Talk:Bow Wow (band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Japan / Music (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the 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: 07:37, April 13, 2018 (JST, Heisei 30) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Music task force.
 
WikiProject Metal (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Vow Wow[edit]

64.34.27.244 18:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Removed "Holy Expedition" from the list of Vow Wow albums, as it was released when they were still called Bow Wow.


Bow Wow[edit]

Why exactly gets the fact that they were originally called Bow Wow as well as everything they have produced during this time (and still produce, since they're called Bow Wow now again) completely ignored?

That has been changed. The article has been updated to reflect that information. 219.90.225.55 17:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The change of name in 1984, when Hitomi and Atsumi joined them, was to avoid confusion with Bow Wow Wow. Maybe it was also to express that the band was reborn with new members. Nemsirp (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's nice that a lot more albums were added but, no, all the Bow Wow info was not added here, as an album with its own page has been left hanging out in the nether regions of Wiki. [We'll see whether I muster up the will to once again correct an error caused by yet another rock-hater.] But while we're on the subject, how on earth does the above discussion make sense? The Japanese don't speak & write English; they speak & write their own different language. I find it extremely hard to believe that these guys named their band in English and then came up with a Japanese translation just for the domestic market. Surely they never named their band either Bow Wow or Vow Wow, at least not until years later when they moved to the UK. Surely those are each simply translations or transliterations of their actual Japanese name in Japanese symbols. Therefore the band's name didn't change to avoid confusion with Bow Wow Wow, although it's preferred transliteration may have been changed to avoid confusion with Bow Wow Wow. Therefore the band's name never actually changed, and the particular moron who caused problems on this page in the first place by claiming they were two different bands should be banned from here forever and doomed to listen to his parents' folk music in a padded cell. I have no insight into Japanese rock thinking so am happy to hear of behind-the-scenes details and reasons but it should make sense. I'd like to see a general article on how much Japanese rock bands think about their names re: English-speaking rock and English rock band names and how their own names'll tranlate, for that matter. Why doesn't one of you Japanese Wiki members who likes rock and also speaks English write that up for us? IanHistor (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I respect your point of view, but I'm afraid it seems to have some misunderstandings based on conjectures. Firstly, the Japanese actually use English. All of them have English classes for three years in junior highschool, almost all have more three in high scool, and even quite a few have more in Universities. Many English terms are used in everyday-life as names of companies, shops, products, and whatever they don't prefer to call in Japanese. Among of those, names of songs and bands particularly tend to be English. So much if the matter comes to rock music. What I mean is that the name of this band had been actually spelled same in Japan from the beginning, and they actually changed their name. Secondly, there are cerainly Japanese Wiki members who edit and discuss in English and are really mad about rock music, just like myself. I guess a considerable amount of Japan-related articles are edited by the Japanese. So please be patient, and don't jump to the conclusion. Nemsirp (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how they changed back to Bow Wow, I would like to suggest that the title of the page be changed from Vow Wow to Bow Wow.

Requested move[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Very rough consensus, but the arguments for the move are valid. If the one objector wishes to create a new article as proposed, they're free to do so, but there's some doubt in my mind that the split is justified anyway. Andrewa (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


Vow WowBow Wow (band) – They currently are Bow Wow, Vow Wow disbanded in 1990. Xfansd (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose if they disbanded, then you should write a new article on the new band. 65.94.47.217 (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
You obviously didn't read the article. Vow Wow IS Bow Wow, they just changed their name when they added 2 more members in 1984. They then disbanded in 1990, in 1995 Bow Wow restarted (with only 1 original member), then in 1998 all new members left and 2 more original rejoined and they continue as Bow Wow today. Xfansd (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Conditional support, since they were originally Bow Wow and they are Bow Wow now, this seems the most appropriate title unless it can be shown they they are significantly better known as Vow Wow.--Kotniski (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Possible move of the DAB[edit]

