User talk:Rachel Thorn
Sure, I can talk. I do talk. Talk is in my repertoire. Talk to me, baby, talk to me!
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
Shounen-ai merge?
Dear sir,
I was thinking of merging the shounen ai and yaoi articles, and I thought you might like to put in your two cents about it, as they are a part of shoujo manga. I proposed the merge because it seems to me that titles historically designated as shounen ai (such as Kaze to Ki no Uta) are being conflated with yaoi under the terms yaoi or BL. If there's any scholarship out there which clearly distinguishes the historical shounen ai from yaoi, then that would be useful to halt the merge. Any guidance on what else should be in the yaoi article, how to reorganise the yaoi article, or additions to the further reading for yaoi would also be appreciated. It's a poor article, but I'd like to think it has improved over time. Thank you. -Malkinann (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I got your message, thanks for responding, and so quickly too! If you would like any help with Wikipedia stuff, please feel free to ask me, or just put
{{helpme}}on this page with a description of your difficulty and someone will come and help you out. That yaoi is considered more parodic is what I've been seeing in the literature, (hopefully it's made its way into the actual article too...) and I guess it follows from shonen ai's origins that it's considered to be made up of original works (and perhaps more serious? I'm not sure...). I guess I find the definitions to be the hardest parts, but I guess it's an ongoing discussion. It's interesting that "yaoi" has become outdated in Japan, and it's definitely something I'll try to find a published-outside-of-Wikipedia source for. -Malkinann (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Matt
It's good to see another manga expert join the fray. Many of the Wiki articles on manga are quite good, and (alas) many are not. They all need work. Please let me know how I can help if you decide to plunge into editing any of them heavily. Also if I can be of any help about details and mechanics of editing, please just ask. Wiki can be fun, but it can also be frustrating. I'll put this page on my watchlist and join in from time to time -- I've not done any really heavy editing since revising the manga article. Again, glad you're here. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tim! I read your user page with great interest. Now I wonder if I went too far in deleting the lines about shoujo anime in the shoujo history section. IIRC, I had complained about the jumbling together of manga and anime on the discussion page, but when I was editing the history section, I could think of no way of keeping what was there on the subject of anime in a way that made sense. In editing that history section, I did try to respect and incorporate what had been there, unless it was simply wrong or irrelevant (which much of it was). I don't have the energy to even look at the rest of the shoujo article: doing so might provoke me to take an extra dose of Valium. BTW, I created my first article from scratch, Katsuji Matsumoto. I'd be grateful if you could take a look at it some time and "grade" it for me. Some of it is, admittedly, subjective and interpretive, but I felt those parts were necessary to help readers understand the context and address the all-important question, "Why should I be reading this at all?" I would also appreciate it if you could tell me if my references are properly formatted. I wasn't exactly consistent. In particular, I wasn't sure how to reference personal communications. (A lot of the details I got directly from Matsumoto's daughter, via e-mail.) I've been studying manga for nearly two decades, and still am wary of trying to define something as slippery and amorphous as "genre," so I think for the time being I will stick to biographical articles and other more concrete subject matter. Hopefully, building up a body of articles on specific creators that describe their historical significance will provide material for better general articles on things such as "genres." But what do I know? I've been doing this less than two weeks. I have to admit, though, that I'm pretty leased with my Matsumoto article, even if no one ever reads it. A friend asked me why the hell I'm wasting my time writing something that won't earn me a penny and may be butchered by someone else, but the Matsumoto article is the kind of thing I am unlikely to include in any kind of print publication, unless by some miracle some publisher decides there's an English-language market for a book on pre-Osamu Tezuka manga. Anyway, any advice or guidance would be very much appreciated.Matt Thorn (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll do what I can. The previous Shōjo article reduced me to burbling tooth gnashing. Keep working on it. Here are some potential problem areas and difficulties.
- Wikipedia has a very specific, strongly defended definition of the genres of manga and anime. It is to define them solely on the basis of the (putative) demographic of the magazine or publication they appeared in in Japan. I have had some real arguments with people about this. The reason for the Wikipedia definition is that everyone and their uncle has an opinion about genre, and they needed a clear-cut, single definition even when that definition makes no sense in content or readership.
- Reference everything you include in an article. My own rule of thumb has been one or two references per sentence. Many, not all, of the editors on Wikipedia do not reference their additions, which are therefore merely opinion. It is an immense help to have "Wiki-verifiability" on your side when someone comes in with a completely erroneous "correction" or addition.
