User talk:GaryD144

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, GaryD144, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! – Aillema 22:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Toyohara Chikanobu[edit]

Hello, in response to this: [1], I don't think I have edited that page before. Did you perhaps contact the wrong person? --Hdt83 Chat 23:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at my recent edits. Perhaps these small changes will suggest further edits. If so, please do not hesitate to modify this section or any other section in whatever way seems best. --Tenmei (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Treaty of Chemulpo. Please see explanation at Talk:Toyohara Chikanobu#Treaty of Chemulpo. In addition, please review the edit history at Toyohara Chikanobu. You will notice that the edit summary does suggest that further explanation will be found on the talk page --
  • dif 22:24, 22 July 2010 Tenmei (talk|contribs) m (23,834 bytes) (→Career: moving to talk page the Korean Riots of 1882 leading to the Treaty of Chemulpo?)
If my prose on the talk page is unclear, please give me a chance to explain again in different words. I want to work with you, not cause unwelcome confusion. --Tenmei (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edit here represents the conventional spelling which has been established for this article -- Yōshū, not Yoshu.

I draw no inferences from the absence of macrons in The Japan Times or Christie's sale page. The relevant citations were not homogenized with the spelling of the first paragraph of the article. Please do feel free to create spelling consistency in this article. I hope in future you will not construe my neutral intentions or questions as disputing or disagreeing.


There is an inherent flaw in the otherwise reasonable approach you have taken to this subject. This doesn't in any way imply or impute factual error Please try to understand that this so-called "flaw" appears to be somewhat outside the ambit of your off-wiki expectations.

A core principle of Wikipedia is "verifiability" which means something different in this online venue than in real life. This concept is summarized in this way:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

You appear to be primarily concerned with whether something is true/not true or correct/incorrect. Yes, this is a core element of academic credibility; however, verifiability, as construed in our Wikipedia venue, means something a little bit different. If it becomes a problem at some point in the future, we can address this together at that time. --Tenmei (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly:
A writer mistranlates a word, misunderstands a sentence and has this information published (even though it is untrue), it then becomes gospel as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Is this what you are saying? GaryD144 (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Reductio ad absurdum -- yes. Obviously, an absurd outcome is not the ultimate goal of this core policy. Compare WP:Fringe; but yes, sometimes the logical reasoning of WP:V has produced an unwelcome consequence. For example, you may be interested in a strange thread which unwinds at Talk:Sakanoue no Tamuramaro.
I do not want to be argumentative, but perhaps I do need to mention that WP:V is to be construed in conjunction with advisories which emphasize that Wikipedia allows no original research. A difficult concept for me is the policy which discourages synthesis.
I am no expert on these matters, but I did notice that there are no specific sources cited which would make clear -- even to someone who knowns nothing about Japanese art -- that the article about Toyohara Chikanobu is reliably accurate. I simply mention it; and you are free to ignore this observation, if you like.
If this is not a topic which interests you, that's also fine; but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the repeating footnote appears to be an elegant way to convey "formatting information;" but another, better option may develop in due course. Who knows?
Yes, the editing plan you propose seems elegant as well. In my view, articles about other Japanese artists may well come to emulate the standards set by your edits to Toyohara Chikanobu. In other words, yes, of course — do add "genres" (sensō-e, bijin-ga, etc.)
Thank you for soliciting my opinion, but in all modesty, I feel compelled to assure you that your scholarly approach to this subject is superior to mine. --Tenmei (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Your question about the Japan Times citation caused me to pause because it inspires a yes-and-no response.
  • Yes, delete the citation -- almost any other source is likely superior to this one; and yes, in the way you frame the question, the arguably unhelpful redundancy becomes apparent.
  • No, don't delete the citation -- until some other alternate source replicates the potential usefulness, I would not take it out; but you are free to follow your own judgment. You may not find my reasoning persuasive; and perhaps others will decide that my rationale is not on-point?
If you recall, you questioned my use of the verb "encompass" in an awkwardly-drafted sentence. I didn't know what you meant; and in response, I tried to be very, very explicit in identifying supportive citations for that sentence and elsewhere in the article. A priori, I assume that you and I agree that the Boshin War "encompasses" the Battle of Ueno. The Japan Times mentions the war and the Miyako shimbun mentions the battle. In my view, the need to address a range of potential readers is a good enough reason for keeping the redundant newspaper citations — it's not a case of keeping the two despite the fact that the same facts are included in the 1912 news story, but because the same thing was explained in different words. I also wondered if the editorial decision-making of these Japanese newspapers might be a good guide for drafting the Wikipedia text. On one hand, this point is trivial; but it does provide an opportunity to amplify part of my editing strategy.
These are only my opinions; and you should feel free to disagree. I don't know what is better or best in this instance. --Tenmei (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Uploading images[edit]

