This article was nominated for deletion on 19 January 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the will to come back on the different edits made by the user Ash-Gaar, mainly about the name of the collective, I want to start a discussion about the following paragraph, which I find problematic:
"Art historian Reiko Tomii also argued, in a 2005 "Translator's Note," that the group's name should be spelled "Neo Dada" without a hyphen, despite the fact that the term "Neo-Dada" is almost invariably hyphenated in English.[14] However, the strength of this claim is unclear, as hyphens do not ordinarily exist in Japanese script, and group members often employed the Japanese interpunct (a centrally-aligned black dot, the closest Japanese equivalent to a hyphen) between the words "Neo" and "Dada," as attested in their flyers, writings, and artworks.[13] In any case, the term "Neo-Dada Organizers" (with hyphen and in the plural), has become a standard term for the group in English language scholarship, including in standard art historical reference works.[15]"
I would like to point out several points that will support the need to change it, as well as the name of the wikipedia page:
1) In the original article, available at this link ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/42801111), the argument put forward by the researcher Reiko Tomii is very clearly substantiated, invalidating Ash-Gaar's remark that "the strength of this claim is unclear". On the contrary, one can see on the article a reproduction of a flyer made by the collective. On this flyer is the name "Neo Dada", without hyphen and without "Organizers", written in both English and Japanese (katakana). This corroborates what I had initially written (refer to the version on the page dated August 8): "The group initially called itself as "Neo Dadaism Organizer" as shown in the announcement of its first exhibition; however, the use of Dadaism was considered old-fashioned, and from its second exhibition onward, the group's name became "Neo Dada" (no hyphen). [13] [14]". I would also like to point out that Reiko Tomii's work is based on research in the artists' own archives, i.e. original documents. To conclude on this point, I therefore propose to remove the sentence: "However, the strength of this claim is unclear", in view of the sources put forward.
2) I would also like to react to the final sentence: "In any case, the term "Neo-Dada Organizers" (with hyphen and in the plural), has become a standard term for the group in English language scholarship, including in standard art historical reference works.[15]"; in two points: first, it is not because a wrong name has been used repeatedly that one should not restore the veracity of the facts. The sooner this is solved, especially on a platform as popular as Wikipedia, the better, in order to avoid the use of the wrong name again. Secondly, reliable sources also indicate the change of name of the collective and prefer the use of "Neo Dada". This is particularly the case for the reference book: Chong, Doryun (2012). Tokyo, 1955-1970: A New Avant-Garde. New York: Museum of Modern Art, ISBN 0870708341. Page 58: "with groups such as Neo Dada - originally known as Neo Dadaism Organizers(s)" and, on page 62, it reads, in part, "Soon renamed Neo Dada."
In the end, therefore, I propose to replace the paragraph: "Art historian Reiko Tomii also argued, in a 2005 "Translator's Note," that the group's name should be spelled "Neo Dada" without a hyphen, despite the fact that the term "Neo-Dada" is almost invariably hyphenated in English.[14] However, the strength of this claim is unclear, as hyphens do not ordinarily exist in Japanese script, and group members often employed the Japanese interpunct (a centrally-aligned black dot, the closest Japanese equivalent to a hyphen) between the words "Neo" and "Dada," as attested in their flyers, writings, and artworks.[13] In any case, the term "Neo-Dada Organizers" (with hyphen and in the plural), has become a standard term for the group in English language scholarship, including in standard art historical reference works.[15]"
By the one initially proposed: "The group initially called itself as "Neo Dadaism Organizer" as shown in the announcement of its first exhibition; however, the use of Dadaism was considered old-fashioned, and from its second exhibition onward, the group's name became "Neo Dada" (no hyphen). [13]
Which can eventually be expanded.
Thank you for your attention.
