kawabata and publication is already there in the main article. I suggest adding the following after that (replacing the current sentence about shudō):

"The Middle Ages" is set in Japan's historical Muromachi Period and explores the motif of shudō (衆道, man-boy love) against a backdrop of the death of the ninth Ashikaga shogun Ashikaga Yoshihisa (足利義尚) in battle at the age of 25, and his father Ashikaga Yoshimasa’s resultant sadness. The story puts forth the fictional character Kikuwaka, a beautiful teenage boy who was beloved by both Yoshihisa and Yoshimasa, who fails in an attempt to follow Yoshihisa in death by committing suicide. Thereafter, Kikuwaka devotes himself to spiritualism in an attempt to possess Yoshihisa's ghost for himself, and eventually dies in a double-suicide with a shrine maiden who falls in love with him. Mishima wrote the story in an elegant style drawing upon medieval Japanese literature and the Ryōjin Hishō, a collection of medieval imayō songs. This elevated writing style and the homosexual motif suggest the germ of Mishima's later aesthetics. Later in 1948 Kawabata, who praised this work, published an essay describing his experience of falling in first love with a boy two years his junior. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Thank you very much. It feels good. But, about the part of “Thereafter, Kikuwaka devotes himself to spiritualism in an attempt to possess Yoshihisa's ghost for himself,” seems to vague a little. The spiritualism is for healing the Yoshimasa's sadness and illness, so, to clearly the Kikuwaka’s aim, how about follows;

Thereafter, for healing the Yoshimasa's sadness and illness, Kikuwaka devotes himself to spiritualism in an attempt to possess Yoshihisa's ghost to his body,

--みしまるもも (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah! now I see what you mean. It was a little unclear in the Japanese. How about this?

Thereafter, Kikuwa devotes himself to spiritualism in an attempt to heal Yoshimasa's sadness by allowing Yoshisa's ghost to posess his body, and eventually dies in a double-suicide with a shrine maiden who falls in love with him.

I also think we should link to Shinjū, as above. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much. It feels good. And one more point, I wrote Kawabata's "Boy" as "an essay" (随筆), but since the words "an autobiographical work" (自伝作品, 随想作品) fits better, I would like to replace the words to "an autobiographical work" or "a reminiscence".--みしまるもも (talk) 07:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I think "essay" is still best. In English "an autobiographical work" and "a reminiscence" sound too vague. "An essay" is more precise as to the length and type of work. We already know it is autobiographical because the sentence describes how it talks about his own experience. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I see. But, his “Boy” which was serialized from May 1948 to March 1949, is collected in "Yasunari Kawabata complete works No.10-Novels", not in volume of Essays. Because, most of his early works are autobiographical, and these works are no boundary between reminiscence and novel. And, strictly speaking, the "Boy" is not categorized as a essay in his works. So, the words "autobiographical novel" or "reminiscence work" is more accurate.--みしまるもも (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that those terms are slightly more accurate, but they are also confusing and hard to understand in English. Anyway, I'm not sure why it is even necessary to discuss Kawabata's work in the encyclopedia article for Mishima. Kawabata is important to how "Middle Ages" got published, but since this is the Mishima article, it isn't really important to discuss Kawabata's own work, in my view. It is not very relevant. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Even in other articles, writing the accurate genre of literary is important as the encyclopedia. The genre "autobiographical novel" is so difficult to understand for American people? If so, the English Wikipedia may refer to Kawabata's "boy" as an "essay." Thank you.--みしまるもも (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I have added the summaries of "The Sound of Waves" and "The Middle Ages" you have checked. Thank you for your helping.--みしまるもも (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Wonderful! --Ash-Gaar (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Related persons

Since it is difficult to include various relationships between Mishima in the English article, I would like to create a section "Related Persons" and list up the people who are highly related to Mishima so that foreign people can easily understand them. I will add the brief summary of the relationship between the each person and Mishima.--みしまるもも (talk) 08:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good! --Ash-Gaar (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The drafts of "related person" will be added to my sandbox page (User:みしまるもも/sandbox).--みしまるもも (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC) link --みしまるもも (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Please check the grammar of some summaries.