I'm wondering, reading about this band, if they're not at least as famous as the rapper Bow Wow. If so, then shouldn't the DAB be at Bow Wow, rather than at Bow Wow (disambiguation)? Andrewa (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree, in my opinion if there are two decent articles with the same name, then each of those should be disambiguated and the DAB page should be simply "Bow Wow". Plus there is the UK band Bow Wow Wow, which is similar enough. Xfansd (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
So, what should the article on the rapper be called? Andrewa (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I would say Bow Wow (rapper), which is already a redirect for him. Xfansd (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense, RM to this effect raised at Talk:Bow Wow#Requested move. Andrewa (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Vow Wow[edit]

Vow wow is not Bow Wow. it is a different band. This article needs to be reverted back to Vow Wow title as it provides absolutely no real information about Bow Wow except for a brief mention to tie into Vow Wow for various reasons. Wikipedia is not a bloody fanzine!! 27.33.143.93 (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"In September 2007, Rolling Stone Japan rated their album ..."[edit]

From the article:

In September 2007, Rolling Stone Japan rated their album Warning from Stardust at No. 23 on its list of the "100 Greatest Japanese Rock Albums of All Time".

Untrue.

This is the front cover of the September 2007 edition of Rolling Stone Japan (which would have come out in August or conceivably even July of 2007). It's the best reproduction I've found of the cover; Google image search may turn up a superior alternative. Unsurprisingly (as it's a Japanese-language magazine) it shows no article titled "100 Greatest Japanese Rock Albums of All Time". It does however show an article whose title might reasonably be so translated. (Furthermore, Japanese magazines love decorative snippets of English; and it's conceivable that the actual article, which I haven't seen, is decorated with this or another English title.)

The web page that this article cites for the claim that In September 2007, Rolling Stone Japan rated [etc etc] actually tells its readers that:

The "100 Greatest Japanese Rock Albums of All Time" have been chosen by Rolling Stone Japan. Well, they've been chosen by RS contributing editor Kawasaki Daisuke, who also founded the very stylish pop music/fashion/design mag Beikoku Ongaku, so the list could very well be worthwhile.

(Rolling Stone Japan is linked to its web page; Beikoku Ongaku [literally "America music", with a (jokily?) old-fashioned term for America] is linked to beikoku-ongaku.com, an anonymously run domain name running a website for some "collagen drink" [?] put out by an unnamed company.)

So the source says that the records have been chosen by one person, Kawasaki Daisuke (or "Daisuke Kawasaki", as en:WP would insist on writing his name).

Further, there's no hint on the cover of the magazine that the magazine is presenting the list as its list. Instead, it's just one article, and it's presented as the third attraction of the month, below a multipart feature on rock and ecology and also below something about Bob Dylan. [Later (12:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)) addition/emendation: On further reflection, it could be presented as of equal status as the article on Dylan.]

What kind of list is this? The small print on the magazine cover is too small for me to make out. But I showed it to Mrs Hoary (a native speaker of Japanese); and without any prompting from me she said that it almost certainly says 独断と偏見で選んだ. This means that it's a personal, opinionated choice.

There's nothing inherently wrong with personal, opinionated choices. I'd take the personal, opinionated choices of Pauline Kael over the collective wisdom of the various august bodies that showered awards over Forrest Gump. But I'd take them because she's Pauline Kael, not because the choices are opinionated. If Kawasaki is a noteworthy critic, then the listing -- of course described as by Kawasaki, not as by Rolling Stone Japan -- should be mentioned.

I know next to nothing about Japanese rock music criticism. But Daisuke Kawasaki doesn't have an article in en:WP. He's not mentioned in the ja:WP article on Rolling Stone. And I don't think he gets an article in ja:WP: certainly when I look for 川 or 河 in the list of articles in ja:WP that list to the ja:WP article on Rolling Stone, I see nothing.

