Jump to content

Talk:Murasaki Shikibu/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

RFC: Lead image

Is it appropriate to use an ukiyoe print image with factual errors as the lead image of a historical figure article? Oda Mari (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Factual errors I found are:

  • Costume. Court ladies in the Heian period wore junihitoe or similar style costume. The opening of sleeves in the period were wide open. See [[1]], [2], [3] and #4 to #14 links above. The costume in the current image is called kosode and it was underwear in the Heian period. See also [4].
  • Hair style. Court ladies in the Heian period had let their long hair hang naturally from the center. They didn't pull back the front hair. [5], [6], and [7].
  • Ishiyama-dera lies in the middle of a mountain on the right bank of Seta River. See [8] and [9]. The river is not that close to the main hall of the temple and it cannot seen from the hall today. Oda Mari (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


I'm torn between (1) "Yes"; (2) is it appropriate to raise an RFC when (a) there seems to be consensus already (b) there are many other pages in much greater need of attention (c) there are even more than don't yet exist; (3) while we're not quite in the realms of the Homeric Question, per the article page we don't seem to know even the subject's name or date - perhaps she's most "historical" in the term's etymological sense of "enquiry", namely one into cultural history; and (4) the image seems "appropriate", why - apart from the above discussion - is this? Since the nominating user has been of great help to me and there's a lot going on in this print I'd love to know more about, I'm plumping for (4).
Per this caption, the print "shows Lady Murasaki at Ishiyama-dera Temple, divinely inspired to write the Tale of Genji"; my initial questions are:
  • Why is this picture entitled Faith (信), what does the rest of its caption say?
  • Her writing paper is blank; is she just starting her endeavour? Why does the paper have these dimensions? Is this like the paper she wrote on? Her manuscript is lost; does it suggest the scale of her endeavour? Is it blank like writer's block, faced with the scale of the task before her? Thus needing the "divine inspiration" (what are the sources of this inspiration)?
  • The pink wood, boat, and huts on the far bank - why pink? Pink=the distaff side in the modern West; is it the same in Japan now/in the past?
  • The moon - did she write/did they fish/is the scene lit like this just by moonlight? Or does the moon have poetic significance? In Genji?
  • The autumn leaves - did she begin writing in autumn? Or is this some marker of sensibility?
  • The clouds - was it a cloudy day on which she began to write? Is this a common code? What do they obscure? What is obscured in Genji?
  • The terrain - is Ishiyamadera hilly (yes); is this the exact topography? is there other significance in surveying the world from on high? Does Murasaki? Does kunimi (ascending the mountain to survey the kingdom) legitimate this reading?
  • The water - is this the correct view over Lake Biwa/its tributaries? Does Lake Biwa more generally have any relation to the temple? Is wateriness of relevance to Genji (eg the Uji River chapters)?
  • The fishermen - are they the intrusion of the mundane and labour in the rarified world of the court? are they just picturesque?
  • Is this scene a creation myth? Can there be greater truth in fiction than reality? Does any of this make this suitable as a introduction to the topic of Murasaki (per eg epistemology), littered with potential methodological pitfalls as it is? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Very interesting questions. As for the pink, it seems to be quite popular in Suzuki Harunobu prints, so perhaps not much meaning in it. As for the image as lead, I don't have a problem with it. I am not too happy about the RFC question as for somebody who did not read through the previous discussion it is quite hard to understand what it is all about. Why mention "ukiyoe print" at all and why not mention the "factual errors" directly? bamse (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Maculosae tegmine lyncis, I think I can answer some of your questions. Please wait for a while. I'm busy. Bamse, I'll post a list of factual errors for new editors at here. As for ukiyoe, I just wanted to specify. Oda Mari (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I could only read the last part of the caption. It might be "...こそはその信といふべかりなり". I have no idea why 信 is related to Murasaki. This 信 is not faith, but it's one of the Wuchang (五常) and the meaning is Integrity. This kind of images are called "教訓絵/moral picture". I found three other virtue prints of the series by Suzuki. [10], [11], and the second image. The women in the prints are commoners in the Edo period and had nothing to do with Murasaki or poets. As for the color of our image, the color was faded. This one is in a very good condition. There was no beautiful blue ink at that time, and Suzuki used mainly red, orange, pink and yellow. I also have no idea why the fishermen and the boat were there. I think the men needed the light like this one.There were many commentary books, annotated books, and digest on the Genji tale written in later years.According to one of them, 河海抄/Kakaisho written in the Muromachi period, says Murasaki confined herself in the temple for a week to pray for her new novel and she got the inspiration of the tale when she was watching the full moon on August 15 (September in the current calender). It is thought as a popular belief/myth created in the Muromachi period today as there's no Heian record mentioning such episode. [12] and translation. [13] and translation. Oda Mari (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep image - consider moving down - [from uninvolved editor, notified by RfC bot] Yes, it is okay to include images with factual errors. If comparable images are available that do not have errors, then the error-free images should be used, of course. But when the subject is hundreds of years old, there is usually a shortage of decent images, so WP has to make do with what is available. If the image contains factual errors that may mislead readers (e.g. clothing is from the wrong period) those errors can be noted either (a) in the caption of the picture; or (b) in a footnote to the caption's text. The image used for the lead of the article should be the best over-all image available. Factual errors weigh against this image, but perhaps it is superior in other regards? It is a balancing test. If there is a superior image that is factually correct, consider using that other image in the lead, and moving the inaccurate image down into the body of the article. Otherwise, expand the caption to note the errors. --Noleander (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep image - (I was brought here by the RfC) - I personally don't have a problem with it; any image other than a photograph will have inaccuracies, or 'artistic license', if you think about it... In this case, I find the history of the print itself quite interesting, so I would suggest keeping it, and adding some info to the caption on when the print was made, why it contains anachronisms, specific artistic symbolism, etc., basically why the artist would choose to represent Murasaki Shikibu in this manner. OttawaAC (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep image. It's the most eye-catching one for the lead.Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • comment
Left facing
Left facing
Right facing
Right facing
Right facing

