Thank you for your interest. I look forward to implementing any modifications that you might recommend to ensure that the article can be brought to "good article" status.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance, the only thing that could be an issue is neutrality (in other words, are all relevant POV represented and given due weight). I'll have a detailed review finished in less than a week. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
I appreciate that historian Frank P. Mintz of George Mason University is used for this in at least one instance, but this is from 1985, and it only appears in the lead. Mintz should appear in the reception section, particularly if you are going to quote him in the lead. And considering all of the material about Sinophobia in the reception, I think even more can be said about anti-Chinese sentiment in the lead. In fact, you probably don't need a short section on the "reaction from the Japanese and Chinese governments", but you do need a section on Sinophobia. There are also a few other issues. In the "Revival in Japanese translation", you note Gregory Clark's reaction, but you fail to quote (or frame) the most important part of his piece, namely that he condemns the book as "viciously anti-China" and that the author "ended up in a U.S. wartime jail, accused of treason". The framing here is important, whether you use Clark to do it or some other author, either in this section or elsewhere. Further, there is nothing about the implicit anti-Chinese sentiment of the title, other than to note in passing that it is from The Heathen Chinee, which was taken out of its original context and used to mean something altogether different than what the original author of that poem intended. I believe Scharnhorst (1996) touches upon this, but there may be better sources. The lead also fails to note that it was reprinted by a Holocaust denial publisher. I realize that this is somewhat complex, and I appreciate you are working hard to improve this article and get it up to GA status. I think a good start in the right direction is adding more about Sinophobia to the lead, particularly in regards to Townshend's unfair and uncharitable prejudice and stereotyping of an entire people and culture due to special interests, and making it very clear that he was engaging in anti-Chinese attacks. Lots of problems here that may not be fixed by simple copyedits.
Fail
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Notes
Result
OK.
Pass
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
I'm a bit unclear on the use of the "PD-US-not renewed" license and how you came to use it for several of the images.
Don't know
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)
Although not exactly required, the captions could use more identifying information found on the image pages, such as place and date, or whatever is relevant
The neutrality problems are still evident with too much weight being given to Townshend's discredited ideas as mere claims, without giving the necessary context of Sinophobia and the fascist spying and propaganda that Townshend was promoting at the time of publication. WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV come into play here. I'll put this on hold in the hopes that I can still discuss the problem and a possible solution with the nominator. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ways That Are Dark is a harsh critique of Chinese society and culture, described by Foreign Affairs as "a sensationally unorthodox and unvarnished picture of the Chinese"."
This quote is from 1934 and appears at the beginning of the lead. I don't think this is appropriate for several reasons: 1) framing of the book should be done with the most recent sources available. Today, is generally agreed that this is an anti-Chinese polemic from a fascist spy, who wished to alter the perception of the Chinese in American eyes for political purposes. Starting off the lead with the 1934 quote from Foreign Affairs is somewhat, although intentionally, deceptive. This is first and foremost not an "unvarnished picture of the Chinese", but a work of anti-Chinese political propaganda. Knowing all of this, I don't think it's really appropriate to frame Townsend's position merely as a lengthy claim in the second paragraph. In fact, it should say right at the top, "The book is considered an anti-Chinese polemic" and this claim should not be dismissed as either a "description" or a position of the official Chinese government. Furthermore, if you are going to say that "Townsend served as a US consul in Shanghai and Fuzhou between 1931 and 1933" in the beginning of the lead, then I'm afraid you're also going to have to say that he was a fascist spy who wrote the book for political reasons. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll delete the part about him being a consul. However, for the record Townsend was not a spy when he wrote the book and none of the sources which I consulted said that he wrote it for an explicit political purpose. It would be difficult for me to write in the lead that he was a spy who wrote the book for a political purpose when none of the sources I consulted said anything like that and that's why the body of the article also doesn't say that.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I decided to put into the opening sentence that the book "has been considered an anti-Chinese polemic". It's true that I was hesitant to do that before, because a majority of the reviews both then and now have not described the book in that manner, but it is true that some reviews have used similar language to describe the book, so I will make the change. I also moved the "Foreign Affairs" comment into the body of the article. Incidentally, the only reason why I included it before is because it was a good, neutral summary of the way the book was perceived when it was released. "Unvarnished" merely means "frank" not "true", and calling the book "sensationally unorthodox" is fair but not a compliment or criticism. Most reviews did not describe the book as being "sinophobic", but by contrast almost all the reviews did note that Townsend was not sheepish about his expressing his controversial opinions. Also, when I deleted the "Foreign Affairs" comment I tightened up the lead in general in accordance with your recommendation.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images
I'm a bit unclear on the use of the "PD-US-not renewed" license and how you came to use it for several of the images.