• Hiroshi Akutagawa (1920-1981) – a Theatre director, Actor, The eldest son of Ryunosuke Akutagawa. Mishima's work Kantan (one of Five Modern Noh Plays) was performed by his direction. The two were comrades in Kumonokai (雲の会, "Cloud Association"), a literary movement group presided over by Kunio Kishida in 1950-1954, and Bungakuza. Even after being estranged from each other, Mishima continued to present his books to Akutagawa. Akutagawa, who was excited to read A Beautiful Star, wanted to dramatize it into a play, but it did not come true. "Mishima, he is a genius," which was said to be the topic of Mishima in the conversation with his wife Ruriko, had been not changed.
• 芥川比呂志 (1920-1981) – 劇作家、俳優、芥川龍之介の長男。「邯鄲」（近代能楽集）は芥川が上演企画・演出した。2人は岸田国士が主宰した文学運動「雲の会」の同人で、文学座でも仲間だった。関係が疎遠になった後も、三島は芥川に自著を献呈し続け、『美しい星』を読んで興奮した芥川が劇化したいと望んだが、実現には至らなかった。瑠璃子夫人との会話で三島の話題になると言う「三島、あれは天才だよ」は、ずっと変わらなかった。

• Fumihiko Azuma (1920-1943) – a Special friend, Writer, Literary comrade in Gakushūin days. He was five years older than Mishima, and had been living in bed at home because of tuberculosis. Mishima published a doujinshi Aka-e (赤繪) with him and Yoshiyasu Tokugawa in 1942. Azuma and Mishima had been exchanged letters for about two years before Azuma died at the age of 23. According Azuma's father, Mishima had continued to visit Azuma’s grave every year on his deathday until Mishima own self-determination. Mishima made an effort to publish the book Fumihiko Azuma Works (1971), and wrote his memories with Azuma in the preface, one month before his death. Mishima's letters to Azuma and Tokugawa were compiled and published in 1999 entitled Yukio Mishima: Collection of Teenage letters.
• 東文彦 (1920-1943) – 親友、作家、学習院時代の文学仲間。三島より5歳年上の東は、肺結核を患い自宅で療養していた。三島は東と徳川義恭と共に1942年に同人誌『赤繪』を創刊した。東と三島は、東が23歳で夭折するまでの約2年間、文通をしていた。東の父は、三島が死ぬまで文彦の命日に毎年欠かさず墓前参りに来ていたと語っている。三島は自決前に『東文彦作品集』（1971年）の出版に尽力し、東との思い出を序文に記した。三島が東や徳川に宛てた手紙の数々は、1999年に『三島由紀夫 十代書簡集』としてまとめられ出版された。

• Kōbō Abe (1924-1993) – a Novelist, Playwright. Abe has different political ideas and styles from Mishima, but two were many similarities and relationships, both liked science fiction. Mishima prized Abe's Friends, The Woman in the Dunes, The Face of Another, The Ruined Map. Although there are conflicting points in the dialogue, two are cooperative with each other. Abe said that Mishima was a "master of dialogue" with a sense of humor. One day in 1968, Abe and Mishima had a talk overnight about Prague Spring, Abe said "I had a dream to Czechoslovakia. I was going to go into exile in Czecho someday. My dreams were broken, I'm sad." The words touched Mishima's heart.
• 安部公房 (1924-1993) - 小説家、劇作家。政治的思想や作風は三島と異なるが、多くの共通点や関係がみられ、共にSF好きであった。三島は安部の「友達」「砂の女」「他人の顔」「燃えつきた地図」を高評価した。対談でも対立点はあるものの互いに協調的であった。安部は三島をユーモア感覚のある「対話の名手」と評した。1968年に三島は安部とプラハの春について一晩語り明かし、安部から「僕はチェコに夢をかけていた。チェコにいつか亡命するつもりだった。夢が砕けて悲しい。」と聞かされ、その言葉にとても胸を搏たれていました。