- The more you use print references, the better, especially to scholarly books and journals. Beware of citing the web; there are immensely complicated Wiki-arguments about "reliability" of web-sites. My rule of thumb was to use website references for electronic versions of print papers and for primary documentation of a manga title (e.g., a reference to TokyoPop or Viz website that describes the manga I was talking about). Avoid blogs whenever possible.
- Wikipedia has an impossibly complicated array of citation styles, templates, and other whatnot for citing things. When I was rewriting the manga article, I ignored it all, being more interested in getting the references into the article than being worried about format. Use a format you're familiar with and gives author, date, title, and place of publication (in other words, the standard scholarly citation). Format comes later. BEWARE of the web citation template. It does not include the URL in the final copy that you see on the screen but buries it in a hidden hyperlink. Drives me crazy.
- I can think of a place to publish an article on pre-Tezuka shōjo manga. Mechademia! I'll email you about it.
- Basically, the Wiki policy you need is Wikipedia:Be Bold. Use it!
- I'll help when I can. Timothy Perper (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Image without license
Unspecified source for Image:Katsuji Matsumoto bamboo figurines.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Katsuji Matsumoto bamboo figurines.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 09:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
No worries
I'm happy that I've helped you become more comfortable on Wikipedia, and you are selling yourself short - having real experts on Wikipedia is awesome! Thanks for publishing so much of your writing freely on the internet - it's really interesting and helpful to write articles with. I forgot to mention, if you ever pull a wonder-stunt again like creating a (footnoted) article in under five days, an interesting footnoted fact from it can go on WP:Did you know? and your article will be mentioned on the front page for an entire day! -Malkinann (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Need some help
I need some help. User:Vapour is in the middle of translating the Japanese Wikipedia entry on manga and adding it to the article here on manga. He is not adding references and is also adding opinions and assertions that are, for all I know, complete and utter guesswork. He refuses to listen to me. Can you take a look and tell everyone (on the manga talk page) if he is translating the Japanese correctly (his English is not very good at all) and if there are any references in the original Japanese article to anything he is saying? He is not adding any references, and that's no good. Thanks. Timothy Perper (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I let him have it with both barrels, both on his talk page and the manga talk page. I can confirm that he is simply translating (poorly) the Japanese article, which contains virtually no references, and is even worse than I had imagined. You can see what I wrote on the manga discussion page. As for the Japanese message to him, I am basically telling him more bluntly what you have been telling him politely, and telling him to cut it out. Matt Thorn (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, sensei. ;-) Timothy Perper (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- You did a great job with Vapour! Thanks again!
- Do I sense a desire on your part to get at that #@$%^ manga article and fix it? I certainly hope so! Not that I'm suggesting we do that right now -- the shōjo/yaoi material comes first -- but, in case such a time does arrive, here's a little history and background.
- When I began to work on the article, somewhat less than a year ago, it was in rotten shape, even worse than what Vapour added -- a mixture of random opinions, factoids (most of them wrong), bad writing, fancruft, and ignorance. So, with the help of Peregrine Fisher, an editor on Wiki, I plunged in and started systematically replacing sections with heavily referenced material. I am not, and do not claim to be, an expert on manga in Japan, but I do know something about manga in the US. So Peregrine and I focused the article on manga in the US, and wrote the history sections with English-language readers in mind. Later, as the new material slowly attracted (positive) attention, we also rewrote other sections, including material on manga outside of Japan.
- However, our revisions also attracted negative attenion. Several "editors" -- who shall remain nameless -- attacked what Peregrine and I were doing, never adding anything themselves, but telling us we were doing it wrong. This flak continued all during the time we were actively working on the article, and, IMO, got worse with time.
- Matters came to a head when someone nominated the (partly revised) article for Good Article status, and someone else nominated it for Feature Article status. I felt and said that the nominations were premature, but they brought out the worst in the editors who had been attacking us. I was getting tired of the whole mess -- a lot of work for no thanks -- and stopped working on the article. Both nominations of course failed.
- One result is the mish-mash you now see. Several sections were not rewritten at all (e.g., doujinshi) and are laughable. Other sections were cut down. whole subsections being eliminated when the article was transferred (edited down by other hands) to the History of manga article. For example, all mention of Berusaiyu no Bara was removed from tha manga article because one "editor" didn't think it belonged there. So I just quit -- to hell with that kind of garbage. I've policed the article, preventing the kobolds from wrecking it completely, but as Vapour shows, that is a constant battle.
- Eventually, it will be worthwhile for us to return to the manga article. With you now editing Wikipedia, we have a much better chance at stopping the kobolds in their tracks, not only by repairing damage, but by including new and better material. However, as I said, the shōjo/yaoi material comes first.