We have two versions of more accurate image without obvious factual errors. This image was painted by a court painter Tosa Mitsuoki in an year between 1654-1681. Unlike Suzuki, Tosa painted many Heian paintings. See commons:Category:Tosa Mitsuoki and Britannica. Some of his works designated as Important Cultural Properties, while only two works by Suzuki's ukiyoe are recognized as (less) Important Art Works. The Tosa portrait was used as a stamp in Japan. [14] I do not understand the use of current image when we have the more authentic and more established image. Because the period costume is an important element when the actual face of Murasaki is unknown . Oda Mari (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Facing from the right to the left; as opposed to facing from the right to the right and off the page is one factor why another image was chosen. As explained already in the above threads, this is getting tiresome...Modernist (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to Oda Mari for highlighting these points and the follow-up findings - it would be lovely for all this effort to bear fruit in main space: do you think best would be a separate page on this print, which could then be linked in? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
@Modernist: Regarding "As explained already in the above threads, this is getting tiresome..." - that may be true, but the primary purposes of an RfC is to get input form uninvolved editors; thus it is appropriate for the RfC to start afresh and summarize all the prior Talk page discussions. How about this: Can someone pick the best "factually correct" image, and then create a pros/cons summary comparing the two images? That way we could compare the two images point-by-point and evaluate which one is best for the top of the article. If that point-by-point comparison was already done before, it should be easy to re-summarize it here in the RfC. Without seeing all the evaluation factors listed (aesthetics; left-to-right; size; factual-correctness; color; notability of artist; etc) it is hard to know which one is best. It may be that the factually incorrect one is best. --Noleander (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Noleander, my stance is that because this is an FA it needs to adhere to MOS and specifically to MOS images. Oda Mari has objected to both the right facing images, (I'll try to find the link above), after I replaced the one being discussed and quite clearly wants the left facing image. Certainly if another right facing image is brought forward, then the existing image can be replace. Yes, I am involved, but WP:OWN gives me some weight in regards FA. Quite frankly this should have been brought up earlier, but more vexing is that the issue is not so much the image itself for the type of art, which is not being made clear. For this RfC to succeed, Oda Mari should explicitly state that the objection is because the existing image represents art considered "common" or "crude". I'm just adding this for clarification. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
This needs to be pointed out - the image that Oda Mari is favoring has been in the article from the beginning; not in the lede, because it faces to the right and doesn't fit the guideline MOS for a lede image but it is included since the outset of the article ...Modernist (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is true. In fact it was the lead image for a long time, but I moved to another place on the page it to adhere to MOS images - for no other reason. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper. Yes, I had noticed that this was an FA; and also that you, a respected and long-term editor, were the nominator. But RfCs have their purpose, and once an article is FA it is not "frozen". Believe me, I've had editors muck-up "my" articles after they achieved FA status, and it is no fun. But WP:OWNERSHIP simply says that "outside" editors who want to change a Featured article must be civil, respectful, and work via normal Talk page procedures. It looks like the RfC proposer is doing just that. If the current image is genuinely the correct one (and I agree it may be) there is no harm in letting the RfC process run its course ... the final outcome will be that the article stays as it is. But it is important to respect the WP processes ... even FAs are subject to RfCs, true? --Noleander (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I understand that, which is why I haven't posted. But it is also important for uninvolved editors to understand the issues at hand. The comment re own was only added in response to involvement (in case it was pointed out to me that I couldn't post) - I meant that yes, I'm involved, but I also understand the issues having spent a lot of time researching and finding the images, and as such I think it's okay for me to comment if I think clarification is needed, which I thought it did. I don't see this as mucking up - it's simply an issue of adhering to MOS and that's why I asked Oda Mari to post at FAC. If we are to ignore MOS, then I'd like input from FAC directors and delegates. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
As to the image in the lede currently - It is perfectly beautiful, explanatory, efficacious, and to the point. Whether or not another image is more historically correct - when in fact none are strikes me as an absurd position to take...Modernist (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Rather than 'factually/historically accurate', Oda Mari's argument is that it depicts the costume, not the person, the objects surrounding the person, or the architecture, of the Heian period more accurately. There is no such thing as period authenticity as the final arbiter here: for one, the garish or 'loud' colour contrasts of the Tosa picture are somewhat ‘Chinese’, rather than ‘Japanese’, where understated elegance, and a certain melancholic air, certainly not projected by Tosa's painting, is a keynote. Tosa Mitsuoki, in line with conventions in his Confucianizing culture several centuries later, suppressed the sensuality of Heian culture and women in his Genji are rigorously domesticated to a moral rectitude wholly out of keeping with the novel. Tosa’s face is faceless, a conventional slit for the eyes, and a hooked bracket for the nose. The Suzuki face is expressive. Belabouring the point by talking of historical authenticity would create a curious precedent. The Wiki Christ article has an image of Christ Pantokrator, wherein he is holding a bound codex, not, as would be historically correct, a scroll. It represents Christ as he was imagined several centuries after his death, and conforms in every detail to early Byzantine style. The hairstyle is not Jewish, but a Byzantine style developing the old pagan iconography. St Paul at I Corinthians 11:14, said it was shameful to have the long hair we see here. Even if he belonged to a sect that condoned long hair for ritual reasons, like the Nazirites, that would be braided. It isn’t. And it would not be parted down the middle. That worries no one. Why this huge belabouring of 'authenticity' here?Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so what I'm hearing from Modernist and Truth is that the current lead image is left-facing (thus complies with MOS), beautiful, explanatory, efficacious and to the point; whereas the proposed image is deficient in those areas but is more factually/historically accurate. Is that a good summary? Or are there other factors to be considered? --Noleander (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Good summary - but I'd say might be more historically accurate - frankly I don't really see how, or care, given the high quality of the imagery we do have...Modernist (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
In my view the final factor is that this was a woman who lived a thousand years ago, has been venerated over the centuries, and as such has been the inspiration for a great deal of art in her honor. Why not show art through the centuries, as I've attempted to on this page, instead of restricting ourselves to strictly Heian era depictions of her? But, for me the bottom line is the MOS. That's the reason I moved the image out of the lead. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
For those editors that want to keep the "inaccurate" left-facing image in the lead: Do you have any objection to (1) enhancing the caption (either in text or via footnote) to explain some of the potential historical/factual inaccuracies?; and (2) putting the other proposed image in the article body (or is it already there?) --Noleander (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have every intention of working on the caption; yes, all the images are on the page. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay. After you get a new version of the caption, why don't you post it here in the RfC and other editors can say whether it addresses their concerns or not. --Noleander (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Two problems with this: one, I'd need a source that tells us what Oda Mari seems to want. All I can use at the moment is the description from the museum website, and I've pretty much followed that. If a good scholarly source is brought forward explaining the problems with the image, then of course it can be summarized and added to the caption. Two, I have very little time at the moment and haven't been editing much. When I have more time, and if a source hasn't yet been presented, then I'll work on it. But personally I don't think a caption needs to vetted. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect Noleander - Have you looked at the article? How can you possibly have made this comment - (2) putting the other proposed image in the article body (or is it already there?) - did you seen my comment? - This needs to be pointed out - the image that Oda Mari is favoring has been in the article from the beginning - Modernist (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm just trying to facilitate a consensus-building process here. My flaws (and there are many) shouldn't prevent the process from moving forward :-) What do you think of enhancing the caption? --Noleander (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Tk seems in agreement with making alterations; although I think the image and the caption are fine as is...Modernist (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep current lead image as is. I reviewed the images at FAC (they were all free, properly licensed and sourced) and have looked at all the images in the article again. The current lead image does the best job for me of showing multiple aspects of the subject (Lady Murasaki), including how she was still the subject of art created almost 800 years after her birth. The MOS says that the lead image needs to be of the subject, it has to be right justified, and the MOS strongly recommends that all images draw the reader's eyes into the center of the page (the current lead image does this as she is looking left, the proposed lead image does not do this when right justified). I think the arguments of factual accuracy are less than compelling, though I would be fine with adding a note explaining that there are no extant contemporary images of her, saying what experts think she would have looked like as a courtly lady of her day, and perhaps pointing out how some of the images deviate from this / reflect the conventions of their time. I do think that almost any intelligent reader, looking as an image nearly eight centuries older than its subject, will realize it is not likely to be 100% accurate. As noted above, there are many articles with lead images which are not entirely accurate. Ahalya, the current FA on the Main Page has an anachronistic image: File:Ahalya.jpg. I think anyone who knows enough to realize that she is pictured too close to the water, will realize this is an artist's impression from much later. Please see artistic license. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Why is left facing preferable? Why is right facing wrong? I could only find "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, it is not necessary to reverse an image simply to have the subject facing the text." at MOS:IMAGES. There is no explanation there. Oda Mari (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The subtle complexity of visual design, the subtle relationship and implication of image to text has meaning and creates both rhythm and context; facing left into the text effects the viewer in a generally positive way; as does facing right off the page, tend to the opposite...Modernist (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I take left facing is preferable for its visual effect on the page. Right? Right facing might be less preferable, but MOS does not say it should be avoided to use right facing portrait. I do not understand visual effectiveness has priority over factual correctness. I always think facts are the most important thing at WP. Which is more important? Oda Mari (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Facts or style? Nothing to do with facts, only style preference. Neither artist were contemporaneous with Murasaki Shikibu (c. 973 - c. 1025)who wrote during her lifetime, more than 600 years earlier than Tosa Mitsuoki who worked in the mid to late 1600s; while Suzuki Harunobu worked in the mid to late 1700s...Modernist (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I've never questioned the style of the current image. I made an issue of factual errors in the Suzuki's portrayal. What style are you talking about? Suzuki's work is preferable left facing but with the factual errors in detail. In other words, it's a very sloppy depiction as a portrait of a Heian court woman. Tosa's work is less preferable right facing but without obvious factual errors. That is why I think this is a matter of visual effect and facts. Right facing would be preferable when there are equally correct and beautiful images and we have to select one for the lead. But this is not the case. Oda Mari (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Your definition of fact leaves far too much to be taken for granted; to even be considered as fact. The current lede is an excellent depiction of the basic article - clearly you prefer another style of illustration - it boils down to what you are saying is - WP:IDON'TLIKEIT - sorry but you do not have consensus...Modernist (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Because of the factual errors, the woman in the Suzuki image does not look like Murasaki Shikibu nor any court ladies in the Heian period. The woman could be any other woman in later period. That's the problem. See other images used in the article. Not a single person in the images wears the kosode. Why should we use the image with an exceptional costume? Oda Mari (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Ridiculous - you don't know what she looked like nor did any of the artists including the artist you are beating the bushes about. The illustration shows a woman at home writing - She's not at court - she is comfortable she is not wearing a courtly Kimono because she's not at court - your inaccurate complaint is tiresome...Modernist (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Please provide RS that say there was non-underwear kosode in the Heian period. My source is this. See the costume history. Oda Mari (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
You have no idea nor do I what women alone at home in Japan in the 11th century wore when by themselves - sorry but your demand doesn't wash especially because according to your sources those courtly Kimonos were donned in layers as you know...Modernist (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there's a dispute in regard to whether the clothing is Heian or not; clearly it's not. The issue is whether we must show her in Heian costume. As Nishidani so well mentioned somewhere on this page, there are many paintings of Jesus Christ, the majority of which do not show him in the dress of his time, yet are acceptable. Anyway, I have a bit of time today, so I'll play around a bit with images and try to find a solution. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Oda Mari, can you explain what's wrong with File:Lady Murasaki at her desk.png with which I replaced the Suzuki, [15], and you then asked for it to be removed, [16]? It seems to be factual: woman w/ white make-up, long hair, junihitoe, and a better depiction of a Heian woman, if that's all you're looking for? As soon as you complained about it I removed it [17] and then you complained again. Is only the Tosa acceptable? Truthkeeper (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Because it was an image in a Genji parody book. It was the book we talked about in the first part of Talk:Murasaki Shikibu#Wrong picture. [18] That's why I think it's not appropriate. Additionally, the blue in the image is too harsh. As far as I know, the colors used in Heian costumes were not that bright. Hakama, the bottom, was always reddish, but not the image. There were rules of the combination of colors. And it seems to me the woman in the image does not wear junihitoe properly. See the image near the bottom, [19], [20], and [21]. It's not a serious portrait of Murasaki Shikibu. That's why I support the Tosa, a court painter, image only.Oda Mari (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Compare their artwork