• Jōji Abe (1937-2019) – a Writer. Former member of the Ando-gumi yakuza, Former flight attendant of Japan Airlines. During the yakuza era, he worked as a bouncer of the gay bar where Mishima had attending, and became acquainted with him. Mishima later wrote a popular novel Fukuzatsu na Kare (複雑な彼, "That Complicated Guy") (1966), a story featuring Abe's half-life, and the main character's name "Miyagi Jōji" became part of Abe's pen name "Abe Jōji".
• 安部譲二 (1937-2019) – 作家。元暴力団員（安藤組）、元日本航空客室乗務員。やくざ時代、三島が通っていたゲイバーの用心棒をしていた時に三島と知り合った。三島は安部の半生を題材に『複雑な彼』（1966年）を執筆し、その主人公「宮城譲二」は安部のペンネームの一部となった。

Hmmm, looking at these summaries, I'm not sure it is appropriate to include these on the main Yukio Mishima page. This doesn't really fit into the specific format of an encyclopedia article, in my view. We can just make wikipedia pages for each person (if they do not already have one) and link out to them, as needed. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

In the Japanese Wikipedia, it is normal to create a section "Related person" and write detailed episodes with each person there. In the English Wikipedia the text (Life and work) is not complete (there are only guidelines), so I think the "Related person" section is important. But, in the English, if it is not need that much enrichment, I'll stop helping here. --みしまるもも (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, that is interesting. Indeed, I have never seen "Related Persons" on English Wikipedia before. It may be a cultural difference between the Wikipedias. I agree with you that for now it is better to work on improving the main text, which still has much to improve! --Ash-Gaar (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. It is difficult to make the main text of English to complete as the Japanese Wikipedia, because American people aren't very interested in Mishima, and they don't seem to have much need for information (the explanations of friends, for example, Fumihiko Azuma and Yoshiyasu Tokugawa, who had a close relationship with Mishima, and the doujinshi "Akae" launched by Mishima). So, I think that this amount of information is sufficient for the main text in English. And, even in the Japanese text, it is more appropriate to explain the each episodes of persons who had close relationship with Mishima in "Related persons" rather than in the "lifetime" section, so we have finished it such a structure in Japanese Wikipedia. Therefore, it is better to have a "related person" section, and I think that the contents become enriched if there are about a dozen person who are well known to foreign people (for example, Kobo Abe, Yasunari Kawabata, Osamu Dazai, Junichiro Tanizaki, Shintaro Ishihara, Masakatsu Morita, Donald Keene, etc.), in English Wikipedia too. --みしまるもも (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

A little strange part which has different nuance from what Mishima said

In the paragraph Mishima first watched Kabuki and Noh,
The last sentence seems something strange, as if a foreign person intellectually interested in Kabuki. It has different nuance from what Mishima said, and there is a time lag. In the original text, Mishima said that;
「（幕があいたときから）私は完全に歌舞伎のとりこになった」" (Since the curtain opened) I was completely captivated by Kabuki", 「これ（能）にも私は魅せられてしまった」"I was fascinated with this play (Noh) too.", and since first watching, Mishima went to Kabuki and Noh every month. At that time, Kabuki was the entertainment show for the Japanese ordinary people, like a movie, for example watching "Kimetsu no Yaiba" or "Hanzawa Naoki" in modern times. Mishima said that he instantly became addicted to Kabuki and Noh instinctively (nuance of "automatically", "no reason". His words is「体ごと」), not from an intellectual interest (not 「知的な興味」). So, I would like to add a sentence according the source of Mishima. How about as follows (Bold part):

From these early experiences, Mishima became addicted to Kabuki and Noh, as he was watching every month. And he grew deeply interested in these traditional Japanese dramatic art forms.

--みしまるもも (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I see! Let's write it like this:

From these early experiences, Mishima became addicted to Kabuki and Noh. He began attending performances every month and grew deeply interested in these traditional Japanese dramatic art forms.

--Ash-Gaar (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Mr. Ash-Gaar. "Be" seems "He" typo. I have added it to the article.--みしまるもも (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, sorry that was my typo! --Ash-Gaar (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Kyōko's House

I would like to add the Mishima's self-commentary about this work, before the sentence of "Although this work was well received by …", as follows. I also appended the Japanese. Please check it.--みしまるもも (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

About this work, Mishima explained that he tried to describe the "era" that entered the Japanese economic miracle around 1955, when the words "the postwar period was over" were flying around, and he said, "Kyōko no Ie" is, so to speak, a study of my nihilism."

