Talk:Rinako Hirasawa

Reliable sources

Biographies of living people need especially reliable sources. It isn't obvious to me that pinkeiga.com is a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

...Well, there was an article on the company giving the credentials of the people behind it-- Japanese professional in the pink film industry... but, naturally, that article is now gone and blocked from the archives. Again, this is a constant problem with Japanese popular culture subjects... Would a word from Jasper Sharp-- author of [http://www.amazon.com/Behind-Pink-Curtain-Complete-Japanese/dp/190325454X/ this book], and probably the leading English authority on the genre-- be good enough to answer your concerns? If so, I'll try to contact him. Dekkappai (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Filmography

There's a problem here. Reference 10, Urabon Navigator, says "Works 2 movies" one in 2005 and 1 in 2006. How does this support the list of many more than 2? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Urabon Navigator is only the first source listed in that citation. There are two others. Dekkappai (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the source says that she has made 2 movies. This contradicts other sources. Otherwise putting partial, contradictory or incomptible lists together ventures into original research or synthesis. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Urabon Navigator gives an incomplete list of the actress' work. To try to screw that into a SYNTH/OR violation is POINTy. Dekkappai (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the other sources give a different list. How do you decide which list is complete/incomplete or correct/incorrect? Oh, and WP:POINT is about making disruptive edits, not about having a calm discussion on how to improve an article. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If only "complete" sources are allowable in BLPs (an implied requirement I am reading here for the first time) then any cited source in any biography that is not "complete" should be removed. Care to put a bot request in for that? Assembling a biography from "incomplete" sources is, according to your reasoning, in violation of OR / SYNTH... We could, of course, cite each film entry separately, because this is simply information on individual films/videos presented in list / table format. It would make the "References" section huge, and I'm not aware that this is a requirement of lists, even Featured Lists-- and we have not yet got to the stage where we are putting this article through Feature review... Oh, and I consider absurd, tendentious arguments to be disruptive in that they waste editors' time. Dekkappai (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that so there's no point in debating it. My question remains - how to construct a reliable filmography. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your "question" remains invalid. We construct a reliable filmography the same way we construct a reliable article. Citing the sources. This is done in this case. Each listing can be sourced to one of the three sources cited at the top of the list. This is standard practise even in the one Feature List review in which I participated. If you are suggesting we cite each entry, I would agree that is more accurate. Instead you seem to be attempting to discredit only this one filmography, and by extension the filmographies in this one genre. This red herring claim of only citing "complete" lists would no doubt result in "concerns" of copyright violation if we did just copy info from one list. What about currently-active film personnel? Do their sources become invalid if they don't keep up? Honestly, you are pursuing a totally absurd "question" whose only point I can see is to waste editors' time. Please answer this honestly: What would be your next move if the listing for each film/video has its own cite? Claim "SPAM" / advertising? Dekkappai (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The 'claim of only citing "complete" lists' is indeed a red herring, since no-one has claimed that. The point of this page is to discuss ways of improving the article -- it seems Dekkappai doesn't want to do that. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm very much in favor of improving the article, but I see no suggestions so far, only questions which seem to lead to the gutting of the filmography from the article. I have made one proposal for improving the list: Citation(s) after each title. I further suggest, if balance is a concern, breaking the full filmography off as a standalone list and leaving only those most significant to the actress' career in the main article. I'd suggest, career "firsts", high-profile roles, and award-winners could remain. As far as the sourcing concerns, I can't see that those in this article are any worse than this feature filmography, and possibly even better. Hence my expressions of frustration. Dekkappai (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(←) I prefer individual citations, and in the case of long lists, splitting off to balance the article. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I do too, but it's a lot of work, and there's the possibility of accusations of "Spam" when we make multiple refs to one source. (I think it was something like this, early in my career here, which led me to only cite the tops of Filmographies). So, if that's agreeable to all, we can do that. Will take some time though. Cherryblossom1982 actually put this one together, I think, so I hope for input first. Can we then consider this particular hatchet buried? ;-) Dekkappai (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)