Talk:Ichikawa Fusae

Proposed Merge

I created the article at Fusaye Ichikawa in response to a redlink on a list of encyclopedic topics (I'll have to find it), not realizing that an article already existed at an alternate spelling of her name. I think there's complementary information in both articles, and that they should be merged. If there's no objection, I'll go ahead and merge the two - but we will need to determine which name is more prevalent. "Fusaye" was the name used on her citation for the Magsaysay award, but google does have Fusae used elsewhere. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD, I've merged content into this article. I'll now redirect the Fusaye Ichikawa article, and thus keep the history. If this needs to be moved to the other name, then we can do that - but I'm finding roughly equal references to the two names, so this one works. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Name correction

This is one of two articles that I've had requested to move to fit the common style of the person's name. It looks like while there are some places that use the Western style of this person's name, most follow the traditional Japanese style. (See this, this, this, and this.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack: In regards to name order it also depends on the type of source: Usually more academicy sources, especially in the Asian Studies realm, prefer Asian order: I believe Asian studies academic departments highly discourage Western order use for Japanese people. However popular press books and magazines (and also some academic fields that are not related to Asian studies) usually lean to Western order. I do usually prefer using Western order for someone if the popular press does so, even if the Asian studies academicy ones are a significant amount of the literature, because Wikipedia's meant to be a general purpose encyclopedia for the average person rather than for academics who strongly prefer Asian order for Japanese people.

• In regards to the sources you posted above, Cengage, Oxford Refrence, Dee Ann Vavich of Monumenta Nipponica (Asian studies), and George W. Prange Collection of the University of Maryland Libraries (Asian studies again) are academic.

However it would be an interesting question in regards to how much attention to a person is scholarly versus popular press, and what time periods: Shidzue Kato got a lot of attention from the public in the 1930s (her own books were published under the name "Shidzué Ishimoto" in Western order), but today attention is more scholarly than popular and the general public in 2019 doesn't know her from Adam. Do we write the article to still cater to the average Joe, or do we take more academic conventions and assume mostly academics today are interested in reading the article? Do we expect the average Joe to be highly interested in reading the actual academic articles and/or assuming their conventions?

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I found https://www.jstor.org/stable/3346332 which Ichikawa may have co-written. I want to see if she had a preference for Western order when she was alive. Also the NYT obituary in 1982 used Western order. I suspect what happened is that she fell off the radar of popular press after her death, and now it's mainly academic publications where there is a preference for Japanese order that are now discussing her. It does seem like gender studies academic journals/books since the 1990s are using Japanese order for Japanese feminists (I haven't done an analysis of the sources or anything like that, but that seems to be my impression), while popular press publications continue to use Western order. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Turns out the JSTOR link is an interview done of Ichikawa by Yoko Nuita. It does not indicate which language it was conducted in, so I do not know whether Ichikawa had a naming order preference from it. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)