この作品について三島は、「戦後は終わった」という言葉が飛び交っていた1955年前後の高度経済成長に入っていった「時代」を描こうとしたと自作解説し、「『鏡子の家』は、いわば私のニヒリズム研究だ」と述べました。

How about this?

Mishima later explained of Kyōko no Ie, "I was attempting to describe the time around 1955, when Japan was entering into its era of high economic growth and the phrase "The postwar is over" was flying around. It was, so to speak, my personal research into the nihilism of that era."

--Ash-Gaar (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much. In other his commentary, Mishima explained as follows.

「青年たちはそうした景気立ち直りの方向とは何の関係もなしにますますみじめになっていく。」(These young men are becoming more and more miserable, having nothing to do with the direction of such economic recovery.)

So, his words 「私のニヒリズム研究だ」seems much include the meaning of the nihilism within Mishima himself.

About quotation marks, the non-quoted part is a summary of Mishima's long overall comments. So, it would be better for copyright to enclose the quotes only in his exact words. And, a word "later" is not necessary, because Mishima announced the self-commentaries in writing this work or just before the publication.

So, how about this,

Mishima explained of this novel, he was attempting to describe "the time" around 1955, when Japan was entering into its era of high economic growth and the phrase "The postwar is over" was flying around, and he said "Kyōko no Ie is, so to speak, my research into the nihilism within me."

--みしまるもも (talk) 07:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Your suggestion sounds good, but we would not put a single word like 時代 in quotation marks in English, unless it is a very unusual or uncommon word. So let's do it like this:

According to Mishima, in this novel he was attempting to describe the time around 1955, when Japan was entering into its era of high economic growth and the phrase "The postwar is over" was flying around. Mishima explained, "Kyōko no Ie is, so to speak, my research into the nihilism within me."

--Ash-Gaar (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your helping. It feels good. I have added it to the article.--みしまるもも (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

References

--みしまるもも (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Question

About visiting India, I have a little objection to your modification. Why do you erase the meeting between the Indian Army Colonel and Mishima? It was an important meeting. After the meeting with Indian Army Colonel, Mishima felt a sense of crisis about Japan's lack of defense awareness of the Chinese Communist threat. and realized the danger of China after the visit to India, which was injured by the Chinese Communist Party, so your replacement is strange and the nuances of the sentence you changed seems to be subtly different from the meaning of the original source. The following are the sentences in source of Mishima's original remarks in Japanese. Mishima responded to a letter to a friend of the Self-Defense Forces and a newspaper interview about after visiting India, saying as follows.

インドでは、ニュー・デリーでインド軍の歩兵大佐をホテルに招き、一時間半ほど話をききました。中共軍の、人員の損耗を怖れぬ人海戦術には参っていました。

（インドのように）中共と国境を接しているという感じは、とても日本ではわからない。もし日本と中共とのあいだに国境があって向こう側に大砲が並んでたら、いまのんびりしている連中でもすこしはきりっとするでしょう。まあ海でへだてられていますからね。もっともいまじゃ、海なんてものはたいして役に立たないんだけれど。ただ「見ぬもの清し」でしょうな。
ぼく自身は、日本にも中共の脅威はある、と感じています。これは絶対に「事実（ファクト）」です。

--みしまるもも (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

References

What was the Indian Army colonel's name? What else did they talk about? Just saying he met with some random unnamed Indian army colonel without any further explanation is too mysterious. It is hard to understand why you think this random detail is so important. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The colonel's name is unknown because he is not a celebrity. But, the fact that Mishima met the Colonel of the Army of India is clearly written in Mishima's complete works and the chronology. So, from my point of view as a Mishima researcher, your partial deletion seems to very strange. In Japanese Wikipedia, if you make an arbitrary deletion like you, you will block as vandalism. Because it is true that Mishima talked about the dangers of the China after meeting with the colonel in India, so, the perspective of Mishima researchers, I am still not convinced of your deletion or modification.--みしまるもも (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is the EXACT quote of what you had before:

"[Mishima] met with the Prime Minister of India, and the colonel of the Army. Mishima felt a sense of danger regarding the lack of awareness the Japanese national defense held against the threat of the Chinese Communist Party."

