Talk:Juzo Itami

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. The evidence seems to suggest the subject's name is more commonly written without macrons. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Jūzō Itami → Juzo Itami – JoshuSasori (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Jūzō Itami → Juzo Itami – There is absolutely overwhelming evidence that this person is referred to as "Juzo" without macrons in English both during and after his lifetime. By case 3 of WP:JATITLE, Use the form publicly used on behalf of the person in the English-speaking world;, this should be moved to the common English name. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Evidence for no macron

Lady Snowblood (first / second parts) posters

• [1] (as Itami Juzo, all other Japanese names similar)
• [2] (as Itami Juzo, see above) -- JoshuSasori (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The Family Game posters

• [3]

The Funeral posters

• [4], [5], [6] -- JoshuSasori (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Tampopo posters

• [7], [8], [9], [10]

Taxing woman posters

• [11]

Minbo posters

• [12]

Compendium film posters

• [13]

Books

• 伊丹十三の本 - seems to be a posthumous biography from 2005 JoshuSasori (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC) (but book is in Japanese) -- JoshuSasori (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Film credits

• Family game (subtitled only)
• Tampopo (subtitled only)

In English-language newspapers

• Big In Japan Metropolis magazine
• Obituary in "The Independent" newspaper
• New York Times
• Chicago Tribune
• The Guardian

References from Google books

• [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]

JoshuSasori (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this talk page section above, from the edit after this diff version, it has had representative parts deleted and been manipulated, breaching policy WP:TALK –WP:TALKNO, as retrieved herein:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 JoshuSasori (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC) 1,2,3,4,5,6 are all lower quality sources, much less than scholarly sources, less than reliable sources, for the question of macron or not. Again very silly 3 & 6 are the same, repeated, for what?, for false quantity? More and more quantity of unreliable sources, per WP:JATITLE & WP:RS, makes the sourcer look more and more silly. They seem, more sillily, to be thinking it makes them look better, BS! ——--macropneuma 11:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Other

• Juzo Itami Museum

JoshuSasori (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Evidence for macron

• Academic Scholarly paper uses form Itami Jūzō. -- JoshuSasori (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Guess who provided that, and hasn't been (tendency) attributed above? ——--macropneuma 05:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually I was loathe to embarrass you by pointing out that edit and its summary. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No embarrassment for me. Apparently for the recipient of it who didn't want to tell where they got it. They buried it... . You didn't want people to realise where you got it from, me! ——--macropneuma 07:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

–per WP:TALKNO –quotation (word–wrapped and lacking the page's emphasis on the first sentence): "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means: Be precise in quoting others." ——--macropneuma 12:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You disparagingly did spin this small, scholarly paper as academic—tendentious. Wikipedia reliable sources policy rates peer reviewed, internationally published, scholarly papers, as this is, as the most reliable and 3rd party, secondary, sources—as does the rest of the world; more reliable than encyclopaedias like Britannica. In fact it is this:

• Iles, Timothy (2008-04-28). "Context Over All: Reading Content in a Circle". Electronic journal of contemporary japanese studies. Retrieved 2012-12-29.

——--macropneuma 09:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Scholarly encyclopaedic book: Japanese Cinema: Texts And Contexts : On Itami Jūzō, this is most likely the English language most reliable source or one of the most reliable sources of all; a scholarly, encyclopaedic book, scholarly and encyclopaedic in particular on certain topics of Itami Jūzō, authored by scholars, published by a scholarly publisher Taylor & Francis (then Routledge & now ex), etc—per WP:RS. Proper citation:

• Phillips, Alastair; Stringer, Julian (2007). Japanese Cinema: Texts And Contexts. Routledge (now Taylor & Francis). ISBN 9780415328470.

As you haven't responded to my challenge to do the proper research yourself of macrons on the name—research which took me only five minutes to find macrons (or not)—and as you passed off the ref paper above i gave you as if it were your research, i am disgusted at apparent heavy bias, i'm left disgusted at lack of proper, unbiased, research, disgusted at lack of response to my request to yourself do proper research and this whole conduct i am disgusted by such that i have to resort to taking (wasting) time to give (you), just one of many more, proper, scholarly sources, 2nd one above. ——--macropneuma 09:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

From Google books

• 10

JoshuSasori (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

10: quotation: "University of Hawaii Press, 2006" and so on – not lower quality, yes scholarly, ...; –although, between the two different types of WP:RS policy basis: Third party, secondary, scholarly, peer–reviewed, internationally published, most recent, reliable sources, of books verses journal papers – WP : Reliable sources policy is that journal papers trump books (again, if all else of reliability were equal which it isn't). ——--macropneuma 11:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Poll

• Support – the undecorated version is at least 4X more common in books, looks like. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Not in the best sources, of books and of scholarly papers, English language countries' libraries' records, Japanese libraries' records in romaji, etc. Tokyo, Osaka, etc. are good examples of actually well known words in English language, in non macron-ed form. ——--macropneuma 06:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support. As the sources cited above do seem to show that his name is widely written without macrons in English-language sources. --DAJF (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support. On GBooks, there are 19 English-language post-1990 results for director "Jūzō Itami" -llc, but only the first three look relevant. All three are travel guides. This compares to 3,050 for director "Juzo Itami" -llc, of which the first 170 or so look relevant. This includes The New York Times Guide to the Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made, Roger Ebert's Four Star Reviews--1967-2007, Leonard Maltin's 2010 Movie Guide, and other film references. Kauffner (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

