Talk:Robin D. Gill
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Untitled[edit]
I myself was worried that the article might seem like hype. I'm far more comfortable with the dead! I generated this in order to provide background for the Gill citations in the bibliography of the Nihonjinron article. I have taken the information from Gill's website, and from reading 7 books, some two thousand odd pages. Though he frequently alludes to his life in these books, the allusions are scattered all over the place, and it has taken a lot of time to draw them in. He doesn't even have an adequate curriculum posted on his own site, since he appears too busy to trouble himself about one. If the curriculum is fine, the problem remains of summing up what he is doing, without promoting him. One could just leave a bibliography, of course, but that is not informative, since it is hard to gather from the titles exactly what he is doing, which strikes me as important.
I have adjusted the text, but would ask Dekimasu or others for further precise indications on how to present the material. Biographical articles on contemporary authors vary from excessive, if carefully hidden hype (the most notorious example I know off is the wiki article on Ayn Rand, which is several pages of promotion for the institutions associated with her philosophy), to moderate synopses of works (Le Carré) to simple bibliographies after the CV (Donald Keene and Roy Andrew Miller). I suspect that part of the problem is that Gill, unlike many, is an unknown quantity for academics, save for a handful of specialists, so that merely mentioning him looks like hype. Some way round the impasse must be found, preferably with help from you guys out there, because it would be silly to wait round for an obituary to write up the fact that he is the most productive translator of Japanese haiku in the history of Western studies on Japan, as far as I, who have never met him, am aware.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 08:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Faulty Hirato lily endnote ascribed to Tanizaki[edit]
Gill[1] quotes a (translated) explanatory note identifying a flower as "Hirado Lily" which has "no speckles in the blossom". But this should be "Hirato",[2][3] and they are indeed speckled.[4]
The info might be more relevant on the Lilium leichtlinii (Japanese: ko-oniyuri) page, if it existed.[5]
But when Gill says "Tanizaki must have added the note", I believe he hazards a very iffy guess.
Editors at Japanese publishing houses routinely provide additional notes to works. This came up in the case of Iris Chang when she was trying to publish the Japanese translation of her book, and the publishers rather insisted on adding endnotes refuting some of the points she made on Japanese history.--Kiyoweap (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Gill (2004) Orientalism & Occidentalism, p. 64
- ^ a b Aka hirato-yuri @ Kotobank
- ^ a b c Inoue, Ryūtarō (1894), Yuri kagami, pp. 16–17
- ^ "細點/星點".[3]
- ^ The "red" type, Aka hirato yuri is synonymous with kooni-yuri コオニユリ Lilium leichtlinii.[2][3]
Hirato lily vs. Hirado azalea in Makioka Sisters[edit]
On the question of which type of flower I would have to side with William J. Higginson and Jun Etō here, over Gill who thinks the others made a mistake.[1]
It's clear Gill is very well versed in the arguments as to why the Hirado azalea (Rhododendron pulchrum) is more likely, although he tries to refute them.
- 1) On "red and white", the 1894 source only mentions the red, the pale red, and yellow types,[2] and there is no substantiation Tanizaki knew of any white "Lilium leichtlinii" even though, yes, as of 2019 there is a single person in the net who has posted a white-flowered variety on a blog.[3] Gill thinks his discovery that "Hirado lilies do indeed offer a large variety of colors" is sufficient to established that this probably included the white type in Tanizaki's day, but that argument is shaky, and also, Gill's argument here is based on his firm conviction that Tanizaki himself wrote the note saying it was a lily.
- 2) Dictionaries -- just some speculative arguments
- 3) On Tanizaki's description of "whiskers", Gill seems to concede this fits more with azaleas.
- 4) Seasonality. In the passage,[4] a bee hovers around a Chinese peony which blooms in May, with the "late-blooming" red and white Hirado/Hirato. The Hirado azalea/rhododendron blooms April to May, so this fits. The lily Lilium leichtlinii blooms July or August[5] so it doesn't fit. Gill does not seem to realize Easter lilies are forced, or seasonally relocated from warmer states. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)