As you can see, in your original there is no explanation at all about the colonel or how that relates to China. If somebody wrote that exact same text in Japanese, it would also not make any sense in Japanese either. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

In Japanese Wikipedia (both 三島由紀夫、三島事件), it is written and no one has any objection to it. As a Mishima researcher, I am not convinced why you remove the obvious fact that Mishima warned the Japanese people of their low defense consciousness against the wonders of the Chinese Communist Party after their visit to India. Why shouldn't write what is normal perceptions in Japanese Wikipedia??? --みしまるもも (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Do not lie to me. You forget that I read Japanese perfectly. As of this writing, the Japanese Wikipedia page for Mishima does not mention the mysterious colonel at all. Also, I did not remove the part about Mishima's defense consciousness regarding China. It is still there in the preceding paragraph. I only removed the entirely unexplained reference to a mysterious unnamed colonel. If the Japanese Wikipedia page does not mention a random unnamed colonel with no explanation, why do you insist that the English page has to do that? --Ash-Gaar (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

In the 三島由紀夫 and 三島事件, it is written as follows.

同月下旬から夫人同伴でインド、タイ、ラオスへ取材旅行。10月にインドでガンディー首相、フセイン大統領、陸軍大佐と面会。

— section「年譜」

インド訪問で中共に対処する防衛の必要性を実感した三島は[349]、企業との連携で「祖国防衛隊」の組織拡大を目指し、民族資本から資金を得て法制化してゆく「祖国防衛隊構想」を立ち上げ、経団連会長らと何度か面談していたが、5月か6月頃の面談を最後に資金援助を断られてしまった[355][356][357]。

— section 「楯の会と共に――豊饒の海」

10月、三島は小説『暁の寺』の取材で訪れたインドで、5日にインディラ・ガンディー首相、ザーキル・フセイン大統領、陸軍大佐と面会し、中共の脅威に対する日本の国防意識の欠如について危機感を抱く[132][133]。

— section 「昭和42年」

--みしまるもも (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

This actually proves my point. The colonel is only mentioned in the timeline and not in the main body of the article. And his role and connection to Mishima's views on China is not explained at all. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The following is about the information Mishima heard from the Indian Army Colonel.

ニューデリーで、こっちから頼んでインド陸軍の大佐に会い、どういうふうに中共軍がちがうかということについて実に端的な話を聞きました。中共兵は、一線、二線、三線とあっても、第一線だけしか武器を持っていないんだそうです。ところが第一線を撃破すると、第二線がたちまちその武器を持って向かってくるというんです。それを破るとまたつぎ、といったふうに、人員の損失をへとも思わないのにはほんとに閉口するといっていましたね。

（インドのように）中共と国境を接しているという感じは、とても日本ではわからない。もし日本と中共とのあいだに国境があって向こう側に大砲が並んでたら、いまのんびりしている連中でもすこしはきりっとするでしょう。まあ海でへだてられていますからね。もっともいまじゃ、海なんてものはたいして役に立たないんだけれど。ただ「見ぬもの清し」でしょうな。
ぼく自身は、日本にも中共の脅威はある、と感じています。これは絶対に「事実（ファクト）」です。

日本はたしかにけっこうな国ですねえ。イソップじゃないけれど、夏のあいだアリがせっせと働いていて、片方じゃキリギリスが遊びほうけているのとおんなじでね。いまは夏がずっとつづいているわけです。日がさんさんとふり注ぎ、花は咲き乱れて…。だが冬のたくわえは絶対にしておきべきだとぼくは思う。

— 三島由紀夫「インドの印象」

--みしまるもも (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC) --みしまるもも (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

This is very helpful! I will add the part about the colonel back in, now that you have provided some way to explain. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

And, about this deletion ( [3]), I have a objection. It is true that Japanese newspapers at that time praised the Cultural Revolution of the Chinese Communist Party, and without this, the historical background of how Mishima was struggling would be obscured. In fact, there was only one newspaper reporting the full text of Mishima's statement. Before this, in 1960, Mishima said to Donald Keene the following criticisms of the bias of Japanese newspapers that are only praised by the Chinese Communist Party. Therefore, the meaning of Mishima's actions is not clear unless such a background of the Japanese era is included.

