|
The spelling of Japanese authors' and publishers' names, including macrons, should conform to WP:MOS-JA, unless there is some specific reason why they do not already. 182.249.216.8 (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you be more specific? Which names in particular need to changed?CurtisNaito (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- (Sorry, the above was me.) A large number (most?) of the inline citations are of Japanese-language books from publishers whose names contain long os or us. MOSJ says these should be written with macrons, unless there is a specific reason why they are not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Although if you're going to go through and fix the formatting of all the cited texts, I would advise (and this is just personal preference, not backed up by any style guideline) adding a "Bibliography" section, including all the bibliographical details there, and cutting all the inline citations down to "<author's surname> <year>, <page number>." Again, just personal preference, but with such a large number of inline citations the current refs sections looks a bit cramped the way it's formatted at the moment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That was a start, but "Chuo Koron" -- each instance of which should have three macrons -- is the worse offender, and "Kojinsha" is another. An Kazutoshi "Hando" et al. Also, who are the "al"? I'm not sure if it's standard practice to use "et al." if you don't have separate bibliography where all the authors names are listed -- if it is, then it seems counterintuitive. I won't make the changes myself since your selecting to only correct the one implies the others have some other reasoning.
- A much bigger problem than these formatting snafus, though, is the article's apparent reliance on popular sources written by non-specialists, especially when the majority of English Wikipedia editors don't read Japanese and so don't know that these sources were written by non-specialists. Hayasaka, a popular non-fiction writer whose blog tells us to check Japanese Wikipedia for biographical details and whose Japanese Wikipedia entry says nothing of any postgraduate education and says his BA was in journalism, is cited 45 times. I couldn't find any biographical information on Hayase, but his highly eclectic bibliography, which includes at least as many books on pro-golfing as on World War II, implies he is also a non-specialist writer of popular non-fiction works; the article currently cites him 46 times. That alone is 3/8 of a total of (roughly?) 240 inline citations to apparently popular, non-specialist authors of non-fiction. Matsuura, by comparison, is a professor of modern history whose book was published by a university press, and he is cited only 15 times; the last names him inline, but neither Hayasaka nor Hayase is named inline -- the reverse.
- Of course, non-historians are free to write history, and they can sometimes do it well enough that their views are widely accepted by professional historians, but is that what happened here? Why are popular (mostly, it seems, right-leaning) Japanese literary magazines liked Bungei Shunjuu and Chuuou Kouron cited so much in this article? Are there no other sources available? Or do the better sources cite Chuuou Kouron and Bungei Shunjuu anyway? I'm not a specialist in this area so I can't say for sure. But I worry that a non-Japanese speaking GA reviewer will come along (@Sturmvogel 66: your user page doesn't say -- do you read Japanese?), check how many of the English-language sources went through scholarly publishers and university presses, and assume the same is true of the Japanese ones.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm using the same citation style recommended by Mary Lynn Rampolla's Pocket Guide to Writing in History. It recommends using "et al" when there are more than two authors. I haven't read any bad reviews of either Hayasaka's or Hayase's biographies of Iwane Matsui, so there is no particular reason to believe that they are unreliable, but in any case those two books are basically all that is available. Only two full-length biographies of Iwane Matsui have ever been written, and those are the two. Matsuura's book was a good source of information as well, but it wasn't a full-length biography. Firstly, Matsuura's book only covers the period from 1878 to 1937, and secondly, it only deals with Matsui's advocacy of pan-Asianism without touching on any other aspect of his life. I had initially decided to not use macrons on Kojinsha or Chuokoron-Shinsha because the macrons are omitted, not only on both their corporate websites, but in the case of Chuokoron-Shinsha also on its Wikipedia article. Still, it's not a big deal whether the macron is there or not, so I'll add the extra macrons at your request.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have access to that book, but was the author talking about inline citations/footnotes, with the unwritten (written elsewhere in the book?) assumption being that there would be a separate bibliography or reference list where all the authors' names would be given? This was the recommendation in my alma mater's in-house citation guidelines, which I tend to use and generally work pretty well.