Of course, plenty of noteworthy people never get articles at either en:WP or ja:WP. But without some indication of Kawasaki's noteworthiness, it seems odd for something like this -- even if it were labeled as Kawasaki's opinion and not the opinion of Rolling Stone Japan -- to appear in the lead of an article. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You have given a lot of helpful info there, but I'm failing to see what the point you're trying to get across here is. Is the point you are making that the wording "Rolling Stone Japan rated their album..." is incorrect and that it should say something like "Daisuke Kawasaki, writing for Rolling Stone Japan, rated their album..."? A Rolling Stone list is not unreliable because of which editor wrote it. He is a contributing editor to the magazine and they publish his list, therefore I'd say it can be called a RS list. But if changing the wording will end the dispute, I'm all for it. As far as it being in the lead, if the article had an "Influence" or "Legacy" section it could be put there, but there is not enough sourced info to make that section so there is nowhere else to put it. Unless of course we add the release of that album to the "1975–1983: Bow Wow" section and put the RS thing after it. Xfansd (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Daisuke Kawasaki owned a small bilingual fanzine which he published by himself (with his wife) and was the graphic designer for it. The fanzine is now defunct, Kawasaki then appeared to opt for a stint as a freelance journalist pitching ideas to various magazines. Although now he and his wife sell "Collagen Beauty Drinks" from their website http://www.beikoku-ongaku.com (strangely still using the name Beikoku Ongaku which makes no sense at all) He is not a noted music critic or industry person, which is the point being made. Rolling Stone distanced themselves from his article (even making note of it on the cover, which i think it insulting) it was a page filler for the issue. he pitched an idea to the magazine, the magazine thought his idea might be good for sales and accepted to print it, although i guess it wasnt as the few reviews at amazon for the issue are not good (understandably so) and have they printed a similar article in the last 5-6 years aftwards? no they have not. most importantly there is barely a mention of him on japanese websites (even for his own fanzine) with the few available being from blogs, geocities etc. The only noteworthy thing being a self-published book. Although search for Japanese music critics such as Yuasa Manabu (湯浅学) Masanori Ito (伊藤政則) or Hidekazu Yoshida (吉田秀和) etc, and you get a wealth of information about them. The point being again, he is not a noteworthy person to be quoting such a list. The list he made also provides no explanation as to why or how he chose them, it's just a numerical list. This is not an achievement or award and holds not merit. As explained before, it is no different to a VH1 top 10 list slapped together by someone looking to make a quick buck, aimed specifically at a certain demographic. That does not belong on the wikipedia, and neither does this. As exemplified before, musician Sadao Watanabe has numerous awards (order of the rising sun, a medal of honor, an honorary docorate from the berklee college of music etc) for his contributions to music. They are awards and achievements and they belong on his article. This list does not belong on this bands article, nor any of the other wiki articles it is mentioned in, and it provides no information about the topic either.27.33.143.93 (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I attempt, perhaps incompetently, to make several points. ¶ Is the point you are making that the wording "Rolling Stone Japan rated their album..." is incorrect [...?] Yes, this is one of the points. ¶ and that it should say something like "Daisuke Kawasaki, writing for Rolling Stone Japan, rated their album..."? No, because I don't think that the lead should say anything like this. I do think it's permissible to say elsewhere that "Daisuke Kawasaki rated their album..." (the fact that this was in RSJ would be apparent in the footnote). ¶ A Rolling Stone list is not unreliable because of which editor wrote it. He is a contributing editor to the magazine and they publish his list, therefore I'd say it can be called a RS list. A list of, let's say, the first fifty people to have climbed Everest may or may not be reliable. By contrast, I'm mystified by the notion of the "reliability" of a list of the hundred best Japanese rock albums. I don't think that "reliability" could be a factor here. By contrast, significance certainly is. RSJ is a significant magazine in the field and thus its publication of a list (even with no song and dance) would suggest that the list is more significant than some random blogger's list. However -- there was indeed no song and dance, it seems. This was merely item number two or three in one issue of the magazine. (It may come on the cover after the Dylan article merely as a result of their respective page numbers; but it's certainly far less of a deal than the "rock meets ecology" feature.) The magazine could easily have presented the list as its list (via phrases such as 「RSJの」 and 「我々の」), but did not. It's merely a feature by one writer, Kawasaki. (Or so it appears. I haven't seen the original.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