Before editors who are not quite familiar with Japanese matters buy in on some of the flawed charactizations (e.g. that the two painters being argued over should be regarded as close to equally authentic), they should probably canvass a sampling of their works Tosa Mitsuoki's artwork vs.Harunobu's art (rated PG) / Harunobu's art (rated X) and perhaps they will instantly realize why their advocacy may be stomping on the sensitivities of many fans of Lady Murasaki. They might be better convinced also that Tosa is primarily engaged in the depictions of courtly life in old Kyoto, vs. Harunobu who takes up various themes. --Kiyoweap (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this honest assessment. I thought perhaps this might be the issue but no one has actually spelled it out. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I definitely prefer the aesthetic beauty and subtle quality of Harunobu's art (rated PG) and Harunobu's art (rated X) to the essentially blunt Tosa Mitsuoki's artwork...Modernist (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion both Tosa Mitsuoki and Suzuki Harunobu are important and accomplished Japanese artists. Tosa Mitsuoki is considered to have been influenced by Chinese art while Suzuki Harunobu seems far more reflective of Japanese culture...Modernist (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Far be it from me to 'stomp on' Lady Murasaki's fans ((衵扇), or provoke them to feel 不安. 'Advocacy' is a pointy term, implying the lack of cool judgement. Properly both sides are 'advocating'. The 'sensitivities' of fans of Lady Murasaki apply to both sides, since presumably those who favour Tosa Mitsuoki, or Suzuki Harunobu's representations, are equally familiar with her work, while the two representations under discussion have nothing to do with her historicity, or 'authenticity' but are later interpretations, one sinocentric and Confucianizing, the other more consonant with 'nativist' aesthetics, of Murasaki and her world. Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
If someone could bring an alternative to the table it would be helpful - but it should be a high quality, high resolution image. Also, just to point out, 10 of 22 images on the page are either of the Tosa school or from early handscrolls, which I think is a fair representation of a thousand years of art. Personally I haven't much of a preference but I would like to see the following: the image to be of high quality (high resolution), to adhere to MoS standards, and to show Murasaki Shikibu writing. Perhaps if anyone other than myself has the time to dig in museum databases and find something else we can move forward (I haven't the time at the moment). Truthkeeper (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Just to add - to make the page more Tosa-esque, as soon as I have a chance, I'll replace the image in the Genji section (which has been replaced once with one painted by an imperial artist), by this Tosa school image, if we all agree. Off to work now. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think an image of waka Murasaki from Chapter 5? of the tale could be used as the author's portrait, since she is a fictional character in the tale, though a double or a shadow of the author. (Think I picked this info watching TV. I actually don't know the tale very well.)
Something similar to Mitsuhide painting of LM at Ishiyamadera owned by Harvard Museum (the commons file link was milsabled Boston Fine Arts Museum) is:
  • Tosa Mitsuoki, Murasaki Shikibu Ishyamadera kangetsuzu (「紫式部石山寺観月図」)(cf. Ishiyamadera (November 27, 2011). "ご覧になりましたか？". Ishiyamadera official blog (Shiki no tayori). Retrieved May 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) or Tokushu 24-2 (Norton Securities unrated site but I think a better resolution image)). I guess the problem with these images is someone will have to obtain high resolution photos of these, and upload a cropped close-up version of it.
I'm now going to side-issue the talk regarding why Harunobu might be considered inappropriate atTalk:Suzuki Harunobu, because it's going to be too distracting. One thing to point out is that it appears the Harunobu's work being contested is likely a error: {{nihongo}}: Japanese or romaji text required (help) or parody art (Read: [22]), so is actually not a portrait of Murasaki Shikibu, but rather a portrayal of a contemporary woman (likely of the pleasure quarters??), playacting a Murasaki Shikibu scene. -- --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2012‎ (timestamp signature reinserted at 20:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC) )
  • I downloaded a new image of the Mituoki last week and tried a crop. It's extremely grainy. But I can upload so people can see. Or maybe someone else could do this? Clearly the issue is about wanting only a image painted by an imperial court painter, and frankly I'm not sure that I agree with that. I have to agree with Nishidani below. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
If you are correct - the caption can be amended to indicate that the illustration we use is an illustration of Murasaki Shikibu, played by someone else; no big deal - I still prefer the Harunobu - no problem...Modernist (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Making guesses about portraits is not conducive to discussion (WP:OR). Dismissing SH's version as 'parody' (mitate, which, more neutrally, can be given as characterizing an allusive style) while defending the equally interpretative Tosa Mitsuoki just boils down to a preference for the elite-warrior-sinocentric cultural values of the latter as opposed to the merchant-class aesthetics of the former. They catered to different markets. Neither had anything to do with 'authenticity' (esp. Tosa Mitsuoki's versions, which represent values that are essentially hostile to those of Genji monogatari) Funny to see class warfare in here:) Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Modernist, I understand you prefer Suzuki image and think it's beautiful. But it's your personal opinion. Can you provide any RS that the Suzuki image is, not as a ukiyoe print, a good portrait of Murasaki Shikibu? One more, what do you think about the condition of our image? The color has faded and lost its original color. See [23].
Nishidani, I'm afraid you misunderstand the classification of the Japanese art. Tosa's paintings are Yamatoe and it is thought as Japanese, not sinocentric and Confucianizing. See [24], [25], and also [26]. Oda Mari (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Oda Mari, don't make assumptions about my knowledge or lack of it in this area. And don't treat people who disagree with you as if they were untutored gaijin, which is an unfortunate undertone in these threads. I'm afraid you do not understand the points being made, and I am afraid you do not adequately read the sources you google, as for example the first which concludes:'Mitsuoki also rejuvenated the traditional Tosa style by introducing elements from Chinese painting,' which happens to be precisely what your interlocutors are asking you to note, and which you deny. No one denies Tosa's work is yamatoe, or that it is 'Japanese'. That you cannot perceive the doctrinal sinocentrism there suggests you are unfamiliar with the period and contemporary scholarship on it. I see many assertions here, and a lot of poorly googled snippets. What I have written is perfectly reflected in the actual scholarship regarding Tosa. See here, to cite just one source actually used in this article.Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me? RS is not required for images - pictures speak a thousand words - sorry. You don't seem to realize that Tosa worked 600 years after the fact...Modernist (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Yamatoe was apparently inspired by Tang Dynasty paintings - uh - that's Chinese, and the work does closely resembles 11th century Japanese painting that I've seen - but Tang Dynasty painting doesn't look like Tosa's work - sorry again...Modernist (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
My criterion was whether or not images are appropriate as her portrait. It was not a matter of preference. With the history of Japan and the background of the images in mind, I judged by elimination. If the article had used, not the Tosa, but other image, I would have frowned, shrugged/sighed and left the matter alone. The Suzuki seemed to me a big mistake and the least appropriate choice and thought the image damaged the reliability of en:WP. I thought readers who know Murasaki Shikibu would laugh at the lead image. That is why I posted my comment in the first place. The more I checked the images, the more I thought the first choice should be the Tosa, but it was not that I liked it. It is the most commonly used image by a court painter without errors. Exhibition posters of Murasaki/Genji only use Tosa/emaki except an exhibition titled "Genji tale in ukiyoe". I'm not specially interested in Tosa nor Suzuki. One was a yamatoe and court artist and another was an ukiyoe artist, that's all to me. Nishidani, sorry that I'm not an academic. I checked and learned the Chinese influence on his works. He studied a miniature by Li Anzhong, a painter of the late Northern and early Southern Song Dynasty. Yes, the influence can be found in the portrait. Bamse, it's not Lake Biwa, but the Seta River. Lake Biwa lies to the north of the temple and you cannot see the moon in the direction. That she was inspired at the temple is a fiction. I simply don't know why the most users still support the Suzuki. Oda Mari (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
RfCs nominally last for 30 days. In this case, it looks like the discussion is still ongoing; and a new editor provided some valuable input a few days ago. There is no rush. --Noleander (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep Suzuki's ukiyoe since (naturally) we don't have any image which claims to be a realistic depiction of her and since the ukiyoe contains additional elements relevant to Murasaki Shikibu such as Lake Biwa and Ishiyamadera while Tosa's image only shows a female writer in court dress (could be anybody). FYIO (i.e. I don't suggest them as alternative lead images), perhaps the oldest extant depictions of Murasaki Shikibu are the following from the 13th century Murasaki Shikibu Diary Emaki bamse (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC):

