Version B The content is obviously not supported by scholarship, as demonstrated above. Quotes are taken out of context, with random sources being Googled up in the hopes that they support the flimsy content that was already on Wikipedia. Moreover, Version A changes the focus of the article; there was wide agreement in the discussion that took place last February that the article was about environmentalism and that inclusion of lengthy, poorly-sourced discussion of the Genpei Seisuiki (or the Tale of the Heike -- the cited source contradicts itself on this point), Shinto, Buddhism, and nihonjinron watered that discussion down and misled the reader. A detailed history of the word mottainai belongs at Wiktionary, where, in two years, none of the editors arguing that it is supported by scholarship have bothered to add it, because the purpose is not to inform readers of the best scholarship but rather to mislead them on the origins of a 21st century environmentalist movement. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that User:Nishidani's view is different still from my own; he would probably be more favourable to B than A, but still prefer something like version C[1] except going even further. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Neither I've put too much work into expanding and improving this article (more work than any other single editor, it seems, since hardly any of Martin's text was not already present in the article when he created his account) at this point to accept it getting blanked in favour of some highly dubious conflation of different medieval texts, some of which don't even use the word in question. This RFC, which was tendentiously opened to undermine ongoing attempts to resolve disputes by discussion and resolve all the problems of the article, should be closed before it causes any more damage and wastes any more of valuable editor time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Moreover, even though I find Version C preferable to any of the other "concrete" proposals on the table here, I do not think I as the primary author of the article as it exists now should be obliged to throw out my own editorial authority over my own work. If I decided, in good faith, that something closer to version B would be better and that the etymological work belonged on Wiktionary, I want to be able to have that discussion with Nishidani, SMcCandlish, and anyone else who would be willing to engage in good-faith discussion. Obviously we can't put version A in the mainspace now that it has been proven to contain errors and misrepresentation of sources, and establishing "consensus" for one Hijiri88 version (C) over the other (B) is clearly not the intent of this RFC nor of any of the bad faith "A" !votes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Support Version C since !vote counts are apparently all anyone cares about, and my "Version C, but let me maintain editorial control over my own work as long as no one else in the future disagrees in good faith" has only been explicitly supported by two other editors. The claim that A had more !votes than C has been made a number of times based on this fact, so I might as well just say C for the time being. Hijiri88（会話） 2019年12月26日 (木) 00:59 (UTC)
