Talk:Neo-Dada Organizers

Name - Neo-Dada Organizers / Neo Dada
In the will to come back on the different edits made by the user Ash-Gaar, mainly about the name of the collective, I want to start a discussion about the following paragraph, which I find problematic:

"Art historian Reiko Tomii also argued, in a 2005 "Translator's Note," that the group's name should be spelled "Neo Dada" without a hyphen, despite the fact that the term "Neo-Dada" is almost invariably hyphenated in English.[14] However, the strength of this claim is unclear, as hyphens do not ordinarily exist in Japanese script, and group members often employed the Japanese interpunct (a centrally-aligned black dot, the closest Japanese equivalent to a hyphen) between the words "Neo" and "Dada," as attested in their flyers, writings, and artworks.[13] In any case, the term "Neo-Dada Organizers" (with hyphen and in the plural), has become a standard term for the group in English language scholarship, including in standard art historical reference works.[15]"

I would like to point out several points that will support the need to change it, as well as the name of the wikipedia page:

1) In the original article, available at this link (https://www.jstor.org/stable/42801111), the argument put forward by the researcher Reiko Tomii is very clearly substantiated, invalidating Ash-Gaar's remark that "the strength of this claim is unclear". On the contrary, one can see on the article a reproduction of a flyer made by the collective. On this flyer is the name "Neo Dada", without hyphen and without "Organizers", written in both English and Japanese (katakana). This corroborates what I had initially written (refer to the version on the page dated August 8): "The group initially called itself as "Neo Dadaism Organizer" as shown in the announcement of its first exhibition; however, the use of Dadaism was considered old-fashioned, and from its second exhibition onward, the group's name became "Neo Dada" (no hyphen). [13] [14]". I would also like to point out that Reiko Tomii's work is based on research in the artists' own archives, i.e. original documents. To conclude on this point, I therefore propose to remove the sentence: "However, the strength of this claim is unclear", in view of the sources put forward.

2) I would also like to react to the final sentence: "In any case, the term "Neo-Dada Organizers" (with hyphen and in the plural), has become a standard term for the group in English language scholarship, including in standard art historical reference works.[15]"; in two points: first, it is not because a wrong name has been used repeatedly that one should not restore the veracity of the facts. The sooner this is solved, especially on a platform as popular as Wikipedia, the better, in order to avoid the use of the wrong name again. Secondly, reliable sources also indicate the change of name of the collective and prefer the use of "Neo Dada". This is particularly the case for the reference book: Chong, Doryun (2012). Tokyo, 1955-1970: A New Avant-Garde. New York: Museum of Modern Art, ISBN 0870708341. Page 58: "with groups such as Neo Dada - originally known as Neo Dadaism Organizers(s)" and, on page 62, it reads, in part, "Soon renamed Neo Dada."

In the end, therefore, I propose to replace the paragraph: "Art historian Reiko Tomii also argued, in a 2005 "Translator's Note," that the group's name should be spelled "Neo Dada" without a hyphen, despite the fact that the term "Neo-Dada" is almost invariably hyphenated in English.[14] However, the strength of this claim is unclear, as hyphens do not ordinarily exist in Japanese script, and group members often employed the Japanese interpunct (a centrally-aligned black dot, the closest Japanese equivalent to a hyphen) between the words "Neo" and "Dada," as attested in their flyers, writings, and artworks.[13] In any case, the term "Neo-Dada Organizers" (with hyphen and in the plural), has become a standard term for the group in English language scholarship, including in standard art historical reference works.[15]"

By the one initially proposed: "The group initially called itself as "Neo Dadaism Organizer" as shown in the announcement of its first exhibition; however, the use of Dadaism was considered old-fashioned, and from its second exhibition onward, the group's name became "Neo Dada" (no hyphen). [13]

Which can eventually be expanded.

Thank you for your attention.


 * Hello, thank you for your comments. I would like to address them as follows:


 * Regarding your point 1), I see your point, and I have removed the contested phrasing. Thank you for this feedback.


 * Regarding the issue of hyphenation, although it's true that the group sometimes styled themselves without a hyphen or interpunct in English ("Neo Dada"), there is overwhelming photographic evidence of the group continuing to use the interpunct ("Neo・Dada") even as late as their third exhibition in September 1960, right before they effectively disbanded. We can see a clear example of this in the photograph on page 62 of the same "Flash of Neo Dada" article that you cited above. Thus Tomii is simply incorrect to state so categorically that there should never be a hyphen, because this is plainly contradicted by photographs showing an interpunct used in English styling of the name. The best we can say is that this group was extremely inconsistent with how they styled their name, in both English and Japanese.


 * Regarding your idea that the article should be completely retitled to "Neo Dada," to my mind this is completely unjustified. One "translator's note" not citing any sources is hardly the final word on how the group should be named in an encyclopedic entry. The Doryun Chong catalog is also not an independent source because Tomii served as a consultant on that exhibition and Chong's phrasing echoes Tomii's phrasing almost exactly. The counter-arguments for keeping the name as is seem overwhelming to me. First of all, a significant body of actual peer-reviewed academic scholarship published by reputable university presses by authors who are clearly aware of Tomii's work has continued to use the name "Neo-Dada Organizers" as the main name for this group, even though some of them also mention that the name was later shortened to "Neo-Dada." A few prominent examples include:
 * , p. 138
 * , p. 51
 * , p.177-178
 * , p. 26
 * The examples I chose above are not randomly selected books, but significant works by major scholars in this field. In addition, as I cited in the article, Oxford's Dictionary of Modern and Contemporary Art (published 2009) chose to use "Neo-Dada Organizers" as the headword. Lastly, we need to consider the important fact that the term used for this group for the Japanese Wikipedia article is ネオ・ダダイズム・オルガナイザーズ, with the interpuncts and the "Organizers," and that the main term used for this group in Japanese-language art historical scholarship is the longer name as well (for an online example, see: https://www.aloalo.co.jp/arthistoryjapan/3a.html). Before we would consider changing the title of the English article, we would need to explain why we think we know better than the editors of Japanese Wikipedia or Japanese-language scholars.


 * At Wikipedia, our job is not to choose sides in scholarly debates or decide which name is "wrong," especially when the group in question clearly used both names at different times. Rather, we should simply report on both sides, which is what I have done in the "Name" section. Changing the name of this entire article based on a "translator's note" without regard to usage in leading English-language scholarly research published after that note, not to mention the Japanese Wikipedia page title and Japanese-language scholarship, seems completely unwarranted, and borders on original research in my view.


 * -- Ash-Gaar (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

"Shinohara 1968"
The current ref #41 of the article is "Shinohara 1968 but it doesn't point to any real citation. I can't see any Shinohara in "Sources cited" neither. I'm pinging since s/he is the one who mostly contributed to it. Sincerely, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the heads up on this. I found the missing source and added it, but I don't have a copy of the book at present and can't find a citation with the exact page number. I'll try to get a copy of the book and check the exact page. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)