- We'll keep our eye on Vapour and remove his edits if he can't supply references. Something tells me he won't be able to.
- Timothy Perper (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Matt, the manga article
I'm a friend and colleague of Tim Perper's. Though I don't consider myself to be an expert on manga, I'm interested in it/them and have published an analytical article on Tezuka's Metropolis. More generally, I respect scholarship and I know how to think about culture.
I'm interested in helping on the main manga article, though I'm not sure what I can do. It seems to me that roughly the first half of the current article is workable in the sense that, given consensus on what's to be done, it can be brought in line fairly directly. However, I don't have the knowledge needed to do that (e.g. I'd bought-in to the Tezuka & cinematic style myth).
Once we get through the history & characteristics section, we've got problems. The rest of the article is a bit disjointed and needs tightening and, perhaps, some material should just be dropped (e.g. the section on awards). Here we're working against length considerations.
The big issue, it seems to me, is manga techniques, aesthetics, and style. I know that, at one time, this had been brought up on the talk page, but that discussioin's now been archived. There IS a Manga iconography article that covers some of this material, but that article has no references whatsoever. Do we need a separate section on techniques & aesthetics in the main manga article? I don't know. One issue is that of "no original research." Are there enough citable sources on this to justify a separate section? I'm thinking, for example, of the kinds of issues that Scott McCloud discusses in Understanding Comics, where he has some interesting comments on manga.
It may well be that what's already in the history & characteristics section is adequate on this topic for the purposes of a main article. I don't know. Hence I'm raising the issue. It seems to me that we need to figure out where we are on this issue before we can figure out how to bring the main article to "the next level," whatever that is. Bill Benzon (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Bill. To be honest, I have not read the whole manga article, because I don't want to give myself an ulcer. I just glanced at it yesterday, saw the misleading image from Tezuka's "remake" of New Treasure Island, and thought "Ugh." History of manga, the manga industry, reader's habits, etc., are my specialty. In my own classes, I deal with the aesthetics, but from from a historical perspective (i.e., how certain techniques evolved and became standardized, and how they are eventually displaced by something new). I find that attempts to characterize "manga style" end up as gross caricatures at worst, or snapshots of the present at best, and for every technique described as "representative", I can offer a hundred exceptions or contradicting evidence. My own inclination is to simply "not go there." That being said, there are any number of articles and books, in both English and Japanese, that could be cited in such a section. At the moment, I'm focusing on getting the Yaoi, Shōjo manga, and Josei manga articles up to snuff. If I still have energy and time after all that, I'll jump into "the big one." I could, though, work on a specific section, such as history. I've glanced through the history section, and it looks like a mess to me. One big problem I see is that there is no consensus, in Japan or elsewhere, about when and how manga "began." This is of course true of comics as well. It's important to point out some of the major arguments, including references to representatives of each side, but not get bogged down in minutiae, and certainly not describe one scenario as if it is "the truth." All the talk about the etymology and meaning of the word "manga," too, is distracting. Sure, you can find ancient instances of those two kanji being put together, but not necessarily to describe what we think of as manga. Again, we should note that this is much debated, offer a few succinct and referenced examples, and move on. As for Tezuka, it has really only been in the last five years or so that the most prominent baby-boomer manga critics (e.g., Natsume) have acknowledged that they have focused too much on Tezuka and pretty much ignored narrative manga prior to Tezuka. Although there are still a couple of die-hard Tezuka worshipers, most scholars and critics are now trying to make up for the imbalance. Tezuka was in many ways a genius, and was probably the hardest-working cartoonist who ever lived, but he was a man, not a god. He was also notoriously competitive and jealous, and reveled in his image as the god of manga. His remake of "New Treasure Island" was a deliberate attempt to rewrite history, literally, and his account of his first hit's publication (portraying Sakai as the "bad guy") needs to be taken with a fistful of salt. My own argument has been that Tezuka's real contribution was creating manga with profound themes that resonated with readers and kept them hooked long after they were supposed to "grow out of" manga. Anyway sorry to ramble. If you have any specific questions or requests, I'll do my best to help. Matt Thorn (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Bill -- glad you've commented on this. One thing to remember is that the manga article is a product of many people's contributions -- which means it lacks the common focus and sharp analytical quality that a scholarly essay would have. When Peregrine Fisher and I first started to work on it something like 9 months ago, it was an absolute mess; we added all the referenced material -- all the non-referenced material pre-dates us or was added after I had stopped editing the article. Furthermore, a variety of other people have removed our material wholesale. A somewhat better version is the History of manga article, which Peregrine and I put together, and has sustained much less damage from kobolds and other unpleasant folk.