GENRES What I would like to accomplish (with your help) is to place a copy of #28 just to the right of "bijin-ga" as an example. I am unsure of how to accomplish this.GaryD144 (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The column on the right of every page includes a "toolbox" section. Clicking on "upload" will bring you to an appropriate uploading page with what are supposed to be "user-friendly" instructions. You can upload any image which has been stored somewhere on your hard drive -- on your desktop, for example.
The process is somtimes a bit tricky, but perhaps you will find it to be a little easier than you imagine? You will find an arguably useful template by clicking on "edit" at [[File:Suzuki Harunobu 001.jpg]]? This image of two women is to be found at Nishiki-e. I hope these small comments are enough to get you started? If more specific questions cross your mind, please don't hesitate to share them with me. I will try to help, if I can. --Tenmei (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
An illustration of the process is here and here
After the image is uploaded, the process of posting it on an article page involves posting double brackets ("[[")title of image.jpg + thumb + right + size (___px) + description of image ... and closing the instructions with another set of double brackets ("]]"). Size can be varied in whatever way you choose, or the size can be a default size. I hope this is useful information. --Tenmei (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I hope the template galleries I've posted at Toyohara Chikanobu will work out well. Hopefully, this can be as easy as "fill in the blank" ...? If you want to learn more about this process, see Wikipedia:Gallery tag and Help:Images#Gallery of images. --Tenmei (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, these images do lead the reader beyond the threshold of a survey of the life of an artist into an examination of the work which made him notable in his own time and in ours. Yes, the format effectively leads the reader towards closer scrutiny and analysis.
The clearest demonstration of the success of your plan is seen in comparison with the randomly distributed gallery at Utagawa Kuniyoshi. I am able and willing to applaud; but I can't really offer the kind of critical eye which will help you discern options for improving or tweaking what you've already accomplished. Your serial achievements in developing Toyohara Chikanobu deserve attention from those with finer sensibilities than mine. Thank you for allowing me to work with you in a supporting role. --Tenmei (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
For your convenience in future -- see Gregorian calendar/nengō conversion chart associated with succession box at bottom of the page at Meiji period. I hope this will prove to be helpful in other instances than this one. --Tenmei (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Inviting a 2nd opinion[edit]

I have asked Durova to offer opinions about Toyohara Chikanobu#Genres.

