Diskussion:Jindai Moji

--Mps 16:14, 27. Mär. 2008 (CET)

Request for new translation

I would like to ask somebody here translate the new version of the English article. I have posted English en:Jindai moji because they were too far from what was written in Japanese article which looked better. I was shocked when I saw the Deutsch version as they taught Jindai moji in schools with textbooks during WW2, and I couldn't find any citation. Personally, I haven't heard anything about Jindai moji till today. While this article says nationalists still believe in Jindai moji, but believing in Jindai moji sounds more like Mu continent-type occultism for Japanese people rather than nationalism as almost nobody knows Jindai moji itself. Hope somebody translate 20:40, 9 June 2011 or later.--Orcano 00:20, 10. Jun. 2011 (CEST)

To Japanese people, Jindai moji sounds like Okkultismus, not Nationalismus

I can see the Deutsch article (September 2011, 12:52 Uhr) says as if the nationalists insist on Jindai Moji, but it is clearly not. For your information to realize what is the position of the positive opinions on Jindai moji in Japan, I have to say that recent positive sources are basically issued by publishers or authors who prefer contents, you know, like Mu Kontinent-Nostradamus-type of okkultismus. So, what I am thinking is that it is almost impossible for those books and authors to be used as citation for verification along with Wikipedia guideline. Also, I couldn't find any citation of 1930s-nationalists-thing either. The positive opinions by scholars are mostly written in Edo-Zeit and scholars denied it during Edo-Zeit. It should be possible to introduce what the scholars on positive side in Edo-Zeit were saying, though.--Orcano 07:45, 15. Nov. 2011 (CET)

Na ja, zu Nationalisten und Jindai Moji findet sich sofort über Googlebooks einiges: [1], [2] und insbesondere auch die nationalistischen Werke von en:Hirata Atsutane ([3]). Das mit dem Okkultismus ist überhaupt nicht belegt und klingt schon alles sehr nach TF in Englisch. QS-Fall ist der Artikel dadurch ja auch schon lange... beim englischen Artikel war er ja auch sehr aktiv, auch auf der Disk. --Neojesus (Diskussion) 22:42, 29. Mär. 2014 (CET)