- One section that Peregrine and I never got around to was about manga stylistics. The manga iconography entry is a complete disaster area, utterly and totally useless. But it illustrates what we're up against. The otaku are fascinated primarily by in-universe material and know almost nothing about anything else. But they have opinions, and by God, their opinions are as good as ours! So they put in opinions and makeshift observations (and, of course, no references). And they can turn nasty and vicious when their work is deleted or criticized.
- Concerning Tezuka. I would like to see the article cite those scholars (Schodt 1983 is one of them) who have helped put Tezuka into a commanding position as forefather of modern manga AND those later scholars who have understood that Tezuka's work had its own roots in both Japanese art (e.g., Takarazuka) and in Western cartoons. Here we again run across the otaku, who have no way to address this question except to say that Tezuka was "influenced" by Disney (the otaku have never heard of Fleischer) and maybe "influenced" by Takarazuka (which they might have heard of, maybe). But -- and now we enter into some of Bill Benzon's territory -- there is no clear, generally accepted, canonical definition of "influence." I think of Franco Moretti's work and also work by Wendy Siuyi Wong on comics from Hong Kong. Tracing out origins and history in an era as rich as ours is in transnationalism and glocalization is a **difficult** job. It can be done, but it'll be a big job.
- Next, I will admit to a personal reservation. I am currently working on an essay with Martha about "implicit social worlds" in manga and anime, by which I mean the assumptions, usually never foregrounded, about the nature of human social existence. Some of those assumptioms are Utopian (Sailor Moon, Little Snow Fairy Sugar, Samurai Champloo), some are Dystopian (Akira, Eva, Utena). I am, to be quite frank, more interested in doing that essay and publishing it in Mechademia or IJOCA than I am in hassling with amateurs like Vapour on Wikipedia. So, to be honest, I am more likely to think about Tezuka in relation to the "implicit world view" he puts into Michi or even Metropolis (and certainly Buddha!) than I am in disinfecting the manga article. An article Martha and I write for publication we can sign and publish; writing for Wikipedia is distinctly not one of my major interests. I'll do the best I can, as a professional and a friend, but -- and the but should be obvious.
- So the manga article is "beyond my scope" at the moment. I'll help out with the smaller articles, like the josei manga stuff we're doing now, but I'm not about to tackle something as large as the manga article again. If you guys want to do it, I will certainly help, but I won't be in the forefront. (Peregrine and I added something like 120 references to that damn article.)
- Anyway, good to hear from you, Bill, and I hope you stop by Matt's Sandbox 3 and see what we're up to for josei. It's at User:Matt Thorn/Sandbox 3. Your comments will be most welcome.
- Timothy Perper (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Tim pretty much sums up my reluctance to dive into the manga article. The level of interest among well-intended but clueless fanboys means there is no end to the mischief wrought by kobolds. I feel like my efforts are better channeled into articles that are of interest to me, but not so popular that they attract kobolds. That's the great irony of Wikipedia, I suppose: the bigger the topic, the less reliable the article.
- This is completely off topic, but I've been paying more attention to Japanese-language Wikipedia articles lately, and am stunned by the low standards. References/citations are the exception, not the rule, which is probably why Vapour saw no problem in his edits. They must simply not have enough administrators, or the administrators are too timid. I was amused (in a sad kind of way) to see on the discussion page of the Japanese yaoi article that the contributors were using the English-language article as a source. Matt Thorn (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Guys! Of course, I too have my projects, chief of which is a book on what I"m calling "naturalist poetics" or perhaps "naturalist criticism." And when that's done - I'm already late on my contracted delivery date - there are other things, so I'm not terribly anxious to wade in on the general manga article either. But I'll stick around and take a look at this or that and make comments if I feel I've got something helpful to say. But I'd like to make a few remarks in response to some things you guys have said above.
One general difficulty is we're dealing with stuff that doesn't fall into hard-edged categories. Brinktops are clearly different from fluffbottoms, but you can always find this or that case that resembles a brinktop as much as it does a fluffbottom; so, does that mean that the distinction between brinktops and fluffbottoms is arbitrary? Perhaps it means only that the boundary between them is arbitrary, but that's not a very comfortable situation.
This problem infects any attempt to account for the origins of manga, or the novel, or the blues, what have you. We've got substantive issues and matters of "mere" definition. But it's difficult to sort those things out. The historical situation may go something like this: Here we are in good old Gorblovia and florgords just seem to be showing up here and there. And then someone says, "Hey kids, look at all the florgords." "Yeah, they're all over the place." "Cool." And thus florgords were born.