I have reached out to here at User talk:Durova#Meiji era ukiyo-e. Perhaps her comments {and her expertise with digital images) will prove more helpful than mine? --Tenmei (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've also contacted Bamse at User talk:Bamse#Meiji era ukiyo-e. His current interests are explained at User:Bamse/National Treasures of Japan. I wonder if this might mean a slightly different kind of feedback than I'm able to provide. --Tenmei (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe there isn't a more elegant way to format galleries? For now, this may be as good as it gets?
Bamse's response to my inquiries mentions that "the MOS discourages image galleries" ... and I will look into this further. In my opinion, the images you uploaded are helpful in reaching towards an understanding that words alone cannot convey. ---Tenmei (talk)
As you continue to improve the galleries, it is prudent to plan how you will defend the decision-making which informs your work. In this context, please consider
From my point of view, the added images enhance my understanding of this artist; but there may be those who may decide to dispute this. --Tenmei (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
All artists (sculptor, playwright, painter, poet, etc,) throughout history, East and West, have been identified by the manner in which they treat the various genres and media available to them. An olio of da Vinci's œuvre would not just be confusing, but would be a great disservice, in each case, to the casual reader, the student, and the reseacher. Defining the genres and providing a number of examples of each would be an invaluable service that Wikipedia could provide.GaryD144 (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I do agree that the galleries enhance the usefulness of this article; but Bamse's mild observation causes me to think ahead, to image what unwanted problems might develop, etc. At best, my worries will come to naught. --Tenmei (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


There may be a more elegant way to accomplish what you want to do with the Chikanobu galleries. Perhaps the formatting at Utagawa Kuniyoshi#Themes can be modified to meet your needs in this article?

My proposed solution mixes column-formatting and gallery-formatting. As far as I know, no one has attempted to do anything like this in other contexts. --Tenmei (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Name of the artist[edit]

Please comment on something I've done today in light of the reasoning in the thread at User talk:Tenmei#Category Naming on Commons.

In a few image captions, I substituted Yōshū Chikanobu for Toyohara Chikanobu in the captions of ukiyo-e images on the following pages:

The captions explicitly identify the artist; and since the obituary verifies that he most often used Yōshū Chikanobu in signing artwork, this choice does seem arguably reasonable and verified.

However, when I refer to this artist in any Wikipedia context except captions, I will use Toyohara Chikanobu because this is the name of the article about the artist.

For example, at Utagawa Kuniyoshi#Pupils, I wrote: "Among those influenced by Kuniyoshi was Toyohara Chikanobu."

Is this a good step in the right direction? Is my reasoning transparent? What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


Please see Talk:Toyohara Chikanobu#Image galleries. This anticipates unhelpful criticism which -- hopefully -- may never become a problem. --19:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Tweaking citation[edit]

I'm having a little problem with a recent edit. Please consider tweaking this citation:

  • Till, Barry, "Woodblock Prints of Meiji Japan (1868-1912): A View of History Though Art", Arts of Asia, Vol. XL, no.4, pp. 76-98

If I wanted to look at pages 76-98 in the library, I suspect that I would have trouble finding them. Among other suggestions, please add year of publication.

A reasonable question I might ask: Is this volume 15 related to

I enjoy following as the serial edits which help me learn more about Toyohara Chikanobu. --Tenmei (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I have the volume at home and will add the info as you suggest when I return there after May.GaryD144 (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Please note: This is volume 40 (XL), not volume 15 (XV), year of publication is 2010. Should you want to read the article, the publication is available to you in my library. I will tweak the reference and add the year of publication. GaryD144 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Intro and Names[edit]

Does the tweaked introduction text convey the relevant information? Are you satisfied with edits in the "Names" section? --Tenmei (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Thank you, but of course I would much prefer to see order of the names reversedGaryD144 (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC) I would really like to see it read: Yōshū Chikanobu (楊洲周延) (1838–1912), also known as Toyohara Chikanobu (豊原周延), was a prolific woodblock artist of Japan's Meiji period. Can you see your way clear to write it thus?GaryD144 (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Images of the Russo-Japanese War (Nichi-Ro Sensō) by Chikanobu[edit]