  • MS on right
    MS on right
  • lady on the left
    lady on the left
  • MS behind door, i.e. closest to courtiers
    MS behind door, i.e. closest to courtiers
  • centre
    centre
  • perhaps (?) at bottom right
    perhaps (?) at bottom right

At this point I feel that people are bypassing my first post under this thread to go see Harunobu's art (rated X) to understand in one flash second (if they can't be bothered to do the research) why perhaps Harunobu may not be the best choice. Or do I now have to parade those pictures on this talk page like Bamse did to finally get my point across?
Oda Mari who motioned for RfC saw Harunobu as the "worst" choice, while the primary writer Truthkeeper has at least recognized this candidate as problematic. So let's just say we have a consensus that although Mr. Suzuki captured the office of lede picture when the FAC was awarded, now that he is up for re-election, certain dark questions has arisen on his candidacy; Suzuki having gracefully bowed out of this race, the election cycle moves on.
Certain aspects of Harunobu's art not currently covered by the current version of the wiki article on the artist, so I tabled these in the threads at Talk:Suzuki Harunobu, in relation to discussion about Murasaki Shikibu.
If you feel it is gratuitously prejudicial to that artist to bring up his association with his substantial portolio of graphic homesexual sex art, or if you think I'm not correctly presenting what a mitate-e is with respect to Harunobu's art, take it up at the thread I started on his talk page. It's unfair to have to give an art talk here on the finer points, starting from a primer on some basic knowledge Harunobu's work, which it seems that a lot of you are not bothering to check before you submit your opinion.--Kiyoweap (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC) [revised from 21:36 (UTC) version]