False, about GBooks, for one example: here. ——--macropneuma 03:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Google's ability to detect macrons is imperfect, and I can only report the results my search came up with. Plenty of other film references go macronless: Bleiler's TLA Video & DVD Guide 2005, Gazetas` [http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-World-Cinema-2d-ed/dp/0786439076/ref=sr_1_18?s=books&ie=UTF8 An Introduction to World Cinema] (p. 330), Richie's [http://www.amazon.com/Hundred-Years-Japanese-Film-Selective/dp/4770029950/ref=sr_1_19?s=books&ie=UTF8 A Hundred Years of Japanese Film], and [http://www.amazon.com/American-Film-Institute-Desk-Reference/dp/0789489341/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8 The American Film Institute Desk Reference]. Richie is the best-selling English-language author on Japanese cinema, and I didn't find macrons in any of the international film reference works. Kauffner (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Confirmation (selective) bias? ——--macropneuma 04:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If you have evidence for the macrons, please offer it. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

All readers be wary of this apparent WP:BAITing? You've selectively, cherry picked (far from the best) sources without them. You find reliable, third party, secondary sources right now or you cannot be assumed good faith as a researcher. In five minutes i've found numerous WP reliable, third party, secondary sources giving his macron-ed English name as book chapter headings and more—either you're very lacking as a researcher, pre-meditatively biasing sources (and using far from the best) to mislead (and to try to invent a WP movement against macrons: 'Mac attack') or this: Wikipedia talk : WikiProject Japan – JoshuSasori wrote in their last edit summary only this code ...QED!. Those are far from the best sources—captions or brand names of commercial Japanese items with typical token name occurrence in English for brand recognition (marketing compromise) purposes (not specific WP reliable sources of course for the purposes of macrons or non macrons). I've found reliable sources in five minutes which i don't give to lacking researchers/bias editors for them to attack—they are much better, reliable, sources, than all of yours above. If, as is apparent, you've gone to many many more minutes than me of all this trouble to post unreliable selective bias sources, then your motives ... . Start again, you find them or... . Done! ——--macropneuma 04:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

In this case we are looking for evidence for the form publicly used on behalf of the person in the English-speaking world, not for reliable sources for a content dispute. Please see WP:JATITLE. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, not selective, out of context, (mis–)use of policy as well. Wrong (again). ——--macropneuma 05:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If so, provide context which is missing. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Already given the context, and my time on it, to you before in Wikipedia talk : WikiProject Japan – Requested move notifications but did you take it on board and did you respect my time given to you, apparently no. And: Letter and spirit of the law... ——--macropneuma 06:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If you think WP:JATITLE is wrong, then could you please make a separate discussion about that? This discussion should be within the confines of WP:JATITLE. If you start discussing whether WP:JATITLE is right or wrong, on each and every requested move thread, over many pages, it makes the discussion extremely long and also very confusing for people to read, because they no longer understand what is being discussed. It also diverts from the issue under discussion, and frankly it weakens your case to change WP:JATITLE because people won't respect your opinions if you do this. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You provided the least reliable, and selective, biased choice of sources. ——--macropneuma 06:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, this is not a content dispute where we gather reliable sources. This requested move is on the premise of WP:JATITLE. If you disagree with WP:JATITLE, please use a forum other than requested move discussions to state your case. JoshuSasori (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The above writings don't get it, not even the five pillars (of WP), not what WP:JATITLE is incorporated within, not the narrowly specific dot points 1. and 2. of Wikipedia:JATITLE#Names_of_modern_figures (those dot points 1. to 5. are obviously a specified aspect of reliable sources, such as encyclopaedias; sometimes those dot points are too narrow for article subjects that don't fit within their assumtions), not Wikipedia:JATITLE#Romanization, etc. JA:TITLE is not wrong, but misinterpretations of it are... . Non holistic, etc. Waste of time. I've read WP:JATITLE so many times, over so many years, i get it in the context of the whole of WP.

Letter and spirit of the law. ——--macropneuma 06:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you feel that I do not get it, I am unfamiliar with various documents, you already understand WP:JATITLE, I am misinterpreting it, and that you are wasting your time by responding to me. Thank you for stating your opinions. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

So you're starting to get an idea of how disgusted i am with your conduct, but this is Wikipedia editing, so the concern is how much you get WP editing (of the articles you edit). ——--macropneuma 07:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The Juzo Itami talk page is not an appropriate forum for you to discuss your feelings about my conduct. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That's what i just wrote. ——--macropneuma 07:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I will not interact with you any further. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

How convenient for you when wrong. So you're apparently on an obsessive 'Mac attack'. I don't care about apparent bees in your macron bonnet, and neither does WP and neither is this page a place to wage bias against macrons. Disgusted by editing conduct, talking conduct, researching sources and listing them conduct (eg. here), and by personal conduct. ——--macropneuma 07:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

My sources are impeccable, two of which are given above. The rest given above, according to WP:RS, WP:JATITLE, MOS:JA, etc., are not so much—inadequate to establish common knowledge and faulty (in various ways), according to WP:RS, WP:JATITLE, MOS:JA, etc.. ——--macropneuma 09:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Quantity (of sources, of unreliable sources) means nothing, and is for the silly who don't know the difference between unreliable (source) qualities and reliable (source) qualities, and worse appear to not know the difference between quality and quantity (as above). Quality (including but not only recentness) trumps quantity, every time, per WP:RS. ——--macropneuma 10:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.