As for Tezuka's status in manga, some years ago I read a biography of John von Neumann, who was a formidable polymath. I'd known that before I'd read the biography, but I hadn't realized how may pies had benefitted from his fingers. So, I began quipping that von Neumann was the Einstein of the 20th century. On any terms, Einstein was a great thinker, but his iconic status has as much to do with mythology as with his accomplishments and my quip is playing against the mythological part.
And the same is true for William Shakespeare. His literary accomplishment was of the first order. But his historical status does have a mythological component and that component is so deep that it is all but inescapable, even for the most sophisticated Shakespeare scholar. But Shakespeare, the man from Stratford, couldn't have been Shakespeare, The Bard, if the world had not been ready. And once he'd done his stuff, it's so much easier to tell the story of English literature if we can lay it all at the feet of this Great Colossus. I suppose Tezuka has been assigned to that role in the history of manga.
See you around. Bill Benzon (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert on "manga is"
That one floated by my watchlist -- thanks for fixing the errors introduced by whoever it was. Half my life on Wiki consist in patrolling such idiot errors. Also thanks for setting up the new Sandbox. More on that over there. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Death Note ban in China
I just added a longish note plus references to the talk page for Death Note where someone deleted a reference. I gave a bunch more references plus some reasons not to delete the one that was deleted. If you feel so inclined, come over to the Death Note talk page and comment. Timothy Perper (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- I hope that helped! Matt Thorn (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- It sure did. Thanks! Timothy Perper (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
More Death Note
I'm editing the introduction of Death Note. Why don't you come over and throw some heavy duty references in Japanese at the publication date stuff in the introduction and about the light novel. You'll see the [citation needed] tags I added. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Combi harmony.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Combi harmony.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Image was accidentally deleted and is now back up on Katsuji Matsumoto. Matt Thorn (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Nominating Katsuji Matsumoto as a GA
I've found a good essay that explains the basic process at WP:GNGA, but you might want to ask Nihonjoe or for another experienced Wikipedian at WT:MANGA to help keep things smooth when it goes up for review, so that you don't become overwhelmed by wiki jargon. It can take over a month for articles to be reviewed. As far as GA goes, I tend to be on the other end of the procedure - the delisting process. (Which is why I thought it had potential, lol.) Hope you're keeping notes for that future "Katsuji Matsumoto, Wikipedia, OR and GA" blog post. (Well, *I'd* read it keenly!!) -Malkinann (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Malkinann! Matt Thorn (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- I second Malkinann's advice -- Nihonjoe is one person, another is User:Tony1 though I think he may work primarily on FA's. There's a lot of bookkeeping in the GAC process, and I sure don't know it. The first step, I think, is to get the article "peer reviewed" and then make the changes they recommend. If I can help, let me know. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
OEL debate
Hi, Matt -- can you come over to Talk:Original English-language manga and comment on a debate I'm having about original research with another editor? Thanks. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yaoi and "Shoujo Jump"
Dear Matt, I was wondering if you'd had time to find a quotable source for Weekly Shonen Jump pandering to fujoshi yet? There's no rush or anything, I'm just reminding you as a potential convenient distraction from shoujo. I find that when I get frustrated at the progress on one article, it's helpful to switch to another, more lonely article. Yaoi has been the target of my frustrations for some time now, haha. (And doesn't it show?) Also, I was wondering if you've received BL Shin Nihonshi yet, and if it's any good? (You mentioned it about a month ago - I'm not sure how quickly books get shipped on Amazon...) -Malkinann (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Malkinann. That strange editing war on Shōjo is incredibly frustrating. I'm afraid I lost my cool a bit, but the stubbornness and arrogance is mind-boggling. Anyway, I'm searching for references for "Shōjo Jump," but haven't found anything solid so far. Googling "Shōjo Jump" in Japanese turns up quite a few hits, but they are mostly from BBS's, 2chan, or the comment sections of blog entries or news items. It seems to be common knowledge that Jump is sarcastically called "Shōjo Jump", and I've found a few respectable items that point out that Jump is popular among girls, and fujoshi in particular, but none of these solid sources actually uses the phrase. Maybe they're afraid of incurring the wrath of Shueisha. I'll keep looking. I got BL Shin Nihonshi. It's not bad, but it's nothing that could be useful in the yaoi/BL article, unfortunately. You would think there would be at least one really good on on BL, but if there is, I can't find it. But I'll keep looking. P.S.: Thanks for trying to cheer me up (^_^) Matt Thorn (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- You might want to check out Wikilove - it's a cute article which I find helps me get into a better mood. I also find it helpful to remember that all or most editors are firmly convinced that they are helping Wikipedia. It's just that some people's definition of 