What a load of BS and - and that's polite. Keep is my position. What's yours without the arrogant art history lecture?..Modernist (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Let me get this straight - because Suzuki Harunobu made Shunga 350 years ago - that in your opinion disqualifies us from using his image as the lede in this article - are you kidding? Or are you just biased, and ignorant?..Modernist (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It's keep all the way for me (though am tempted by as an alternative, 'tis a spitting image), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kiyoweap. You are saying, analogically, that since Millet also painted 'pornographic' pictures of peasants copulating, to mention only the less 'disgusting' ones, it would be inappropriate to use his Angelus in any religious article (whereas we rightly do employ it, I now see, in that wiki article, see Angelus). Your objections, apart from reflecting a distaste, inappropriate to art criticism, for a painter because of the other subjects he depicted, are therefore non sequiturs. Nishidani (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Kiyoweap: As for "parading pictures", at least the pictures show Murasaki Shikibu so are kind of relevant to this discussion, while I cannot see what the shunga contribute here. bamse (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to antagonize Bamse since he at least consults Japanese websites to check for fact-check. I aplogize if you took my use of "parading" personally, and I do further admit I marginilized your posting, but I would point out that This Diary emaki topic has already been taken up by ReijiYamashina and it is my view that this issue was already settled. Oda Mari, to paraphrase loosely, points out that yes, Muraki is in that old emaki, but she's always in group shots, and a decent shot of Shikibu alone is not obtainable from this scroll. And despite Bamse's disclaimer that this was FIY Only and not a proposal of alternate candidate images, it has shown to elicit a response (though user:Maculosae tegmine lyncis is the only current example), and I didn't want the discussion drifting in that direction. --Kiyoweap (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Kiyoweap: No, I do not recognize the Suzuki as problematic nor do I believe at all the image should be "up for re-election". I'm simply trying to understand the objection, but I think you've clarified quite well. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
In reply to my 1st post, Truthkeeper said "I thought perhaps this might be the issue" so I thought he was giving nod that there was an issue with Harunobu. And since he started to offer alternate images, I thought he was moving in that direction. Mind you, you did consent to taking down Harunobu at one point, and replacing it with Kunisada's portrait of Murasaki, which at least had the advantage of showing the artist in jūnihitoe (Heian period) garb. I thought that you made this gesture in earnest. Only, when Oda Mari complained that this was way too modern (being dated to 1858), you seemingly lost your patience and revoked your gesture, and put Harunobu right back, which ticked her off and motivated her to Request for comment. Is this a fair description? I think it is. I am seeing the same pattern here. You give a nuance that you saw my point, then make certain gestures to move in that direction, but after a while, it's back to square one, and you ain't giving up a square inch. --Kiyoweap (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment on the substance not the editor - Kiyoweap you are in violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA...Modernist (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Number 1: I am a woman. Number 2: I have done everything I can to try to please and to diffuse a situation I do not understand. Number 3: At one point, before it went to FAC, I had the Kunisada as the lead image, so replacing the Suzuki with that seemed the easiest, given that the Tosa does not face the text. I haven't even voted, so please don't accuse me of being manipulative, playing, or not giving a square inch - at that point the argument becomes personalized. I have simply tried to understand - playing with you or Oda Mari - not that's not what I'm doing and I object, strongly, to your post. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been bold and overridden consensus - initiating a BRD cycle - and placed the Tosa in the page. I want to make very clear that I did not force and RfC, and I object strongly to the bullying. Furthermore, I strongly object to the insinuation (made here and on the Suzuki page [27]) that I've used this page, and Wikipedia in general, to post homoerotic art. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not pay particular heed to which gender the editor might be unless the person makes it plain to me in his/her signature. I will backpeddle a bit and scratch the latter portion, since I am being accusatory of this being your MO. Whether or not you went through the experiencing of replacing the lead picture for a brief amount of time, "overriding consensus" or whatever, to indicate your willingness to concede to something, ultimately if you revert on that after a few days, then that is going to be seen as "no concession at all" by the opposing contingent. I had been led to believe that you had dropped Harunobu, but if you are now telling me that was just my misunderstanding, I am perfectly happy to try to explain what is wrong with him on the substance, as long as I could do it here tactfully and succicintly. --Kiyoweap (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Kiyoweap do you know how to read? There are objections to every point that you have raised. No one is waiting on baited breath for your expert analysis how about offering proof with reliable sources for your previous claims...Modernist (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Kiyoweap, I've replaced each one as was requested; nothing was acceptable. Nothing was uploaded as an alternative. I've really done all I can here. Perhaps if you read the entire conversation above and look at the article history, it might make it more clear. At any rate, I'm finished with this discussion, because when we start talking about concessions and opponents, the discussion is going very badly wrong. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion this RFC has been over for awhile; except now Kiyoweap on behalf of Oda Mari has engaged in personal attacks - enough already!...Modernist (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Disagree, as per Noleander. One should keep this open for a full month, even if I think the respective positions are clear. One should never rush things, even when the outcome might appear obvious, and it is a courtesy to exercise a little patience, if one side is unhappy with what appears to be a fairly solid, rationally argued consensus for keeping Suzuki.Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Not counting Truthkeeper88 (who has not voted) there is a clear majority for keep...Modernist (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Kiyoweap. By all means illuminate us, but do keep in mind that you have wholly misread the tone of Truthkeeper's earlier remarks consistently. Tone is very important in understanding what someone is saying. She was being delicate in a negotiation, generous in looking for common ground, and to read it any other way is to misconstrue her purpose.Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Harunobu real issues

Some Mickey Mouse caricatures have been made of what my views may be, based on speculation, but I won't dignify them with responses. Let me just move to the substantive debate.

  • Let me go back to the tenet by Truthkeeper that this particular print, "Faith" by Harnobu, was fair game to use for the lede, because it was just one of many "representations" of Murasaki Shikibu by Japanese artists over the centuries. In reality Harunobu or others in the period knew this was not what Murasaki Shikibu dressed like, [citation needed] and the distortion is deliberate. [citation needed] Furthermore, this Harunobu piece was very probably just one among of several parody pieces done by Harunobu [citation needed] that are well-established among critics as being mitate of Lady Murasaki. And if it was a mitate it was 'not a Murasaki Shikibu portrait at all [citation needed] in any usual sense of the word.
  • I now refer the reader to a Harunobu print that belongs to the exact same series ("Five Cardinal Virtues") as "Faith", namely: "Righteousness" (Honoluly Academy of Art). Representing "Righteousness" by a pair of boy prostitutes dressed as girls is hardly typical or mainstream. [citation needed] So there is a general flippant, irreverant, crass humor attitude in Harunobu in his work here, [citation needed] and all of this is perfectly legitamate in it's own proper context. However, this is not congruous to the courtly literature world that the author Lady Murasaki inhabits. [citation needed]
  • Now if you stay on the Honolulu Academy of Art site and page flip to the next item in the digital collection, you will see that Harunobu's parody of the samurai warrior Ōta Dōkan is that of a townsfolk girl, which is again, incongruous and flippant. [citation needed] You can easily discover that this gender-bending and tongue-in-cheek usage is prevalent in this genre of ukiyo-e art. Another example of this sexual ambiguity is already posted under the #Wrong picture section of this talk page: wrongly captioned "Prince Genji" he/she turns out to be a parody of the female character Yūgao (夕顔) from the 4th chapter of the Tale of Genji. The rhetorical question of course is, do you see this man as fair game to use as lede representation for the Lady Yūgao? ('Correction: I jumped the gun on this, but it looks like the crossed out piece was not a cross-gendered piece. The picture showing a man in sakayaki seems to be a Hikaru Genji parody after all. In the photo it appears to be labeled "Lady Yūgao", but I should correct that to say it is labeled "Yugao chapter" from the Tale of Genji. Actually this photo is only the right half of a diptych. So the opposite facing picture depicts a woman (presumably the Yugao parody person), and is labeled "Chapter 5". The British Museum site's description is unintelligible to me since it says "Chapter 5, Yugao and Genji looking at lady refurbishing pillows", because I only see the one woman and one man. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC))
  • Now going back to the "Faith" print, she is probably a woman of the pleasure quarters. [citation needed] I will again admit I have not found proof positive on this, but I have discovered another artist's monochrome print "Courtesan in the Guise of Murasaki Shikibu Seeking Inspiration (Mitate Murasaki Shikibu)" for comparison. [citation needed] I will point out that at least from a modern Japanesse person's perspective, and probably from the etiquette of Harunobu's time, this girl's pose would be considered crass manners, and not something a woman serving the emperor's court would be caught dead doing. [citation needed] She is using hōzue (propping one's chin on one's arm), she has her elbow on the table, and has one knee up (katahiza) while sitting. Upon further checking, I am now reading that katahiza was perfectly formal in early times, by my guess is this was so only because doing this was not so obtrusively obvious when dressed in the jūnihitoe type clothing. --Kiyoweap (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
If you find anything about more this print in particular, such as your diachronic study of katahiza, that would be very interesting; my understanding of the article page is that it is about Murasaki, her writing, her world, her legacy; this pretty image in pink seems to me to address all four, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Kiyoweap. You write, that depicting boy prostitutes dressed as girls is 'not congruous to the courtly literature world that the author Lady Murasaki inhabits'. Well, you'd do well to actually familiarise yourself with Genji Monogatari, since what you wrote is nonsense. Murasaki the writer has no problems with having the 'shining prince' in the 帚木 chapter use for a night a young boy because he cannot sleep with the lad's sister.

