Talk:Reiko Tomii

Vice

The article https://www.vice.com/en/article/gvw4x4/premiere-post-war-japanese-art-screams is used to support the claim that Tomii helped organized the first North American retrospective on the work of Yayoi Kusama (1989), and collaborated with curator Alexandra Munroe to produce the exhibition and book Japanese Art after 1945: Scream Against the Sky (1994). The problem is that the article does not mention Tomii at all. It cannot be used to make the claim that she collaborated to produce the exhibition. Vexations (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I suspect you did not look at my revised version very closely. The Vice article was only intended to support the claim that Scream against the Sky was "seminal" in the field of postwar Japanese art. But you deleted that word as a "weasel word" even though it was supported with a specific citation that strongly presents that exact claim. In my revision, I restored the word "seminal" and specifically attached the Vice citation to it so it is clear that is the claim the Vice source is being used to support. Ash-Gaar (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, the Vice article states that Scream Against the Sky "introduced American audiences to Japanese art and kickstarted critical study and awareness of modern Asian artists."

Ash-Gaar, Ash-Gaar, I actually do look at things "very closely". I check every reference, and read them in their entirety to make sure all claims are verifiable. This one is not. Tomii contributed a chapter to the book (Infinity nets), and compiled the bibliography. That's verifiable. What you're doing is WP:SYNTH, and If you insist on keeping it in the article I will decline to mark it as reviewed. It is irrelevant that Vice uses non-neutral language. If you want to use such terms they should be attributed as in "the exhibition that DJ Pangburn, writing for Vice, called 'seminal'"". And then I'd say: DJ Pangburn, I'm rather persuaded by Tomii's suggestion that postwar Japanese art is more radical and interesting than its American counterpart, and I'm sorry to see a biography on scholar in this field tainted by unnecessary peacockery. Vexations (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

This is clearly not an example of WP:SYNTH. I am not conflating two separate sources into a single claim. I am making two separate claims, supported by two separate sources. First, that Tomii contributed to the Scream against the Sky project, supported by the Gomez source. Second, that Scream against the Sky was a "seminal" work in this field, supported by the Vice piece. This is why separating the footnotes was very important, and you were absolutely correct to flag it at the beginning. Ash-Gaar (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You may object to the reliability of the Vice source, but that is a separate issue that does not go to verifiability. Not every source cited in a Wikipedia article has to directly name the subject of the article. They just have to directly address the specific claim cited, which the Vice piece does.

In fact dozens of sources point to Scream against the Sky as a seminal work in this area. I will try to add some more citations. Ash-Gaar (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have now added some sources to this claim. Ash-Gaar (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, if you feel the Vice piece is such an unreliable source, due to the author being DJ Panburn, you should also flag it in the Alexandra Munroe article, where it is also cited to the same effect. Ash-Gaar (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Lastly, I would ask you to kindly refrain from ad hominem attacks such as "unnecessary peacockery." I wrote this entire article on my own time. We are all trying to improve Wikipedia. We may have a disagreement here, but please try to assume good faith. Ash-Gaar (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Ash-Gaar, That's rich, coming from the person who wrote "I suspect you did not look at my revised version very closely". Vexations (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Lol, no. Above, I wrote "I understand your point, but I suspect you did not look at my revised version very closely." This is A) explicitly stating an assumption of good faith on your part, and B) not an attack on you as a person. Ash-Gaar (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Ash-Gaar, Let's replace Pangburn with Alicia Volk, a scholar with a PhD in Japanese art history: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20752533 I concede that there is considerable consensus among scholars that the work by Monroe is "seminal". Vexations (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Vexations, okay, will do! Thanks so much for this source! Ash-Gaar (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)