Regarding the opium field and the photograph of Ralph Townsend, they were taken in the 1930s and 1940s and owned by Ralph Townsend who died in 1976. If they were ever copyrighted in some form, it's unlikely the copyright was renewed. The Owen Lattimore photo, taken in 1945, came from the archives of the Truman Library and I saw no evidence of any active copyright.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you made a good start, but looking at the reception section, there's significant criticism of the book that still does not appear in the lead, and their aspects of the summary that are heavily biased towards Townshend's position, even though the book has been discredited. You've got a new section strangely titled "A "classic" in Sinophobia" (when "Sinophobia" should suffice), while a lot of the Sinophobia-related material still appears in the main reception section. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I only found one source (Mintz) who actually used the word "Sinophobia". None of the other sources used that word. I figured I would have one section for contemporary reviews and then separate the recent criticism into the Sinophobia section to demonstrate the book's long-term impact. It seems like what you're getting at is that you want a separate section dealing with all the criticism. Assuming I'm correct about that, I will make that change. I'll call that section "criticism" rather than "sinophobia" though. Many different criticisms were offered of Townsend's book, and I would fear misrepresenting them if I grouped them all under the heading of "sinophobia". Like I said, Mintz is the only person who describes the book using that word.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess one area where I'm having a hard time is wondering how I should present the work as being "discredited". I'm not aware that any source about the book has used the precise word "discredited". Both in the past and now the book has received a more or less equal amount of praise and criticism from reviewers. Actually, whether you are looking at the recent era or the contemporary period, the total number of positive reviews from secondary sources actually slightly exceeds the total number of negative reviews from secondary sources. Probably the most damning criticism of the book was the negative reviews it was given by the sinologists Owen Lattimore and Nathaniel Peffer. However, I'm not aware that any credentialed sinologists have reviewed this book since the 1930s.
If you have any more concrete suggestions, I will make whatever specific changes you recommend. However, I should restate the fact that the earliest date at which Townsend could have become a "foreign agent" (he was never a "spy") would have been 1937. The book "Ways That Are Dark" was released in 1933, so his later imprisonment had nothing whatsoever do with the book "Ways That Are Dark". As of yet, I am not aware of any source which states that Townsend wrote the book with a political agenda in mind.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Townsend sought to attack China, the Chinese people, the Chinese culture, and at the same time, defend the Empire of Japan during a period of Japanese expansion (Japanese invasion of Manchuria) before the Second Sino-Japanese War. The fact that the author was eventually found guilty of being an agent of Japan, casts the book in an altogether different light. There's also the ancillary issues of white supremacy, fascism and Nazi propaganda that Townsend brought to the table. He even talks about it in the book. The book was published the same year Hitler became Chancellor of Germany. On pp. 155-56, Townsend notes the racial plank of the new Germany, which Townsend goes on to argue and link to religion, calling the Chinese worse than Jews on p. 162. On p. 54, Townsend quotes anti-Chinese missionary Arthur Smith regarding the untrustworthy character of the Chinese, which Townsend notes is on account of their race. Yong Chen (2002) briefly addresses Smith and Townsend's anti-Chinese beliefs in its historical context.[1] Even before he worked as a Japanese agent, Townsend lectured on Asian affairs in the early 1930s. Germany signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan in 1936, after which Townsend became known as an Axis propagandist. The book itself is a racist, anti-Chinese, right-wing apologia for the Empire of Japan. I think part of the problem here is the lack of current secondary sources giving a more historical view on the book over time. You're not going to find this book taught as history in any American classroom. You may, on the other hand, find it taught in a political science class about the use and abuse of propaganda and the defense of racism. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know of no source which says that Townsend's later activities had an impact on the book "Ways That Are Dark". Between 1937 and 1940 he did receive at least one payment from an organization later found to be linked to the Japanese government. However, he did not start lecturing on Asian affairs until after "Ways That Are Dark" was published and even then he was NOT a Japanese agent in any way until September of 1937, which was long after "Ways That Are Dark" was published. I would be fine with stating in the article that Townsend had a political agenda in writing the book if a source could be found which also said that. However, I have found no such source. Chen does not say that. Not only does Yong Chen makes no comment whatsoever about Townsend's viewpoints or aims there, he does not even quote Townsend himself! Chen discusses Smith's views as being nineteenth century prejudice, not prejudice that arose as a result of "Japanese expansion (Japanese invasion of Manchuria) before the Second Sino-Japanese War". Chen says nothing whatsoever about Ralph Townsend himself and for that reason it would be difficult to cite Chen in this article.
Whatever your personal viewpoint may be, I can't really put it into the article without a source saying so. I'm willing to make any specific change that you want me to make, but a specific change requires a source. One can't just state a personal opinion and then insert it into the article. For instance, it is true that "Ways That Are Dark" was published the same year Hitler came to power, but a lot of books unrelated to fascism were published the same year. Why would one conclude that all books published in 1933 are fascist?