Although I have seen a number of Russo-Japanese war battle triptychs by Chikanobu's students, I have been unable to find any images of the Russo-Japanese War (Nichi-Ro Sensō) by Chikanobu himself. I am quoting the one reference listed: "Christie's, New York: Lot 76/Sale 1702, 21 September 2006; excerpt, "Toyohara Chikanobu (1838-1912)... Twenty-four triptychs: Nisshin sensoki (Report of the Sino-Japanese War), signed Yoshu Chikanobu, published by Maki Kinnosuke, 1895.3.6; along with twenty-three triptychs of various subjects, most Sino-Japanese war battles, several Russo-Japanese war battles on land and sea, two of officials at treaty negotiations, most signed Yoshu Chikanobu, variously published;" Artelino, "Japanese War Prints" citing Shumpei Okamoto. (1983). Impressions of the Front: Woodcuts of the Sino Japanese War, 1894-95, Philadelphia Museum of Art, OCLC 179964815" Please note the word: most. I have not seen this catalog; the wording is unclear so that the reader remains unaware whether the scenes of the Russo-Japanese war battles were signed by Chikanobu or another artist. Until this catalog is produced, I would strongly recommend that all references to Chikanobu and scenes of the Russo-Japanese War be eliminated. GaryD144 (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I might be able to help by locating a copy of the Christie's catalog ...? --Tenmei (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in providing more information to the public about this lesser known artist of the Meiji period.
I believe that all references to Chikanobu's prints of the Russo-Japanese War should be deleted, particularly since this one and only reference is highly confusing and not at all definitive. Again, I have not seen any print or other piece of evidence that decisively showed or stated that a Russo-Japanese War print was signed/created by Chikanobu. There have been several galleries (and, unfortunately one museum) displaying such prints; these have been
1. undated (and the title incorrectly read),
2. incorrectly read dates (a print of warships in the "Russo-Japanese War" dated Meiji 28, which was the Sino-Japanese War),
3. incorrectly read signature (a Nobukazu signature mistakenly read as Chikanobu).
Until a scholarly article with a verifiable reference or a catalog (or print) showing/with a verifiable date and signature, I would prefer to remove all statements (the information can be replaced at a later date once the references are verified) referring to "Chikanobu's prints of the Nichi-Ro Sensō". Do you agree?GaryD144 (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I defer to your good judgment. As the primary contributor to this article, your argument becomes an example of leadership. You present a reasonable assessment of the weight to be accorded this one aspect of a well-developed subject. --Tenmei (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I am removing my objection to the lack of proof of Chikanobu's prints of the Nichi-Ro Sensō: I just had the opportunity to examine a triptych of the Russo-Japanese War signed by Chikanobu; albeit in terrible condition - it is unquestionably typical of Chikanobu's work of that period dated Meiji 37 (1904).
I think I understand what you are trying to do with the article and will withhold all comments until you have completed the changes you feel will improve it. Again, thank you for your interest. GaryD144 (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Expanded Review[edit]

Your good work in developing Toyohara Chikanobu has gone unnoticed for too long. I have taken some small steps to remedy this oversight:

This review process may include suggestions which you are free to accept or reject. --Tenmei (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI -- see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Toyohara Chikanobu and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts#Toyohara Chikanobu. --Tenmei (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Please give some thought to the comments and suggestions Bamse offers here.
  • Responding to one suggestion, I created a sub-article List of works by Toyohara Chikanobu. You will see that only part of the text you created has been moved entire -- unchanged -- to this list article.
  • The "Publishers" section in the sub-article responds to another peer review suggestion -- that "it is not a good idea to use '[1], [2],...' in different ways: once for references and once for publishers. Possibly something like <ref group="pub">Publisher one</ref> for the publishers could avoid this confusion." The inline notes in this section are very complicated; and this may be a good step towards making the notes more helpful.
Just to be clear: My only purpose is to try to be helpful, but the next decisions are yours. --Tenmei (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I wonder what you think about the comments here? --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

This article was removed from Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/ToDo. --Tenmei (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

  • diff 13:31, 17 July 2011 Tenmei (1,387 bytes) (Peer Review -- removing Toyohara Chikanobu pending edits suggested by peer review)
  • diff 14:21, 7 July 2011 Tenmei (1,409 bytes) (Good article nominations -- removing Toyohara Chikanobu pending edits suggested by peer review)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, GaryD144. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, GaryD144. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)