ニューヨークの新聞に、川端（康成）さんのインタビューがいろいろ出たようです。しかし日本の新聞には、その記事が一つも出ず、中共がえりの文士の座談会ばかりがデカデカと出ています。この片手落ちはますますひどくなったようです。日本で一等いけないのは、政治家よりも、全学連よりも、新聞だと思います。

— 三島由紀夫 昭和35年7月11日 ドナルド・キーンへの書簡

--みしまるもも (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly just Mishima's own personal opinion. It is inaccurate to put this into a footnote as if it is an objective fact. That deleted footnote was full of exaggerations. We need to be careful not to present Mishima's own biased views as if they are neutral facts. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The footnotes you deleted are facts based on sources written from a neutral point of view. The source properly presents the facts of the newspaper article at that time. So, your deletion is very strange. This is where you write Mishima's biography along with its historical background, so don't delete it just because you don't like it. And, it is fact that there was only one newspaper reporting the full text of Mishima's statement condemning China's Cultural Revolution. The facts of the left-wing bias of such newspapers at the time are written in the source as historical facts, so your deletion trying to counteract such historical background is much stranger and less neutral.--みしまるもも (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

In your footnote you wrote: "Around this time, Japanese media was dominated by praise to North Korea and China." This is an extreme exaggeration. I am very familiar with Japanese mass media in the 1960s, and that is simply not true. It's certainly not true of most newspapers, such as Nikkei, Sankei, Mainichi, or Yomiuri, and it is not even true of the Asahi to say this viewpoint "dominated." It was also not true of television or radio. There simply was not very much praise of North Korea or China outside of partisan outlets like Akahata, leftist 機関紙, or Zainichi newspapers. Sometimes you can find some praise in left-wing magazines, but in the media as a whole it was definitely not "domanant." If you can show some actual empirical statistics about newspapers, that would be more objective. But I know you will not be able to find those numbers. So it would be better to say simply that Mishima believed this, rather than misrepresenting it as absolute empirical fact. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The book I read clearly states that the Asahi Shimbun and others at that time praised China's Cultural Revolution. And another book clearly states that the only Tokyo Shimbun introduced Mishima's statement. So, if you want to make misleading edits, as if Mishima had a weird delusion, I can't agree with that.--みしまるもも (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Where did I state that Mishima had a "weird delusion"? I simply deleted a footnote that misleadingly claimed that praise for China and North Korea "dominated" the entire Japanese media and also had a weird and unnecessary aside about people getting eaten by sharks. Mishima's statement was in fact reported on at the time. If every single newspaper did not print it in full, that does not necessarily equate to support for China and North Korea. You need to reconsider your extreme position that the Japanese media was "dominated" by support for China and North Korea. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

In the footnote: "Around this time, Japanese media was dominated by praise to North Korea and China." it is not written "by support for China and North Korea". And, "Around this time, Japanese media was dominated by praise to North Korea and China." is written in the book of about Mishima. In fact, Kenzaburo Oe also called North Korea a "paradise". --みしまるもも (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)　supplement--みしまるもも (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

As I have already explained several times, the Japanese media in the late 1960s was not "dominated" by this viewpoint. The word "dominated" is incorrect. Whether you want to say praised or supported, it is still incorrect. Ōe was a leftist, and he does not represent the entire Japanese media. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Mishima's criticism of newspapers was in 1960. The contents are as follows.

Various interviews with Mr. Yasunari Kawabata appeared in the New York newspaper. However, none of the articles appeared in Japanese newspapers, and only the roundtable discussions of the literary scholars returning from the Chinese Communist Party appeared as big. This one-sidedness seems to be getting worse. I think newspapers are the worst in Japan than politicians and Zengakuren.