- As for the reliability of the books, your having not read any negative reviews is irrelevant; if a book is written by a non-historian and published by a non-specialist, general interest literary magazine publisher it should be treated as unreliable for the purposes this historical biography article is using it by default; positive reviews by professional historians can change that impression, but the burden is never to be placed on the skeptic, as the above implied need for negative reviews would do. And we never need another reason to doubt a book's reliability when it proclaims in its title that what it is propounding is Shinjitsu ("the Truth") -- unless you can explain this book's title in some other way, I think we can only take it as a fringe work written by an author with an axe to grind. This is the case with both Hayasaka ("The Truth About the Nanjing Incident") and Hayase ("The Truth About the General"). Also, with Hayase why does the book's cover say "将軍の真実 南京事件―松井石根人物伝" but our article leaves out the "南京事件"? It's hard to fix problems like this myself when I'm sure they are formatted as they are for a reason; and, again, it would be somewhat easier to fix them if the names of the books and publishers were only cited once in a separate bibliography below the list of inline references.
- Macrons: it's a moot point, I guess, but the reliability of decorative Roman lettering, URLs and copyright notices on otherwise exclusively Japanese-language websites for establishing English-language common usage has already been dragged over the coals in numerous RMs back in late 2012 and early 2013. Two users continued to claim we should model our style guideline on the decorative Roman text or the URLs (which are not technically able to use macrons anyway) despite this being pointed out, but both were pathological anti-diacritic editors and were eventually site-banned. To the best of my knowledge there's no one left who seriously thinks we should spell words according to such obscure factors when English-language reliable sources don't, so the Chuo Koron Wikipedia article should probably be moved as well, but you didn't use either it or the English copyright notice on the company's website as the basis for the romanization style, since your formatting lacked the hyphen. But it's a moot point, and thank you for fixing it.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For Hayase's book I copied down the title straight from the book itself. I think that there might be more than one edition with a slightly different title, and yes Rampolla does not require that every single author be listed if the book has more than two authors. Hayasaka might be somewhat fringe in regards to the Nanking Massacre, as he gives from very low death toll estimates, but I never cited him for anything related to the massacre, only for other aspects of Matsui's life. Hayase's book was favorable to Matsui and was a bit rambling in parts, but otherwise it seemed fairly solid. As I said, there are the only two biographies in existence, written by these two prolific Japanese authors and published by reputable presses, so if you only believe that they are unreliable based on vague suspicions, then you don't have much of a case against them. Ideally, I don't want to spend the time changing the reference style when Wikipedia's criteria for good article reviews explicitly says that reviewers should not ask the nominator to change his citation style from one sort to another based on preference.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Prolific authors of what, though? Pro-golf? Neither of them are professional historians, and neither a Wikipedia editor's assessment of them as being solid nor a Wikipedia editor's unsourced negative claim that no other biography has been written can overrule this fact. Also, how do you know they are reputable presses? I was under the impression that they were right-leaning literary magazine publishers. This is not to say I don't like some of the stuff they put out -- I just don't blindly trust the stuff they put out because of some vague notion that they are reputable presses. It's not about citation style -- I'm saying that close to 50%, if noy more, of this article's citations are to right-wing, apparently-fringe sources written by non-historians. The GA criteria are pretty clear that GA candidates should be better than that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- When you write a biography for Wikipedia, you have to use the sources that exist, not the sources which you might like to exist. For instance, there is a featured level article on Edmund Sharpe in which almost all the citations refer to a self-published book by a private author which has never existed in any other format than a privately-held CD-rom. That's all that existed, so that's what the article used. Of course, Hayasaka and Hayase are quite a bit superior to that because they are both established writers and researchers working with major publication firms. So far you have presented no evidence that they are unreliable, except for repeating the fact that they are not professional historians. However, it's common on Wikipedia to cite books written by journalists and non-fiction writers who are not necessarily trained historians. As long as a source is reliable, there is no rule which says that only degree-bearing historians may be cited in a Wikipedia history article.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