27.33.143.93, you're still saying it is a non-notable achievement because of who wrote it? Even if we assume all of your and Hoary's original research is correct (keep in mind there's more than 1 Daisuke Kawasaki or it can be an alias), whatever other work he has done (By the way, I believe the Beikoku Ongaku website being about the drink is simply a case of cybersquatting, especially if the "fanzine is defunct"), or whether he himself is well-known, has no barring whatsoever because the notability comes from the list being published in Rolling Stone. Whether or not it was given top-billing on the cover is also irrelevant, a magazine is responsible for everything it publishes even if it is simply for profit (a very bold assumption on your part). And if you want to still compare this to VH1 lists, that only works against you because those are referenced in thousands of articles, including the good rated Beyoncé Knowles and the feature rated AC/DC.
So Hoary, you just think it should be moved out of the lead? I think the best action to take here is to move "Daisuke Kawasaki, writing for Rolling Stone Japan, rated their album..." (keeping the RS mention, because that is what makes it notable) into the "1975–1983: Bow Wow" section. And I just want to point out that putting things like this in the lead is very common, see the previously mentioned articles. Xfansd (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
No it is not valid, you can't write "Daisuke Kawasaki" because he is not a person of note, when a reader wants to check who the author is, there is barely any information about him apart from blogs (even in Japanese) If it was written by Hidekazu Yoshida or someone like Pauline Kael then it is of some note (but still not in the lead) It is not an achievement, and only because other articles do it doesn't make it acceptable. It is no different to this situation, what one can assume to be "teenage fans" are entering this stuff into articles and watching to ensure its not removed, when it is fancruft nonsense which is why the US/Australian magazines etc make this sort of stuff, easy money. Another major point to be made is that you don't speak Japanese and you have not read the magazine, you are referencing a website which itself hasn't done any research (but you call reliable) and is simply reposting what neojaponisme said. Interestingly this is exactly where all the information about this list comes from, and neojaponisme is not a reliable source, it is a blog site. They could of changed parts of it or made it up entirely to put in what they wanted The list itself was called biased by it's own publisher Rolling Stone (and they distanced themselves from it, even writing 独断と偏見で選んだ on the cover!!) the list is not written by someone of note, it is written by a self-published defunct fanzine owner (how amusing, a fancruft list written by a fanzine writer) You yourself can pitch an idea to a magazine and get it published, you just have to convince them it will be good for sales. There is also no explanation as to why the albums were selected, it's just a numerical list, easily fabricated.27.33.143.93 (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This is getting redundant. Once again, Rolling Stone lists are notable achievements, this list was published in Rolling Stone therefore it is notable. It is that simple. It does not matter which of RS's editors/contributors wrote it, because the notability in this case is coming from the magazine. I referred to the featured article AC/DC because the second sentence at Wikipedia:Featured articles is "They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles". So in this case it it is perfectly fine to use the argument "this article does it so it is acceptable". Bbb23 (on their talkpage), Andrzejbanas (in Satori (Flower Travellin' Band album)'s edit summaries) and myself have all told you that Exclaim Magazine's website is a reliable source. You do not have any valid arguments here. Xfansd (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
[...] neojaponisme is not a reliable source, it is a blog site. They could of changed parts of it or made it up entirely to put in what they wanted Yes, this is indeed imaginable. Well, somebody may wish to visit a library to check. ¶ The list itself was called biased by it's own publisher Rolling Stone (and they distanced themselves from it, even writing 独断と偏見で選んだ on the cover!!) You seem to be getting carried away. Please go easy on the boldface and the exclamation points. Where does RSJ call it biased? ¶ it is written by a self-published defunct fanzine owner (how amusing, a fancruft list written by a fanzine writer) Again, you're getting carried away. You don't explain how this list is any more "fancruft" than anybody else's list would be. And a host of noteworthy people have published magazines that went under. (Indeed, as somebody with some knowledge of Japan, you'll surely agree that in Japan most interesting magazines go under pretty fast, and most of those that survive are mere guides to spending money, looking pretty or [best!] spending money on looking pretty.) ¶ it's just a numerical list, easily fabricated Most