例の、人々はいぎたなきに、一所すずろにすさまじく思し続けらるれど、人に似ぬ心ざまの、なほ消えず立ち上れりける、とねたく、かかるにつけてこそ心もとまれと、かつは思しながら、めざましくつらければ、さばれと思せども、さも思し果つまじく、　「隠れたらむ所に、なほ率て行け」とのたまへど、　「いとむつかしげにさし籠められて、人あまたはべるめれば、かしこげに」　と聞こゆ。いとほしと思へり。　「よし、あこだに、な捨てそ」　とのたまひて、御かたはらに臥せたまへり。若くなつかしき御ありさまを、うれしくめでたしと思ひたれば、つれなき人よりは、なかなかあはれに思さるとぞ。Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess if we're going there, see also The History of Sexuality, seemingly a societal construct: the classical (greece and rome) equivalent of you iz a homo was apparently more about active/passive & moderate/immoderate than boy/girl, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the whole point made in the objection - Harunobu painted cross-dressers therefore we shouldn't (morally?) use his work for an evocative image of a woman - is totally absurd, since rather than being an aesthetic judgement of his Murasaki portrait, it reflects a 'moral' distaste for the painter himself. Japanese culture was far more tolerant of these things than even Greece and Rome, and I find objections to it rather eurocentric. The same goes for the aesthetics. Japanese aesthetic criteria from the 17th century which inform much of our taste, are not those of the 10-16th century. That said, the Hiroshige here, though even later, would be fine. But I would strongly object to any demand that Truthkeeper or anyone else do the legwork of permissions, uploading etc. If the minority feel comfortable with that, by all means let them get off their moral high horses and get that print past the redtape, uploaded and reproposed. In the meantime, Harunobu's 'portrait', which at least envisages her with writing materials, seems perfectly appropriate. I dislike the 'loud' colour contrasts in the Tosa Mitsuoki image, simply because the effect, garish, conflicts with the kind of taste for muted effects prized in many Japanese books on 'Japanese' taste. Heian taste drifted from the Chinese love of strong colour to more demure, less extravagant tonal contrasts, from memory, and at least that is what Harunobu's work approximates to.Nishidani (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I think I've said my piece, in plain terms so anyone can understand. I think you now get what I was trying to convey.
  • Nishidani, I award you the barnstar of unearthing lesser known information, and award yourself one GOTCHA point against me for yourself on this matter. I won't pretend to have read through the work or be able to understand the original text straighaway. I can see it says someone lay by someone's side but don't even know who's talking to who from this clipped quote. This seems to me the kind of info you should be supplying in parentheses.
  • However, it's should be obvious to anyone I am talking about proper weight and balance. So unless Nishidani is now implying that the homesexuality is a major part of Lady Murasaki's world which I totally missed out on, and is now saying that this article deserves a big fat pargaraph inserted at the fore that runs something like "Murasaki Shikibu was quite comfortable with the concept of her main hero engaging in homosexual conduct as you can see from this scene from the Hahagi chapter...".. you have not made your point.
  • Next, this business of pasting {{'citation needed}} tags all over my previous statement. As I keep saying, I have sidelined this issue at Talk:Suzuki Harunobu, and there I have given cited references. Some of the others are trivial points, and would only be challenged by someone taking them in total bad faith, to put it kindly. I could address them, but I might as well use the same effort to create a mitate article, and not waste my time responding to this type of activitiy.
  • Maybe you think it's beneath you to supply reliable sources to your fanciful claims however although you add links to Talk:Suzuki Harunobu, and other artist imagery etc. you do not have a single reference backing your claim that Faith fails to illustrate Murasaki; or proving she is a woman of the pleasure quarters (not a model portraying Murasaki), or that the image is flippant, or in a pose that a woman from Murasaki's time wouldn't be caught dead doing, or that you know that Harunobu was creating a parody, - you state these things - but you don't prove these things - Apparently you don't want the Harunobu as the lede - you are entitled to your opinion in that regard...Modernist (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • By the way - In my opinion Harunobu's 350 year old interpretive portrayal of Murasaki is as legitimate as Tosa's, although they are two very different interpretations of a woman from 600 years prior to their lifetimes. By way of comparison - William Shakespeare is an example - Shakespearean plays have consistently been portrayed in modern garb many hundreds of times, - with no affront to his art...Modernist (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Nishidani keeps wanting to skew my argument. I never said that an artist like Harunobu who has created pornographic art is automatically discounted from being used. If you want I will say I favor this "Faith" piece by Harnobu being kept somewhere in the article but moved to a new section (or a gallery subsection) that discusses "Depictions of Lady Murasaki" throughout the ages, explaining that the figure is deliberately dressed in Edo style garb.
  • I disfavor "Faith" being left in the lede permanently, because I believe this is not a sober piece, in the sense that there is an element of mockery. I do not think an artistic depiction with that slant should come first, unless you have very good reasons. Yes, I admit that when I said this piece is flippant or facetious, it is based on "guilt by association" (the fact that another piece in the same series features the two boy prostitutes as pargons of "Righteousness", and an FYI piece by another artist which is a mitate onf Murasaki but depicts a courtesan/prostitute). However, if you want to get technical, "Faith" is just one print in "an untitled series depicting the gojo (five cardinal virtues)," p.141 of Hockley 2003, and nowhere on the print does it say this is Lady Murasaki. This is a surmise based on.. what may ask? --- Based on comparisons with other prints and artwork, right? So the very basis of saying this is Lady Murasaki is rather on a similar footing. And my position is that based on that surmise, you cannot reasonably argue this is an artist's good-faith portrayal that is not a mitate (parody)
    .
  • I also think it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the lede image should show the artist in Heian type garb, hairstyle, posture, etc. representing the age she lived in. If Nishidani is claiming that Tosa Mitsunobu's style has made departures from the style of early scrolls to the point that it is no longer "authentically" representing Heian costume, then he needs to say what the inauthenticities are, because frankly I don't understand his "sinocentric" mumbo-jumbo at all. I think the point is, that although Mitsuoki's lifetime is much lader than Lady Murasaki, he became chief of the court painting bureau, and had the good graces of Emperor Go-Mizunoo, and so had access to the older material in Kyoto to copy or mimic, and also had the responsibility of learning the old dress codes to a respectable level. And this is what enabled him to paint the ox-carts with the side drapes, and nobles in old garb, the people who populated Murasaki Shikibu's world, and which was a skill that other ukiyo-e artists based later in Edo could not quite match. --Kiyoweap (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I have no desire to skew your argument. I skewered an argument that introduced a totally inappropriate moral objection to the use of Harunobu's portrait. If you do not understand what 'sinocentric' means in the context of Tosa Mitsuoki's age, I suggest you read any standard work on the cultural conflicts created in Tokugawa times by the imposition of a neo-Confucian (Chinese) orthodoxy, and the 'nativist' resistance to this sinocentric moralization. If it's mumbojumbo a lot of faculties in Japanese history are stacked with mumbling witchdoctors. But to the crux.
Let us simplify.
  • There are no authentic or contemporary portraits of Murasaki Shikibu.
  • She has been depicted in imaginary representations, in numerous pictoral styles, as were scenes in her novel, for almost a thousand years.
  • We have a lead picture by Harunobu, which is contested by Oda Mari and Kiyoweap because it is not 'authentic' with regard to the Heian period. (a) the dress is not Heian but of a later period, typical of the ukiyo genre.(b) it is a mitate flippant caricature.
  • Tosa Mitsuoki as head painter for the court atelier, 絵所預, had access to earlier period costume and their representations and got the jūnihitoe (十二単衣), 12-fold Heian ceremonial dress right. Therefore he gives an 'authentic' representation of a Heian woman, like Murasaki.
  • The elephant in the room here is the assumption that Murasaki Shikibu, alone in her private quarters, before tackling the messy work of inkstone and brush to write her novel, would, each day, spend an hour or so, getting rigged out in 20 kilos, probably representing half of her physical weight, of clothing set aside for ceremonial appearances and formal encounters, in order to do her brushwork, as the 'traditionalist' Tosa Mitsuoki would have her doing. Penwork is very wristy of course, and need not be encumbered by the weight of overlayers of silk burdening an arm, but, and I'd be happy to be contradicted on this, I'm rather surprised that in a world where the slightest tonal dissonance in any part of one's formal 'public' dress could ruin forever a woman's reputation at court, that a woman would risk spotting her extremely expensive ceremonial costume silks by using brushes and ink within a few inches of the sleeves.
  • In the Safflower chapter (末摘花) of Genji, to mention one instance off the cuff (since we are obsessing about clothes), when Genji seeks an interview with the princess, Tayū hastily gets her to change her dress (よろしき御衣たてまつり変へ、つくろひきこゆれば、正身は、何の心げさうもなくておはす) so that she will be presentable to the Shining Prince.
  • I.e. ceremonial dress was one thing: what a woman wore in the privacy of her own quarters another. One dressed for the occasion, and therefore to insist that it is more 'authentic' to have Murasaki in full ceremonial rig while writing is to confuse formal and informal life. The dress may be Heian, but the scene in Tosa is as much a subjective interpretation as it is in Harunobu: Tosa depicted not Murasaki but Heian dress, which is not what the article is about. We are not looking for an authentic depiction of Heian costume, but a representation of a woman writing, and both portraits reimagine her according to the respective canons of the artist's period or school centuries later. Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
象樣, 象樣 誰が好きなのNishidani (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Resummarize on "Faith" print

