Talk:Admonitions Scroll

Viewing

An impressive piece! Might it not be better to say, instead of: "Since 1914 the painting has been housed in the North Wing of the British Museum, although it is not currently on public display" something like "The scroll is very rarely on display for conservation reasons, but it will be displayed in the exhibition marking the end of the A History of the World in 100 Objects"? I think this isa the case. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any refs for an end of AHOW exhibition that will publicly exhibit the Admonitions Scroll. If you have a reliable source for this please make the change. BabelStone (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I couldn't see anything on the websites, but I'm sure I have seen it somewhere. Your inside contact would know. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but you know that we can't just go by word of mouth. There will be time to add something when the exhibition is publicly announced. BabelStone (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Allignment

I think this is a brilliant article and would love to see more of its kind produced on WP. I was wondering though whether the passages of verse underneath the scroll pictures might be easier to read if they were accompanied by their English translation on the same line, like this:

玄熊攀檻，馮媛趍進。When a black bear climbed out of its cage, Lady Feng rushed forward.

夫豈無畏？知死不恡！How could she have been without fear? She knew she might be killed, yet she did not care.

Waygugin (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought about laying it out that way, but I was concerned that some lines would be too long, and wrap for some screen resolutions. But if you think it would look better in columns as below (using column markup to give better spacing between the English and Chinese) give it a go.

玄熊攀檻，馮媛趍進。 夫豈無畏？知死不恡！

When a black bear climbed out of its cage, Lady Feng rushed forward. How could she have been without fear? She knew she might be killed, yet she did not care.

BabelStone (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured image nomination

The image File:Gu Kaizhi 001.jpg has been nominated for Featured Image status at EN Wikipedia, ZH Wikipedia and Commons. Some users may be interested in participating in the nomination discussion. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Admonitions Scroll/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The focus of this article is confusing and the article should be reworded to state the subject more strongly.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I will take me some time to go through the article in detail, however few initial observations:

• I am a little confused about the article's focus: Is the article focussing on Admonitions Scroll - a Chinese narrative painting (which has two copies: British Museum copy and Palace Museum copy) OR just the Admonitions Scroll painting in the British Museum? Based on the answer, I can comment on GA criterion 3.

• I agree, that is a little unclear, and it was something that troubled me as I wrote the article. The article was intended to be about the painting in the British Museum, but it is impossible to discuss it in isolation, especially as it has lost sections that are present in the Palace Museum copy. I do not see any need for a separate article on the Palace Museum copy, so I included information on the Palace Museum copy that I thought was necesssary to help understand the British Museum copy. I would welcome suggestions to improve the lead in this respect. BabelStone (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Using the Palace Museum copy for explanation of the first three scenes is OK, but it was wordings like "The British Museum copy of the painting" that suggest the former. Change "The British Museum copy of the painting" to "the painting" then. Restrict the article to the British Museum painting. The current content about Palace Museum copy is sufficient: no more, no less. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Organization: "Authorship and dating" is part of the "History" of the painting. I suggest you have 1 History section with subsections: Background, Authorship and dating, later history about circulation and Palace Museum copy. The last para of background, may be more appropriate in authorship.

• Sounds like a good idea to me. BabelStone (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• "a didactic text aimed at Empress Jia (257–300), consort of Emperor Hui of Jin (r. 290–301), whose violent and immoral behaviour was outraging the court." Emperor's or Empress' violent behaviour????

• I will clarify that sentence. BabelStone (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• What is the reference for the translations of the poem? Add it after every translation.

• The translation was my biggest obstacle to writing this article. I have been unable to find any English translation which is not under copyright, and Wikipedia guidelines would prohibit quoting the entire text under fair use. In the end, I was forced to provide my own translation of the text (which I believe I am competent and qualified to do). This may be considered OR by some, but given that many Wikipedia articles are translated wholesale from other language wikipedias, I do not think that translation is in itself original research. This approaach also has the advantage that other users and readers can correct or improve on the translation. BabelStone (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The translation will be considered OR here. Translating poetry is not a wiki-editor's work. Poem have puns, similes etc. which may mean different things to different people. You need to use an expert's translation word-by-word and attribute it to him as done in Ganesha#Aum. IMO, it qualifies per No free equivalent of . Can you find an old translation of the scroll, which is in PD? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• I appreciate that the translation may be considered OR. Unfortunately there is no PD version of the English text, and Wikipedia:Non-free content clearly states "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea ... Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." It may be that this issue is a show stopper, and the GAN will have to be failed. BabelStone (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I would not consider it "extensive" in this case. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• There is excessive Chinese in "History". suggest removal of it all, retaining only pinyin.