top-hundred lists are either by sales (thus further aggrandizing the bland mainstream) or according to personal estimation of quality. -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Once again, Rolling Stone lists are notable achievements, this list was published in Rolling Stone therefore it is notable. It is that simple. It does not matter which of RS's editors/contributors wrote it, because the notability in this case is coming from the magazine. This list was published in RSJ and therefore yes, it is of some note. However, this was not identified by RSJ as in any way representing the magazine as a whole; RSJ comes out once a month (and therefore there are dozens of issues that one might look at); and this story was certainly not presented as a particularly important one even within the particular issue. Therefore its notability appears to be minor. The list was remarked upon (and intelligently so) by at least one English-language blog; and at least one other English-language blog piggybacked on this. So I'd informally (OK, somewhat sillily) rate its notability neither as an "A" nor as a "C" but as something like a "B−". ¶ Even if we assume all of your and Hoary's original research is correct [...] I'm a little puzzled by this. I hardly think I've performed any of what WP calls "original research" (aside from within the comment immediately above, which I'm posting at the same time as this one). ¶ All that aside, and more importantly: So Hoary, you just think it should be moved out of the lead? I think the best action to take here is to move "Daisuke Kawasaki, writing for Rolling Stone Japan, rated their album..." (keeping the RS mention, because that is what makes it notable) into the "1975–1983: Bow Wow" section. Yes, I think this would be fine. -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I already explained that he is not a notable person, search for his name and you get nothing even on the japanese websites, there is no information about this guy. That makes him not a notable person. Hidekazu Yoshida is a notable person, you search for his name and you get information on him. You search for Pauline Kael and you get information on her. You search for Daisuke Kawasaki, you get no information about him! I'm getting annoyed because the responses are utter mind boggling, such as this Where does RSJ call it biased? They say it on the cover for that article, 偏見 means bias (http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/偏見 ) in fact to be specific it means prejudice! prejudice is more negative than bias, as bias can be unfairly in favour of something. English dictionary meanings of the words; prejudice preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/prejudice?q=prejudice) Bias unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/biased?q=biased) Now the other word RSJ say the article is, 独断 which means an arbitrary decision and can also mean dogmatic in relation to a theory, but this is not a theory, this is a list made by decision. (http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/独断) Arbitrary, meaning based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/arbitrary) That in itself makes the list unacceptable (that is what RSJ have written about the article, it sounds like they don't even like it) add to that, the person who wrote it is not notable, not only that there is barely any information about his own fanzine (even on Japanese websites) and further to that, this information is being referenced from a blog which could of fabricated the actual list, and not only that, you are referencing a webpage which itself has not seen the list, it is just reposting from the blog. Bbb24, you are a terrible and lazy moderator for allowing any of that.27.33.143.93 (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Here's what you wrote: The list itself was called biased by it's own publisher Rolling Stone (and they distanced themselves from it, even writing 独断と偏見で選んだ on the cover!!) (my emphasis). This seemed to imply something besides the description 独断と偏見で選んだ. ¶ search for his name and you get nothing even on the japanese websites, there is no information about this guy. That makes him not a notable person. No it doesn't. It makes him somebody that Japanese websites happen not to discuss, and it means that we lack evidence that he's notable. ¶ I cannot search for "Daisuke Kawasaki" because I do not know the kanji for his name. (They don't appear on the cover.) ¶ Bbb24, you are a terrible and lazy moderator for allowing any of that. Are you looking for a moderator, or for an arbiter? Whoever it is that you're looking for, do you think that your approach is likely to be persuasive? ¶ You do make a good point about the possibility that the blog has garbled the list (or conceivably even fabricated it). Perhaps (A) you would like to go to a library and check the original. Or if this is geographically or otherwise difficult for you, perhaps (B) you'd like to invite somebody else to do so. Or then again perhaps (C) you'd prefer to continue haranguing anyone and everyone about the alleged insignificance of Kawasaki. It's your choice; but if you take option (C), then I for one will just tune you out (as I think Bbb24 has already done). -- Hoary (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