Furthermore, you very badly misinterpreted page 155. Townsend does not say in the book that he supports Hitler. The point of page 155 to 156, in which he briefly mentions Nazism, is to criticize Christianity and explain why Chinese people often refuse to adhere to it. This portion of the book puts the reader in the shoes of the Chinese and is actually one of the relatively few pro-Chinese sections of the book! You seem to have somehow interpreted in the exact opposite manner! He does describe the Chinese as materialistic on page 162 (more materialistic than Jews), but his views on alleged Chinese materialism are already mentioned in the article.
You've been making opinionated statements like "The fact that the author was eventually found guilty of being an agent of Japan, casts the book in an altogether different light", but none of the sources support this statement. Like I said, we should modify the article on the basis of what the sources say, not just on personal opinions.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I have not offered a single personal opinion in this discussion, nor have I misinterpreted anything, on the contrary, citing "Aryan" racial theories as an example of pro-Chinese sentiment is a stretch beyond the realm of the reasonable. I have presented historical facts, not opinions. In any case, the point is, the author is a racist, the book is racist, and the topic presents racist beliefs about the Chinese. This is not in dispute. Unfortunately, the way the article is currently setup, these things are downplayed, while the "legitimacy" of the author and his ideas are given undue weight. This is the essence of the neutrality problem. Until this problem is faced directly by the nominator, with an effort to directly and explicitly note the racism and bias against the Chinese front and center, I can't see this article passing. Please don't respond with "the sources don't say that", as they most certainly do, it's how you use the sources and how you frame the topic that is the problem. There is no legitimate, scholarly acceptance of this work. There is no current mainstream acceptance of the ideas presented in this work. And history has passed judgment on the author. All of these things need to be front and center, not buried in the reception section while glowing reviews by Japanese critics are given greater coverage. It needs to be made very clear that this is a work of anti-Chinese sentiment that was a product of its time. Anything less than that is revisionism and apologia. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"citing 'Aryan' racial theories as an example of pro-Chinese sentiment is a stretch beyond the realm of the reasonable". And yet, this is EXACTLY what Townsend is doing here. Just read the two pages for yourself. What Townsend says is that "Aryan" racial theories have incorporated Christian elements, thus making Christianity even more convoluted than it already is. Missionaries were often frustrated with China's failure to accept Christianity, but what Townsend says is, how can one expect the Chinese to accept such a convoluted religion? Here Townsend is not criticizing the Chinese in any way. Actually he is defending the Chinese by criticizing Christianity. It is pro-Chinese because Townsend is using Aryan racial theories among others to expose the problems of Christianity, thus explaining to Westerners why it is unreasonable to expect the Chinese to embrace the religion.
Could you be more specific about what changes you want? This article already gives more space to criticism than praise in spite of the fact that in terms of volume the praise actually outweighed the criticism. I want to know what can be changed based off sources. You have not yet presented the sources which you are basing your opinions off of. If you give me the sources, I will add them to the article.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the author is a racist, the book is racist, and the topic presents racist beliefs about the Chinese" - You're probably right about that, but the point I want to make is that we should base the article off secondary sources rather than the opinions of users. Can you give me a source which says that the book and author are racist? If I had found a source which stated that I would definitely have included it, but I didn't find such a source, and I did consult several dozen published reviews. Please give me the source that says that the book is racist and I will add it to the article immediately.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no current mainstream acceptance of the ideas presented in this work." Hmm. This is another one of those statements which is probably true, but hard to include in the article without a source. What source should I cite this statement to? I don't recall reading a source which said this. I would be hesitant to write this in without a source because to do so would implicitly label Yomiuri Shimbun, the world's largest circulation newspaper which gave this book a very positive review in 2004, as being "non-mainstream". I'm sure that Yomiuri Shimbum is "non-mainstream" on some issues, but if we're going to impose that label on it, I would rather we have a source rather than trying to make such a touchy judgment ourselves.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your new "criticism" section is a huge improvement, and I congratulate you on it. However, "reception" in this case, is generally "critical reception", which means "praise" must be written in a form of criticism, generally in terms of the composition of the work. And this is, unfortunately, exactly what your "praise" section lacks. If you can talk about what it is that Brown and Abbot, for example, like about the book, then you can create a single section about how it was received and let the overall theme emerge from its discussion. As an example, Lattimore's reception might work quite well right after Abbot's, although I have to say that Abbot's criticism here has less to do with the work and more of a racist exclamation of anti-Chinese sentiment. Furthermore, we don't need a list of publications that gave the book positive reviews, we want to know why they reviewed the book positively. Feel free to read Wikipedia:Criticism for more information. However, while I think you have greatly improved the presentation of the material, I think the "praise" section should focus more on specifics about the book. In any case, your recent edits lead me to believe that the article should now be passed as it surpasses the neutrality threshold and meets the expectations of a Good Article. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful comments. I think your assistance here has helped considerably to move the article in the direction of greater neutrality and better balance. I have implemented some of your recommendations. I think I'll maintain the "praise" section, but I have provided more specifics about what some of the reviewers thought about the book. I have deleted the additional list of positive reviews. Furthermore, I have found a way to incorporate Yong Chen's comments which you mentioned earlier.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Fail
Don't know
Done