This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 09:10, November 18, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It seems some of the reviewers dispute arguments the book made. Ainsworth-Darnell criticized some in her review. It may be good to check the reviews and see if other works make the same arguments. Erbaugh also pointed to some minor errors.
Note however the issues may have been fixed in the 2014 revised version
Victor Mair was also very critical, alleging (p. 267) that the book has multiple factual errors. Janet S. (Shibamoto) Smith also criticized some of the factual issues.
There are reviewers who liked the book, like Toshio Ohori. It may be good to analyze the versions, compare them with the reviews, and determine which criticisms would still be valid.