What university did you graduate from? what type of degree/masters/doctorate do you have? I'm actually curious about that, because this sentence by you is ridiculous "No it doesn't. It makes him somebody that Japanese websites happen not to discuss" There is no information about this person available on English or Japanese websites, that makes him not a notable person. You are quoting this person as making the list, who the **** is he? (it's not RSJ's list, that was a freelance article for RSJ who put 独断と偏見で選んだ next to his article, and they never printed another since because it obviously was not good for business considering the negative reviews the issue received) Kawasaki owned a self-published fanzine, which is damn hard to find information about.... even on Japanese websites there is barely anything but from blogs. The website for the fanzine is selling collagen beauty drinks. Now for the real kicker, the website neojaponisme is not a reliable source and that is what is actually being referenced (and there is no proof from the magazine issue itself, so you can't just change the reference to be RSJ because you haven't seen the issue) that in itself makes it unacceptable for wikipedia. Assuming the list is legit (which is not acceptable for the wikipedia) the fact RSJ have called that very same list arbitrary and biased also makes it dubious, the fact there is no notable information about the author Daisuke Kawasaki (or even his fanzine) also makes it unacceptable for the wikipedia, because he is not a notable person. You are quoting his list as being an "achievement" well who the **** is he? But before everything else, the fact it is being referenced from neojaponisme and there is no evidence that this is indeed the list from the RSJ issue, means it can not be put on the wikipedia.27.33.143.93 (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps (A) you would like to go to a library and check the original. Or if this is geographically or otherwise difficult for you, perhaps (B) you'd like to invite somebody else to do so.