'helping' differs from others'. XD The phrase "Shoujo Jump" itself isn't important (although it is funny). Having respectable sources point out the general trend of shounen being popular with fujoshi is important, as it could potentially save the article from becoming a list of every popular slashable series. BL Shin Nihonshi might be more useful than you think - these days, I'm finding that when I get my hands on sources, I go 'but I know that already! :( ' It might be that you know the stuff that's in the book already, but it's lacking in the article. (Which is still quite possible). It might be that people are too busy having moral panics over yaoi to think about the history of it. :P You might or might not be interested in the discussion I inadvertently started here about how to assess importance for biographical articles for WP:MANGA. I think I've pointed out the pertinent facts of 'lol, where are all the women?' and 'hey, although their articles don't show it, the year 24 group are all really important!' I've also asked at P:MANGA about just how high-quality an article has to be before it's selected as part of the portal - and GA is enough! It might get some more eyeballs on Katsuji Matsumoto, once it's GA and portalled. You're welcome, I hope you're feeling happier now. ^_^ -Malkinann (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
DFTT
It means "Don't Feed The Trolls." It's a wiki-saying. It means continue to ignore Da Vynchi. The person clearly knows no Japanese. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the sound advice. (^_^) Matt Thorn (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
shoujo manga
OMG you are an "expert" on shoujo manga, no wonder you care so much about that 少女 article. I didn't meant to step into your territory, but I just feel compelled to contribute to any article that has Chinese words in it. XD--Da Vynci (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, Da Vynci. I understand. I think the etymology is an excellent contribution. I just wanted to be clear on the meaning of the word in contemporary Japanese. Matt Thorn (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Shōjo Sekai
Do you have access to the article mentioned on the talk page for Shōjo Sekai? Please post over there if you do. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
yaoi being used as a source without attribution?
Dear Matt, when looking for sources for the yaoi article, I've come across something disquieting - I found an article that I think has used the wikipedia article as a source without citing wikipedia - reading their article, it seems to me that some of the phrases are eerily familiar (especially when comparing to versions of our page just prior to the rewrite of "Critical attention"). Do you think that it's just that it covers the same subject matter in a similarly brief space, or is it more than that? I'd like to get yours and Tim's opinons on it before I start looking into contacting them about the content. Thank you. -Malkinann (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't really have the time or energy to read and compare the articles. I'm sure that sort of thing is rampant in general audience publications, though. People seem to assume that Wikipedia doesn't need to be cited. If you could point out particular sentences that you think are pretty much lifted from the Wiki article, I could give my opinion as to whether or not it is plagiarized, and I could write an e-mail to the editor if necessary. (Sad to say, as a teacher I've become pretty good at spotting plagiarism.) I spent most of today cleaning up and adding references to the Shōjo Sekai article Nihonjoe made, and tracking down the Chinese source of the Shōjō legend. What I really want to do now, though, is work on my next blog entry, which will be an introduction to the July, 1958 issue of Shōjo. I don't know if you've ever seen my blog, but you might find it entertaining. Matt Thorn (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Aw, I'm sorry you feel so awful. :( Hopefully this should just take two minutes to check, and then we can confer with Tim. There's only a very little from Wikipedia in there, but it's still annoying to find it. There's the 130 English publications as of 2006 figure (originally came from the boinking article as being "approx. 100 out and 30 due this year", so I added them...), and this:
In May 1992, gay activist Masako Sato attacked BL fans in a published letter in a zine, accusing producers for promoting images of gorgeous and successful gay men that make gay men in real life seem quite inferior. However, BL fans retaliated by writing that BL characters are not supposed to represent real men. With 18.5 million hits for "Yaoi" on the internet alone as of last month,
- The bits on "Masako Sato" I believe are similar to the "Debate" section as it was before the rewrite. (I've linked to when I originally put it in as it is clearly before the article was published.) The 18.5 million hits is a piece of WP:OR we've had sitting around in the article since July. For some reason googlehittery is a much-loved metric, and an IP thought we should have a more recent figure (I haven't had the heart to remove it). I know we've reworked the article anyway, but I was so darned proud of finding that out; and I'd like us to be acknowledged (if it's not just me "seeing things"). If it's in an educational publication (the .edu suffix) and in a Wikipedia article, the knee-jerk reaction is that Wikipedia was the one doing the plagiarising. I know I should be worldly-wise by now about unfairness, lol. If it seems to you and Tim that it was plagiarised, we can then think about what kind of communique we want to send. WP:FORK has some suggestions for a similar circumstance. On another note, I love your blog, it's really fun to read! ^_^ I just haven't had anything worthwhile to say on any entries yet. -Malkinann (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Using WP as a teaching tool?