--みしまるもも (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

References

And, about 1964 Tokyo Olympics, you added as follows.

Mishima had eagerly anticipated the long-awaited return of the Olympics to Japan following the cancellation of the 1940 Tokyo Olympics due to Japan's war in China.

However, Mishima makes no mention of the 1940 Olympics, and the books of Mishima researchers do not link that to Mishima's excitement. So, your edits have a bit of original research, so I think we should write the 1940 Olympics information (thanks for this information) in the footnotes.--みしまるもも (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I see your point. The only reason I mentioned the 1940 Olympics was because Mishima's quote of Lafcadio Hearn might seem to imply to an uninformed reader that 1964 was the first time that Japan was finally awarded the Olympics, when in fact it was the second. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

If a source of such an interpretation is found, I would like to add the source, however, that is just your own research. So, linking the two different sentences to make it look as if Mishima had said that would be a deviant edit, so I think it should be written in a footnote, as a Mishima researcher.--みしまるもも (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I already agreed with you, above. I never wrote that Mishima said this. I was just adding factual information. You can move it to a footnote if you really want to. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

And, about this your edit in manga ([4]), why did you erase the words that Mishima explained his favorite elements of the mangas, "which were slapstick, nonsense, unrefined, and desperate, but also intellectual" ? This is meaningful as a representation of his personality.--みしまるもも (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

That part doesn't make any sense at all in English. For example, what is a "desperate" manga? Also, were Hiroshi Hirata's gekiga "slapstick" and "nonsense"? I don't think so. These don't seem to be the correct words, and leaving them in makes the sentence too long and impossible to understand in English. There are already good descriptive words such as "comedic" and "imaginativeness." --Ash-Gaar (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Mishima described that もーれつア太郎 has "slapstick" and "nonsense" taste. Somehow, your deletion seems to eliminate all the words Mishima originally said so as not to convey his unique favorite nuances. Your editing seems very oppressive and dogmatic. --みしまるもも (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

If Mishima only said one of the three was "slapstick" and "nonsense" then you should not say it about all three of them at once. I will edit to add this sense for もーれつア太郎 only. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Tatenokai

Mishima has already formed a militia organization with students under the name of "Japan National Guard"(祖国防衛隊) since 1967, before it changed the name of "Tatenokai", and the students' self-defense force experience enlistment has already started in 1967. In this edition, as if the training had started after the name was changed to "Tatenokai". Therefore, please read carefully the Japanese article 「楯の会」("Tatenokai"), and would you please write the correct and accurate chronological order?--みしまるもも (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright. I will look into it. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so I added a section on this to clarify the chronology. Please add some source citations if you have them! --Ash-Gaar (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I have added the source citations. And, thank you so much for the addition of the Colonel of the Army of India.--みしまるもも (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the citations! I do have one small question: why are the page ranges so large for Suzuki 2005 (pp 9-80) and Murata 2015 (pp. 161-222)? These page ranges seem way too broad to be an accurate citation for such specific pieces of information. Is it possible to get more precise page citations? --Ash-Gaar (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

It is possible to get more precise page citations. Reason why the page ranges so large, it includes various details about the explanation. That way, other ancillary things related can also be used in the same citation, and the Japanese article summarized it that way (otherwise the amount of citations would be enormous). The English article is smaller than the Japanese, so, I take those books out of my bookshelf of Mishima, and later I will edit the number of pages more direct.--みしまるもも (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks! --Ash-Gaar (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

"Runaway horse"

After summarizing the "The Voices of the Heroic Dead" (英霊の聲, Eirei no koe) in the section "Harmony of Pen and Sword". I think the following explanation should be included. By doing so, the starting point of the "Japan National Guard" (later "Tatenokai") and the time of practical actions of Mishima become clear.--みしまるもも (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC) supplement--みしまるもも (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