That's not for me to do, that's for you to do. I don't think the information belongs on the wikipedia, you do.27.33.143.93 (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

My education is none of your concern; you repeat yourself not only from message to message but even within a single message ("who the **** is he?" ×2); and you have not provided the kanji for Kawasaki Daisuke. -- Hoary (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not insulting you about your education or possible lack of tertiary education, I actually thought it was quite obvious given the context but the point of my comment was to illustrate that if you handed in your dissertation quoting someone like Daisuke Kawasaki and the professor can't find any information about who that is, they are gonna red circle it and say something like "who the **** is that?". His kanji is 川崎大助, and as mentioned before the only thing noteworthy that is linked to that name is a book (one book) And anyone can publish a book. Everything else for that name is from blogs etc (and these are the top hits) as are twitter, facebook accounts etc, which appear to be different people. More so there is almost nothing for his fanzine mag "American Music" 米国音楽, with only a couple of sites mentioning it, with most of the sites being blogs.... and quite amusingly most of them are actually not about the fanzine, they are about "american music" and are not related. And repeating the fact that the website for the fanzine is now selling "beauty drinks".27.33.143.93 (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If a reader goes to Rolling Stone Japan and searches for "Best 100" they get this abysmal result. The Best 100 list does not appear to be maintained by RSJ at all. It does not appear to be an annual list sponsored by RSJ. The September 2007 list by a non-notable freelance writer should not be used in Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not an annual list, but that means absolutely nothing. The fact that they don't host the list on their website forever is not an indication of its notability. I found literally 2 articles from 2007 on there, compared to the 194 from 2012. It is more than "sponsored by RSJ", it was published in it. It says "独断と偏見で選んだ" or "personal, opinionated choice" on the cover, but there is nothing there that says it is simply the writer's (Daisuke Kawasaki) opinion like everyone here assumes. It might be in the context of this is our (Rolling Stone Japan) opinion. If you read an Autoweek magazine cover that says "Top 50 cars of 2012" you do not say "Oh, so these are the top 50 cars by... (open the mag, look inside to find author of article) John Doe". No you say "So this is Autoweek's list of the top 50 cars". Either way, while it was written by Kawasaki, it was without doubt looked over, possibly even changed, and deemed acceptable and notable enough for the magazine to publish. And by publishing it, RS put their name on it. Xfansd (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm failing to see your point. Anyone can pitch an idea to a magazine and get it published, that doesn't make you or the story notable. And yes, it is not maintained by Rolling Stone Japans website or even mentioned. That is another good point I hadn't thought of. Just because it is published in RS doesn't make it "Rolling Stones" list, it is freelance work. You need to provide an argument as to why this is notable.27.33.143.93 (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
You are indeed failing to see Xfansd's point. Thank you for the advice on how I should behave were I to go to university. It seems most valuable and I shall take it to heart. Despite my abysmal lack of education, I manage to see Xfansd's point fairly easily. (A recent trip to "Zoff" may have helped here.) I'm not convinced by all of it; but let me draw your attention to one part of it, viz: while [the list] was written by Kawasaki, it was without doubt looked over, possibly even changed, and deemed acceptable and notable enough for the magazine to publish. Any comment? ¶ I've been puzzled by the cartoonish positions taken hereabouts. First, that this was/is RSJ''s list of the hundred greatest. (It was/is not.) Secondly, that the list is utterly insignificant. (It is not.) There've been substantive and intelligent points made by both sides, but they've been almost lost amid the bluster. -- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kanji. You say, the only thing noteworthy that is linked to that name is a book (one book) And anyone can publish a book It appears that Kawasaki is the author of a book about the band "Fishmans", published by Kawade Shobō Shinsha. Anybody with money can vanity-publish a book, but I had been under the impression that Kawade Shobō Shinsha didn't publish just anybody; that it instead needed skill somewhere (one or more among: knowledge, insights, writing prowess, blagging). You also say: Everything else for that name is from blogs etc (and these are the top hits) as are twitter, facebook accounts etc, which appear to be different people. Here you are right. However, I think (and pardon the "OR" here) this is a fair description of the Japanese-language internet in general: Aside from the most notable subjects (in any of several very different meanings of notability), all Google etc tend to show is blog blather and the like. -- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I will prefer not to discuss the situation with you or xfansd in the future as it is getting nowhere, and will instead provide any replies to senior editors whom I have been seeking help from. You have overlooked most of the points which have been made, especially in a concise form at the reliable references board. To be honest I'm not sure why you yourself are here, as you appear to have never been at the article before. Meanwhile Xfansd who is the one tenaciously keeping the list in the articles (as he put it in there) provides very little retort except for "its in rolling stone". While input from anyone is desired, I actually feel you are bantering backwards and forwards to keep the situation "flamed" to entertain yourself. I'm also tired of repeating my points, one senior editor was able to comprehended what I wrote and and had the same outlook as myself Looks like this is not reliable enough for us to use. The list was pooh-poohed on the cover by Rolling Stone Japan, not featured, and the list was not repeated annually. It appears to come not from RSJ central but a throwaway freelancer. The freelance writer is not notable. If you disagree, then you will need to take it to the intermediators, not me.27.33.143.93 (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