The current ref #41 of the article is " Shinohara 1968 but it doesn't point to any real citation. I can't see any Shinohara in "Sources cited" neither. I'm pinging Ash-Gaar since s/he is the one who mostly contributed to it. Sincerely, Gabriel Yuji ( talk) 23:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 19 January 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the will to come back on the different edits made by the user Ash-Gaar, mainly about the name of the collective, I want to start a discussion about the following paragraph, which I find problematic:
"Art historian Reiko Tomii also argued, in a 2005 "Translator's Note," that the group's name should be spelled "Neo Dada" without a hyphen, despite the fact that the term "Neo-Dada" is almost invariably hyphenated in English.[14] However, the strength of this claim is unclear, as hyphens do not ordinarily exist in Japanese script, and group members often employed the Japanese interpunct (a centrally-aligned black dot, the closest Japanese equivalent to a hyphen) between the words "Neo" and "Dada," as attested in their flyers, writings, and artworks.[13] In any case, the term "Neo-Dada Organizers" (with hyphen and in the plural), has become a standard term for the group in English language scholarship, including in standard art historical reference works.[15]"
I would like to point out several points that will support the need to change it, as well as the name of the wikipedia page:
1) In the original article, available at this link ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/42801111), the argument put forward by the researcher Reiko Tomii is very clearly substantiated, invalidating Ash-Gaar's remark that "the strength of this claim is unclear". On the contrary, one can see on the article a reproduction of a flyer made by the collective. On this flyer is the name "Neo Dada", without hyphen and without "Organizers", written in both English and Japanese (katakana). This corroborates what I had initially written (refer to the version on the page dated August 8): "The group initially called itself as "Neo Dadaism Organizer" as shown in the announcement of its first exhibition; however, the use of Dadaism was considered old-fashioned, and from its second exhibition onward, the group's name became "Neo Dada" (no hyphen). [13] [14]". I would also like to point out that Reiko Tomii's work is based on research in the artists' own archives, i.e. original documents. To conclude on this point, I therefore propose to remove the sentence: "However, the strength of this claim is unclear", in view of the sources put forward.
2) I would also like to react to the final sentence: "In any case, the term "Neo-Dada Organizers" (with hyphen and in the plural), has become a standard term for the group in English language scholarship, including in standard art historical reference works.[15]"; in two points: first, it is not because a wrong name has been used repeatedly that one should not restore the veracity of the facts. The sooner this is solved, especially on a platform as popular as Wikipedia, the better, in order to avoid the use of the wrong name again. Secondly, reliable sources also indicate the change of name of the collective and prefer the use of "Neo Dada". This is particularly the case for the reference book: Chong, Doryun (2012). Tokyo, 1955-1970: A New Avant-Garde. New York: Museum of Modern Art, ISBN 0870708341. Page 58: "with groups such as Neo Dada - originally known as Neo Dadaism Organizers(s)" and, on page 62, it reads, in part, "Soon renamed Neo Dada."
In the end, therefore, I propose to replace the paragraph: "Art historian Reiko Tomii also argued, in a 2005 "Translator's Note," that the group's name should be spelled "Neo Dada" without a hyphen, despite the fact that the term "Neo-Dada" is almost invariably hyphenated in English.[14] However, the strength of this claim is unclear, as hyphens do not ordinarily exist in Japanese script, and group members often employed the Japanese interpunct (a centrally-aligned black dot, the closest Japanese equivalent to a hyphen) between the words "Neo" and "Dada," as attested in their flyers, writings, and artworks.[13] In any case, the term "Neo-Dada Organizers" (with hyphen and in the plural), has become a standard term for the group in English language scholarship, including in standard art historical reference works.[15]"
By the one initially proposed: "The group initially called itself as "Neo Dadaism Organizer" as shown in the announcement of its first exhibition; however, the use of Dadaism was considered old-fashioned, and from its second exhibition onward, the group's name became "Neo Dada" (no hyphen). [13]
Which can eventually be expanded.
Thank you for your attention.
The current ref #41 of the article is " Shinohara 1968 but it doesn't point to any real citation. I can't see any Shinohara in "Sources cited" neither. I'm pinging Ash-Gaar since s/he is the one who mostly contributed to it. Sincerely, Gabriel Yuji ( talk) 23:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)