  • Looks like we're getting the random joe vox populi off the streets making the casual unconsidered comment. So I'm going to try to organize the information again.
  • First, the Harunobu piece in contention is, only entitled Shin (信, "Faith, Integrity") Hockley 2003, p.141 and not "officially" a Murasaki Shikibu portrait.
  • It is one piece from a series known as the "Five Constants" (五常) or "the five cardinal virtues".
  • It is true "Faith" uses the stock composition of a woman at Ishiyama-dera, alluding to Murasaki Shikibu. But this does not allow anyone to distinguish it between an honest-to-goodness regular portrait versus a parody portrait (known as mitate-e or "yatsushi") that Harunobu was a well-known practitioner of.
  • On mitate-e, see e.g. JAANUS definition of mitate
  • One souce that explicitly says "Faith" is a mitate parody piece on a blog by Mikiko Yamauchi (ja:山内美樹子), some mystery writer. I'll grant that is not RS level, but doesn't preclude better sources from being uncovered. To go on to circumstantial evidence.
  • A piece in the "same series" as "Faith", entitled Gi (義, "Righteousness") has been commented as a mitate-e of boy prostitutes. At Talk:Suzuki Harunobu, I already referenced a book I own ((Nakamura, Shinichiro (中村真一郎); Kobayashi, Tadashi (小林忠); Saeki, Junko (佐伯順子); Hayashi, Yoshikazu (林美一) (1992). 春信 美人画と艶本 (Harunobu bijinga to enbon). Tombo no hon. Shinchosha. ISBN 4-10-602007-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help), p.26, p.45) on this, and pointed to a blog that states it at 三橋順子 (April 18, 2009). "「ｇｉｄ．ｊｐ　東京交流会」講演要旨（第１部の２）" (blog). 続・たそがれ日記. Retrieved May 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help), by a trans-gender published author, Junko Mitsuhashi (ja:三橋順子)
  • Secondly, there definitely is another Harunobu piece (詠歌 (Eika)) depicting a woman in Edo period garb, commented as a mitate parody of Murasaki Shikibu at Ishiyama temple. I cite Nakamura et al. 1992, p.40, 42, but as a courtesy I can also provide an alternate web source: Hatano, Kanji (波多野賢治) (2011). 雛形ファイルを用いたWordによる修士論文の作成－目次から参考文献の作成に至るまで－ (Google quickview of Word doc) (masters). Doshisha University.p. 13, "「詠歌（見立紫式部）」" pictured on fig. 8.
  • There are a couple of other Harunobus that use the Ishiyamadera composition (so at least four in all). One is probably not mitate, but it comes from another period using a totally different style called mizu-e (Sackler museum). Another was from Omi Hakkei series but (Kanagawa museum, cf.

blog by Tora that calls it a mitate).

  • Basically I'm saying there is no baseline reason to assume a piece is not a parody, and if you are claiming it to be a serious portrait, you have as much burden of proof. If a person is a known comedian there's no "presumption of non-comedy" on a a particular piece of work he has done. --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead

the written language of government, from which women were traditionally excluded.

Just stumbled on this from teh CD page. The sentence is slightly ambiguous.

  • The point is she learnt, unusually for a woman, Chinese.
  • Point two is that Chinese was the language of government.
  • 'from which women were usually excluded.'

Yes, women were excluded from government, but that is an almost universal fact of premodern polities. I think the intent was to highlight the fact that she learnt a language which was the privileged idiom of government, a language mastery of which was usually denied women (just as, to cite a Greek example Iphigeneia in Tauris has Iphigeneia getting her father to write a letter (lines 584ff) whereas in Hippolytus, Phaedra, exceptionally, writes her own (lines856).) It's late here but I think several authorities on Heian emphasize that mastery of Chinese was a male prerogative denied women, and that the sentence meant to say this, rather than, as it now flows, suggest (as if it were notable) that women were denied a role in government. Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that's what the sentence means. To be honest, I'm not the best with prose, so feel free to re-do it. Or I'll fix it soonish. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"Heian women were traditionally excluded from learning Chinese." I think this statement is a bit off. There were a few thousand Heian aristocrats, which is what we are discussing here, not "Heian men" or "Heian women." It's true that male aristocrats had to study Chinese formally, since it was needed in high government work, which they monopolized. Female aristocrats were less likely to formally study Chinese, since it wasn't needed. But there are several cases of aristocratic women who obviously did study Chinese, such as Lady Murasaki and Sei Shonagon. This makes sense, since Chinese literature and poetry were highly prized by the Heian aristocrats. Most of the Buddhist scriptures were also, I believe, studied in Chinese language form, so many female believers (including nuns and abbesses)would have learned Chinese to some extent. 38.96.155.221 (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary linking

Is there some precedent for linking each of the characters in "紫式部" to Wiktionary? It's the first I've come across it, and I'm not sure it's very helpful. The shikibu was a department of the government, but I think it's unlikely one could divine that from examining the individual characters that make up the word. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I took a desultory trawl through history and looks like it's been that way for a while. I don't have a problem with them being unlinked. Victoria (tk) 22:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Victoriaearle: I saw your reversion of my edit about the gallery. I'm reviewing the article because I'm considering nominating it at WP:TFA for November 3, which is Culture Day in Japan. I'm not too bothered if the gallery remains, although I think it would be better if the images were distributed throughout the article instead.