Came across this, thought you might be interested: Wikipedia:School and university projects - using Wikipedia as a teaching tool - instead of handing in an assignment, students edit a non-existent or stub article as close to Featured as they can, like you've been doing with Katsuji Matsumoto. It doesn't seem like the Japanese Wikipedia has an equivalent page, but I wonder how hard it would be to set something up? -Malkinann (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- You mean set up a similar page on the Japanese language Wikipedia!? Eek! As I wrote on the Shoujo Discussion page less than an hour ago, the Japanese Wikipedia is a mess. To be honest, I don't even want to think about touching it (although I am working on a Japanese version of the Katsuji article). I think the concept is great, though. It would help students learn about what constitutes solid research, how to organize and categorize, how to do actual non-Wikipedia research, and, perhaps best of all, how to distinguish between a good Wikipedia article from a bad one. Matt Thorn (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- You could also, if you didn't want to let your students run wild on the "big wikipedia", get your tech department to set up some wiki software on your university's system as a "class wiki" and get your students to edit articles there. Then the articles could be transferred to the Japanese language Wikipedia and nominated for FA as part of the assessment process. (although I'm not 100% sure how FA works over there...) Trouble with the "walled garden" method though is that the students don't get the chance to mingle with "the great unwashed". (which might just be a positive, lol!) Also, you'd have a learning curve on how to run a wiki yourself. -Malkinann (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Cool idea. But since 80% my students are prospective artists, it's hard to see how I could work something like that into the curriculum (not to mention that I'm currently on sick leave), and I can't think of any professors in other departments who might be interested. I think most of the professors who even know about Wikipedia consider it to be a virus. (^^;) Matt Thorn (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Seems to me, a science undergrad, that to understand an artist's works, you must understand their lives - writing short biographies of the greats, perhaps. (although I swear having to study Ted Hughes' marriage during high school turned me off blokes for a while...) You're the arts professor, though, so if you think it'd be impractical/annoying to try to use WP in your curriculum, then you know better than me. :) -Malkinann (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Huh, no kidding. What kind of science? I'm trained as a biologist, long ago, and my doctorate is in bio (genetics, actually) though it has been quite some time since I've worked in the field. But being a biologist might explain why I like strange animals like orangutans (shoujou), tapirs (mo), and giraffes (kirin), and pick up on mythology about them. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Shoujo and Shoujou articles
Do you recall my definition of kobold? Timothy Perper (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in the deletion discussion for this manga artist since you've written about her in the past. Do you have any good sources for information about her? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I wrote an entry on the discussion page. I'll gather sources and info on her as soon as I can. Matt Thorn (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- In the deletion debate over Hatsu, I just voted keep and posted a website that sells two of her books in e-format. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- What do you think about the "conflict of interest" accusation? I'm afraid to even begin to list all the manga artists I'm friendly with, for fear of being banned from editing more articles, but it's a pretty lengthy list. Whatever happened to "assuming good faith"? Matt Thorn (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- The WP:COI policy permits you to edit the article with some provisos - which is mainly a glue-like adherence to the relevant policies and the expectation to try consensus on the talk page (and AFD page!) first. It's pretty much "the usual stuff" - try to keep your potential biases in mind when writing the article, avoid floral language, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:BLP. Are you aware of any awards she's won? That would help satisfy another criterion of WP:BIO. -Malkinann (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes... sigh.... take a look at the item immediately above this one, about kobolds. You think I'm making them up? Ha! In any event, there is no policy or guideline that says that you cannot edit an article about someone or something you know. Look up the Conflict of Interest guidelines and see. There is nothing wrong with that at all (bearing in mind the possibility of bias). Instead, IMO, the COI comment was just a ploy to get you off balance. Ignore it. Thanks for your explanation of where the name "Rinko" came from. From the comments so far, there's no consensus to delete, but rather to keep. