Jump to content

Talk:Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

I see that something recommended for the notability of academic books is that universities use them as recommended reading for courses. To that mind, I present a list of some of the university-related websites that mention the book either as recommended reading or in review/interview. I trust that this will be sufficient to alleviate any concerns. -Malkinann (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that will...though the article should be expanded to note something to that affect (effect?) :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am really not sure how to, though - if I say "it's been used in stacks of courses as recommended reading" and reference the lot, it sounds original researchy. How would you put it? -Malkinann (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm....probabyl go through some of the courses, particularly the more notable universities like Princeton and note that it is a course book or recommended reading in several university courses on topic x, y, z with the refs listed above. Or, to avoid having 20 some refs after one sentence, maybe break it down to something like:
Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke is used in multiple college and university courses for discussing anime. For example, it is one of the primary course books in MIT's course on "Japanese animation" and Central Connecticut State University's honors course on "World Culture." Princeton University's "The Supernatural in Japanese Fiction, Film and Animation" course lists it among its recommended reading for students.
With the appropriate links added for each statement, of course. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to do that myself - I wouldn't know which unis are more notable than others. :/ Do we have to be specific?? Would how cited the book is (how popular amongst academia) be an appropriate topic to include??? It seems reasonably well-cited-by-others, given that it's much younger than Frederik L. Schodt's work. -Malkinann (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think at least some mention of it should be included, as it is part of what establishes its notability under the books notability guideline. Maybe not that specific, but at least some general over view with a handful of specific examples. I tweaked my suggestion above to reflect that. Maybe ask over at the books project as well, since I also have only minimal experience in individual book articles so I could be wrong about needing to mention it or how to do it.AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've come to an internal compromise - I've said it's used as a course text for subjects which deal with topics like gender studies in Asia etc. which I think gives more of a picture about what the book's about and how it's used than namedropping the large universities. -Malkinann (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That works too :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Source

[edit]

Animerica, Vol 9, Issue 2 has a 2 page interview with Napier on the book, and herself in general (anime background, teaching anime, etc). Scanner should be back up soonish, so if anyone wants to get a copy to use in this article and possible one on Napier herself. As a side note, the reception section needs some tweaking to make it clear who stated what, since the author is living, at least some aspects of BLP apply. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section

[edit]

This is a scholarly book; why are the reviews from which this section are taken nearly all non-scholarly reviews (including one from Entertainment Weekly which complains about the book being too scholarly!), especially when it has been widely praised by academic reviewers? Indeed, the one scholarly review that is quoted is actually positive, but negative-seeming phrases have been cherry-picked from it and put in this article to make it appear that it was a bad review; it wasn't. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2000 or 2001?

[edit]

on her academic profile at tufts the date of initial publication is listed as 2000[1] yet other sources (e.g. sharalyn orbaugh's contribution to robot ghosts and wired dreams) as well as this wiki article use 2001. to add to the confusion, the only copy i have available to me is the public internet archive version which while a first edition, contains a "publication date" of 2000 while copyrighting the material and gicing the first edition date as 2001. good luck anyone who's happy to parse this because my head hurts.--Plifal (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Susan Napier Publications". Tufts University. Retrieved November 25, 2024.

Plifal (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anime_from_Akira_to_Princess_Mononoke&oldid=1286340556"