• I will see if I can prune any unnecessary Chinese character. I like to provide the Chinese characters for the names of people for whom there is no Wikipedia article as that makes it much easier for readers to identify them and search for more information about them on the internet, but there is no need for Chinese characters where these are already given in the linked article. BabelStone (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It is irritating for a non-Chinese to read (see) too much Chinese, which obstructs reading. Removing all Chinese except name of the painting. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think you are wrong here. I will consider putting back Chinese characters that I think are useful, as many readers of such an article as this will know Chinese and find the Chinese useful. I haven't check the MOS yet, but I don't think that there is any prohibition against giving foreign language/script versions of names where appropriate. BabelStone (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really a GAN issue, though a readability issue. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• There is a in Makeup of the scroll and in the current History section.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please ping me after all the reorganization is complete and these issues are settled. This article is on hold till 19th October. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I will not have much time for Wikipedia over the next few days, but I will let you know if I am able to resolve these issues by 19th October. BabelStone (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

GA FAIL --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright of translations

Considering the points raised in the GA review with respect to the article needing a published translation, perhaps an early translation could be used (considering a number of people were studying the text around 1910)? Any translation published before 1942 and where the author died before 1942 is unambiguously out of copyright. I find the following reference

• Binyon, Laurence; KU, K'ai-chih; British Museum. Dept. of Prints and Drawings (1912), Admonitions of the Instructress in the Palace. A painting by Ku K'ai-chih ... reproduced in coloured woodcut. Text by Laurence Binyon, London, OCLC 561866736
• "Review of Admonitions of the Instructress in the Palace", The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, 24, Oct., 1913, vol. 24, no. 127: 50–51, ISSN 0951-0788, OCLC 480949550{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

I suggest that any translation (or accurate re-print thereof) is either not under copyright (in the case of any extracts in the above magazine) or about to have copyright expire as Binyon (via the BM Trustees) published the translation in 1912 and Binyon died in 1943 Laurence Binyon. Now we might have to wait until 2013 unless someone can find an earlier publication. Fæ (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Tiny detail about Gu Kaizhi controversy

On whether Gu Kaizhi painted the scroll (though it bears his signature, it is not originally recorded as having been painted by him): the main article doesn't note this discrepancy, but Britannica catches it: "Admonitions" is a thoroughly Confucian text, while Gu Kaizhi's painting "Nymph of the Luo River" and his essay "On Painting the Cloud Terrace Mountain" were both Daoist; that's quite an eclectic spread of sentiments to express in art. Not a debunking-level split, just an eyebrow-raiser. Worth mentioning? – _•Raven  ^.talk 00:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what discrepancy you think this article has missed. The "Authorship and dating" section covers the "controversy" of whether Gu Kaizhi painted it or not in some detail. Incidentally, although the painting does now bear the signature of Gu Kaizhi, that is believed to have been added in the late Ming dynasty by its then owner, Xiang Yuanbian, which is something that the Britannica article does not catch. BabelStone (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Babelstone, that's right, that's the existing topic in the article to which I addressed this comment, and which "controversy" I summarized in the first clause. The "tiny detail" concerned not what the section already contained, but what it left out. ● "I'm not quite sure what discrepancy you think this article has missed." – That would be what was discussed following the words "this discrepancy" and the subsequent colon, the bit about the Admonitions Scroll being Confucian while those other works by Gu Kaizhi were Daoist. The section doesn't already mention that. It's the sort of discrepancy in attitudes that would raise doubts if we were discussing attributions for, say, pseudonymous works of American political philosophy, and we wanted to know whether the same person might have written both rigidly rules-upholding and radically rules-rejecting political manifestos. – _•Raven  ^.talk 08:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This just tells you that Britannica is obsolete. The notion that somebody couldn't have painted a "Confucian" painting because he also did a "Daoist" one is absurd. More to the point, this sentence in the article overstates the case: "art historians determined on stylistic grounds that the painting cannot have been produced during the Jin Dynasty, and therefore cannot be an original work by Gu Kaizhi." I don't believe it's by Gu Kaizhi either, but in the very book that's cited here (McCausland 2003), Richard M. Barnhardt leaves open the possibility that it really was by Gu Kaizhi after all (p. 88). So let's not pretend that the case is closed.--98.111.164.239 (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)