And as a response to Xfansd's only argument about while [the list] was written by Kawasaki, it was without doubt looked over, possibly even changed, and deemed acceptable and notable enough for the magazine to publish. If so Rolling Stone would not write what they did on the cover of the issue, that is why that is being repeated again and again. Also the fact they call the list those things makes it unacceptable to begin with. It is a single freelance author, it is not like Rolling Stone top lists which are complied from the information of numerous critics and industry persons (who are notable)27.33.143.93 (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
To be honest I'm not sure why you yourself are here, as you appear to have never been at the article before. I'm here because I saw this message of yours and am concerned about the quality of this website. As it happens, messages of yours such as this one suggest that you want the attention of people who haven't seen the relevant articles before; but if you instead don't want this attention, too bad. ¶ I'm also tired of repeating my points, one senior editor was able to comprehended what I wrote and and had the same outlook as myself. We agree on tiredness of your repetition of your points. If one "senior editor" (whatever that might mean) understands and agrees with you, is this reason why other editors should fall in line? ¶ You seem to be making three points. One is that nobody claims to have seen the article in question. That's a good point and perhaps a damning one. One is that the list can't be described as a "Rolling Stone (Japan) list". I agree. And one seems to be that Kawasaki is utterly unnotable and the list is utterly unnotable and [even its content were verified from the original by an editor in good standing?] it should not be mentioned at all. I'm unconvinced by this. Despite my poor education (see above), I can be persuaded by rational argument. By contrast, mere repetition will get you nowhere with me or various other editors, though I suppose you'll find some who'll be awed by it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Quoting your owns words If Kawasaki is a noteworthy critic, then the listing -- of course described as by Kawasaki, not as by Rolling Stone Japan -- should be mentioned. you chop and change your stance given your recent postings, and I'd rather not voice my opinion as to why I think that is because that's is going off topic and losing good will. Kawasaki is not a "noteworthy critic" as you described (or industry person) to be quoting. You need to stop talking to me, and take whatever it is you think makes this person so notable to the intermediators at the reliable references board, which is what Xfansd should actually be doing. Although that is also a last back up point in my argument to prevent possible future entries of the list via the actual Rolling Stone issue as a reference, my original points still make the reference and list unacceptable as it stands.27.33.143.93 (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
27.33.143.93, I have no problem with you not replying anymore. As you say, this discussion seems to have hit its end. However, it seems to have ended with the only consensus (Wikipedia:Consensus} being; put "Daisuke Kawasaki, writing for Rolling Stone Japan, rated Warning from Stardust at No. 23 on a list of the 100 Greatest Japanese Rock Albums of All Time." into the 1975–1983: Bow Wow section. This seems to work for everyone, as it is not in the lead, "possibly" giving it more notability than it should (which I believe is Hoary's concern), and mentions it is in RS but does not specifically state it is their list, except you who is adamant that almost every list is not notable. If Binksternet wants to further discuss it, he has only made one brief statement and has not responded to my rebuttal, I will. Xfansd (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
No, perhaps you haven't seen it written but I have said lists by notable critics etc are noteworthy.27.33.143.93 (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm okay with the following wording: "They also released Warning from Stardust, which Daisuke Kawasaki, writing for Rolling Stone Japan, rated No. 23 on a 2007 list of the '100 Greatest Japanese Rock Albums of All Time'." I was going to say that the 2007 list was a one-time list (as opposed to annual) but there is no neat way to work that in. Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Binksternet,I believe you are forgetting that Rolling Stone is not being referenced and that the information is being referenced from a low-key freelance blog/journal. There is no evidence this is actually written at all. Secondly who is Kawasaki Daisuke (assuming the blog is factual) As mentioned above as an example, would you quote him for your dissertation? He is not notable as you have said, the list is called biased and arbitrary by the publisher. That's is pretty bad stuff to be referencing for the wikipedia.27.33.143.93 (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Rolling Stone is not being referenced and that the information is being referenced from a low-key freelance blog/journal. No, a specific article within RSJ is being referenced, although explicitly via a specific page within something called Néojaponisme, whether directly or (as now) via this specific page of something called Exclaim.ca. I am unfamiliar with both. While its "manifesto" is too prolix and soporific for me to digest, Néojaponisme seems to be the web equivalent of a small magazine; it is not one person's personal blog. Google News doesn't mention it, and it is dodgy as a source; but it's also not completely negligible. Exclaim.ca is the website of a Canadian print magazine titled Exclaim!. It seems gossipy and airheaded, but I think both are endemic in music commentary; en:WP articles on pop music are typically constructed from similar sources. (ja:WP articles tend not to cite any sources at all.) Exclaim!, or perhaps just its website, rightly or wrongly thinks that Néojaponisme is a decent enough source for its purpose. ¶ Secondly who is Kawasaki Daisuke He is 川崎大助, author of a book about Fishmans that's published by Kawade Shobō Shinsha and also contributor to other books such as this one. It would appear that RSJ thought his opinions merited an article. ¶ would you quote [Kawasaki] for your dissertation? Quote him? As anyone who understands the basics of quoting and citation will know, quotability and citability depend on the precise purpose within your dissertation. (For an example that's easy to understand, Godwin's law presses me to give the example of Hitler; but I'll instead invoke Uncle Joe's nutty pseudoscientific notions. You don't cite Stalin on science for science; where relevant, you do quote Stalin on science for Stalinism.) So yes, I'd be delighted to quote Kawasaki within a dissertation, IFF appropriate. ¶ the list is called biased and arbitrary by the publisher Actually the list is given a description in Japanese by the editor, a description that might be so translated into English. The editor had such a low regard for the article as to run it within the magazine. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)