1966年8月、三島は次回作の「奔馬」の取材で、奈良県の大神神社や、蓮田善明の故郷で、神風連ゆかりの地でもある熊本県を訪れ、10万円の日本刀を購入した。「春の雪」の主人公・清顕の生まれ変わりは、次作「奔馬」において、血盟団の時代を背景に昭和維新に賭けた青年・勲とする設定を、三島は構想していた。同1966年12月には、『論争ジャーナル』創刊準備中の青年（平泉澄の門人）が三島の家を訪問し、寄稿依頼にやってきた。1967年1月には、日本学生同盟の持丸博（のちに楯の会の初代学生長となる）も三島を訪ね、翌月創刊の『日本学生新聞』への寄稿を依頼した。日本を守ろうとする青年たちの志に感動した三島は、〈覚悟のない私に覚悟を固めさせ、勇気のない私に勇気を与えるものがあれば、それは多分、私に対する青年の側からの教育の力であろう〉と語り、保守系学生グループとの親交を深めていった。

In August 1966, Mishima visited Ōmiwa Shrine in Nara Prefecture and Kumamoto Prefecture, the hometown of Zenmei Hasuda, and the areas associated with the Shinpūren no ran (神風連の乱, "Shinpūren rebellion"). Mishima purchased a Japanese sword for 100,000 yen there. Mishima envisioned the rebirth of Kiyoaki, the main character of Spring Snow (春の雪, Haru no yuki), the first in his tetralogy The Sea of Fertility (豊饒の海, Hōjō no Umi), in the second Runaway Horses (奔馬, Honba), as a young man Isao who put his life on the line for Shōwa Ishin (昭和維新, "Shōwa Restoration") against the backdrop of the Ketsumeidan Jiken (血盟団事件, "League of Blood Incident"). In December 1966, young man (a pupil of Hiraizumi Kiyoshi) preparing to launch the magazine Ronsō jaanaru (論争ジャーナル, "Controversial Journal") visited Mishima's house and requested contributions. In January 1967, Hiroshi Mochimaru (持丸博) (who later became the first-generation head of students of Tatenokai), a members of the Nihon gakusei domei (日本学生同盟, "Japan Student Alliance") also visited Mishima and asked him to contribute to the "Japan Student Newspaper," which was launched the following month. Impressed by the aspirations of the youth who are trying to protect Japan, Mishima was saying, "If there is something makes me unprepared prepare, and gives me uncourageous courage, it is probably the power of education from the youth side to me.", and deepened friendship with the conservative student groups.

--みしまるもも (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC) fix--みしまるもも (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I've added the first part of this for now. Please check it. I need to think more about how to improve the second part, as I think it might be confusing for English readers unless we explain a bit more. I was already hesitating about whether to talk about Mochimaru and others, as it is a lot of different names for an encyclopedia article on Mishima. Let me think about it a bit more. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your addition. However, the trip about the second novel "Runaway Horses" was before Mishima went to India, so, the chronological order of his works and actions would be so strange if it wasn't placed before the third novel "The Temple of Dawn". The reader will be so confused. Because, "Runaway Horses" is the starting point for the real "Sword" of "Harmony of Pen and Sword", so, it's strange "Runaway Horses" comes in the last section.

About the paragraphs before "On November 25, 1970" (in the section "Coup attempt and ritual suicide"), I think it's better to put that in the "Harmony of Pen and Sword" section in chronological order and explain the flow of actions linked to the works. But if the method of summarizing the activities of the Self-Defense Forces and Tatenokai in the last section, as it is now, is easy to understand and suitable for foreign people, it is fine.--みしまるもも (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC) --みしまるもも (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The event that about Hiroshi Mochimaru and others visited Mishima's house is important in Mishima's biography, so most Japanese books mention it. Mochimaru and others signed a blood oath with Mishima.

In particular, Mochimaru was the first student leader of the Tatenokai and was like Mishima's right-hand man. So, when he got married and quit the Tatenokai, Mishima was very disappointed and attempted to kept him back strong, suggesting, "If you concentrate on the work of the Tatenokai, you will guarantee your life (after marriage).". According to Officer Kiyokatsu Yamamoto, Mishima in a voice of sadness and anger, said to Yamamoto, "After all, a man changes depending on a woman." --みしまるもも (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC) supplement --みしまるもも (talk) 07:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

References