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarifications, Malkinann and Tim. Yeah, I did get the impression that the "conflict of interest" accusation might be the Wiki equivalent of an elbow to the ribs. I also got the impression that as the person who originally marked the article for deletion, she didn't like someone stepping up and arguing notability. ("If I don't know this manga artist, she can't be important.") It's interesting how many Wikipedians who display kobold-like tendencies also have the "This user tries to do the right thing" userbox on their User Pages. Remind me to never put that userbox on my own. Maybe I'll make a new userbox that reads, "This user is more humble and modest than you." As for awards, I've been looking, but haven't found anything yet. I'd be surprised if her recent Uryūdō yume banashi series hasn't at least been nominated for something. Anyway, I will of course be careful to adhere to policy on NPOV, etc. (^^) Matt Thorn (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Collectonian means well, and does a lot of good here on WIkipedia. She does sometimes tend to be bullheaded about things if she's made up her mind about something, but (as I said) she has been an amazing force for good in cleaning up anime and manga articles here. I think it's better to allow everyone a few eccentricities as long as it's for the better good. I certainly have enough of my own. :p ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry if I came off sounding harsh. I shouldn't have judged her by this one encounter. The Unintelligent Designer knows that I have many eccentricities myself. Matt Thorn (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
History of anime books
I've been hunting for a few good books on the history of anime, especially if they include pictures for each entry and do a good job covering the early part of the history (including Imokawa Mukuzo Genkanban no Maki and similarly older works for which information is harder to find). Here are a couple I've found, and I'd like your opinion on them (especially if you've seen, read, or own them yourself):
What are you thoughts on these ones? Do you have any others you'd suggest? I'm trying to find some good resources for filling in the older anime holes in Wikipedia. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, Nihonjoe, I'm out of my depths here. Anime is not my forte, and I'm not familiar with any books on anime history. I'm actually more familiar with pre-otaku (pre-Yamato?) animation (back when it was still called dōga, firumu manga, or manga eiga) than with the stuff most people think of when they think of anime. So I have a passing familiarity with prewar and wartime animation, as well as postwar theatrical release animation (e.g. Toho's stuff from Hakujaden to Taiyō no ōji Horusu no bōken), but I can hardly claim to be an expert. Matt Thorn (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that's the era for which I'm trying to find information. (^_^) There's very little information in English for anime or manga before the late 1960s, and I'd like to create more articles for these in order to make WIkipedia a better source of information for these works. ANy tips or pointers in the right direction are helpful. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Have you seen 日本アニメーションの力—85年の歴史を貫く2つの軸 by Nobuyuki Tsugata (津堅信之)? Tsugata is probably the best known and authoritative historian of Japanese animation. Don't mind the reader reviews. The guy who gave it 2 stars is basically complaining because Tsugata didn't write the book the reviewer thought he should, and also splitting hairs over the relationship between Tezuka and Miyazaki. The Japanese Wikipedia article, quite naturally, includes virtually no references, and the text portion on prewar Japanese animation is a joke, but the 年表 is a good place to start to look for proper materials. Sadly, most of the earliest animation is either lost or survives only in fragments. (You may recall there was a bit of an earthquake in 1923.) Some of the most important prewar animators are Hekoten Shimokawa (下川凹天), Jun'ichi Kōuchi (幸内純一), Seitaroh Kitayama (北山清太郎), Kenzō Masaoka (政岡憲三), Mitsuyo Ose (瀬尾光世), and Noburō Ōfuji (大藤信郎). Here are some more YouTube videos of prewar anime:
- Hope this is helpful. Matt Thorn (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Need Your Assistance
Moved to User:Matt_Thorn/Sandbox_5.
Are you receiving messages here?
I left you a message on CZ. Timothy Perper (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Responded over at CZ. Matt Thorn (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Got time for some translating?
The discussion page of Sally the Witch. Kasuga says the bolded sentence has the word "Bewitched" in it. I don't see it. I added a comment to that effect. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- You and Kasuga were both right. I think Kasuga did not understand that his or her phrasing made it sound as if Yokoyama was ripping off Bewitched. Matt Thorn (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I thought also. Your change in the article is a good fix. Thanks. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Book search
This is helpful. Oda Mari (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is great, Mari! Thanks! I never thought of searching the 国立国会図書館. I often search for old books on 日本の古本屋, but that didn't help this time because the only copy of the Buchan book there was titled 「魔法のつえ」, not 「魔法の杖」(-_-;) Thanks again for the search URL. Matt Thorn (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- ソフトバンクのホワイト家族はJapanese-speaking Earthlingsかな？そこしか共通点ないし（笑）。「原真紀」も地味にいいですね。下ネタになるが、鈴木由美子のマンガに「オマタかおる」というのがありましたね。ウチの近所に「ふたまた」さんという家族がいるが、あの表札を見る度に「だんなさんの名前が翔（かける）だったりして」と考えちゃいます。ダジャレ大好きな僕にはたまりませんね。例のオッチャンの話だけど、日本男性でも特に多い気がするが、引退するとそれまでの自分の権威が無くなって、なんでもいいから何かの小さな縄張りの「ボス」になりたがる人がいますよね。周り迷惑だけど、なんだか見てて痛々しいというか惨めというか…。僕もいつかああなったら安楽死させられたいね（苦笑）。Matt Thorn (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)