Can you take a look through the article and ensure that the prose is still FA worthy? This will ensure that there are few problems at TFA. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Z1720, you beat me to posting a comment. There isn't really enough text-to-image ration to incorporate the images - the page is already quite image heavy. But because of the importance that Murasaki Shikibu had and continues to have, there were some images spanning centuries that went into a gallery instead and no-one has ever complained about it. I just happened to peek in and it was the first page on my watchlist.
In terms of TFA or reviewing text, will do what I can, but I'm not always able to be around. Thanks for posting about it now - that at least gives some time. Generally this article has been very stable, so it should really be fine. But will take a look when I get the chance. Victoria (tk) 03:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@Victoriaearle: After a couple of quick skims, I'm not overly concerned about this article. Although I would like to see some more recent scholarship (many sources are available at WP:LIBRARY) I think that the vast amount of high-quaity sources already in the article renders this as not necessary. Also, a lot of the sources seem analyse The Tale of Genji, which shouldn't overwhelm this article and belongs in The T of G article. Unless someone comes around with concerns about missing information, I am not concerned about this article running at TFA. I would love to hear other's thoughts below. Z1720 (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I won't complain if you think it needs to go to FAR; but I'd be massively disappointed. The scholarship is good. Bowring is pretty much the best scholar and I've kept an eye on the scholarship. But it seems that you're asking for a rewrite? I don't agree. The information about Genji should be here; she was a female writer 1000 year ago (about whom we know virtually nothing, not even her name); who, by some accounts the first ever novelist, and we shouldn't stint on her accomplishments. This has never been a very well trafficked page, but sure, go ahead and get other opinions. Of course anyone can tear down and rewrite. Just not sure why that's needed? Victoria (tk) 03:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@Victoriaearle: I think there might have been a misinterpretation: I don't think this article is anywhere close to needing to go to FAR. I don't think this article needs a rewrite, but incorporating more recent academic sources might be helpful. I'm going to nominate it TFA (which I do not do for articles that need an FAR) and any additional feedback is welcome. Z1720 (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
To interrupt, but saying " don't think this article needs a rewrite, but incorporating more recent academic sources might be helpful" is hopelessly unhelpful....has research really advanced that much in the last twelve years? I seriously doubt it, and the ask of swapping out sources seems like busy work. Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Asking to incorporate more recent sources is the sort of thing that lands on a talk page in preparation to sending to FAR. If new sources are needed for TFA, then the article needs to go to FAR & the requisite time available for a rewrite. New sources = rewrite. Rewrite = time. If all that's being asked for is new sources but to keep the existing text, that's not something I would ever consider doing, without rewriting because text has to be based on sources cited - as it is now. If it's too degraded, the sourcing too old, then, really, it shouldn't go to TFA. Victoria (tk) 14:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
This article is not about a particle collider; just because some of the most impactful scholarly literature was written >6 months ago does not invalidate it as appropriate source material, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Rereading, Z1720 is saying that they will nom at "TFA (which I do not do for articles that need an FAR)" but "but incorporating more recent academic sources might be helpful". Re the might part, I think we are saying there its not required in this instance. That's my position anyway. Ceoil (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
In other words, I think we might all be saying the same thing. Z1720 is a reviewer who openly does not know the lith, asked for feedback, and we are saying its fine. Correct? Ceoil (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Possibly, dunno. Yesterday I had my sandbox notes undeleted, checked the Wikipedia Library, and looked at the sources I'd used. There's perhaps too much emphasis on Arthur Waley, which on the face of it does look like a dated source. The thing is, he was an early translator to English and laid the foundation for early scholarship, so he should be cited. That said, I now own Richard Bowring's translation of the diary, which is more recent scholarship. There aren't any biographies of Murasaki Shikibu. What exists are either entries in tertiary source - searching the Wikipedia Library shows a fair number of those - or chapters/introductions/appendices in books about Genji or The Diary of Lady Murasaki. Bowring's chapter is very good; Haruo Shirane's is also very good but I don't have access to it and can't see it on g-books or anywhere else. Not finding anything more recent I'd want to use. I did find one source I might try to incorporate, but the title is more enticing than its contents from a quick skim. When I can I'll go through the article, (and now isn't the time, sorry, but well, same old, same old, so will be back when able), and try to replace some of bits sourced to Waley with Bowring. But it won't be swapping since the scholars tend to take a scrap of manuscript, parse & analyse. Not all the analyses are the same. That's the best I can do. Looking at my notes, I'm satisfied with the work done here. That said, I guess I can kinda sorta understand why it looks like the sources are dated. Apologies for the rambling reply - wanted to get this all down for a full understanding. Apologies to Z1720 for crankiness and overreactions. I'm not feeling well and this honestly felt insurmountable to me. Still feels like a heavy lift & I really can't edit frequently, but will do my best. Victoria (tk) 02:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
P.s - pls don't ask for citation templates to be added. That would be insurmountable. Victoria (tk) 02:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Naaa - the comments were pre-main page rather than a pre FAR orientated. Because I'm knee deep in three other FAR type reviews atm (sex pistols, Doolittle and Casper David Friedrich) cannot get too deep into this, or will go insane, but I'm not seeing any serious concerns here *from anybody*. Ceoil (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
But I do understand the fear. There was recent main page activity (POD) around Crucifixion and Last Judgement Diptych re the frame, and that se off alarm bells in that the work is so complex, and the sources so academic, that revisiting would be another year long, deep dive, project. Im at the stage now that someone is eventually going to come up with a new criteria that all these are going to be delisted eventually, and fine; as if readers would care. I was only ever using FA as a means to gather quality reviews and delisting doesn't take fro the page, it just make it loose a small star at the top that no reader understands anyway :) Ceoil (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Looks like it's moot because I think the scheduling for November is already underway. So a few days of work for no reason. Oh well. Don't worry about the Crucifiction - I'm sure there are sandbox notes floating around for that :) I do wonder, though, why the page was moved, but don't wonder enough to raise the issue. I did miss the other activity re frame, but thought that had been resolved years ago? These days when I can get here all I want to do is hide in a quiet corner, work on an article of my choosing that brings me joy. I was going nicely on the Limbourg brothers before getting sidetracked. If Murasaki won't be going to the main page, then I'll happily go back there, because once there's more text, it will be a pretty page. Could not agree more re delisting/stars/FAR etc. Victoria (tk) 20:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murasaki_Shikibu/Archive_2&oldid=1189144673"