Jump to content

Talk:Huaju

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 23:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
The Wilderness, 2007
The Wilderness, 2007
  • ... that modern Chinese drama (example pictured) resisted attempts to integrate traditional forms until after it was banned in the Cultural Revolution?
  • Source: Liu, Siyuan (2023). "The "Deep Realism" of Style: From Michel Saint-Denis to Huang Zuolin". In Nakamura, Jessica; Saltzman-Li, Katherine (eds.). Realisms in East Asian Performance. University of Michigan Press. pp. 233–251. doi:10.3998/mpub.12254299. ISBN 978-0-472-07642-0. JSTOR 10.3998/mpub.12254299.18. for the 1920s; Liu, Siyuan (2017). "'Spoken Drama (Huaju) with a Strong Chinese Flavour': The Resurrection and Demise of Popular Spoken Drama (Tongsu Huaju) in Shanghai in the 1950s and Early 1960s". Theatre Research International. 42 (3): 265–285. doi:10.1017/S030788331700058X. for the 1950s; MacKerras, Colin (2008). "Tradition, Change, and Continuity in Chinese Theatre in the Last Hundred Years: In Commemoration of the Spoken Drama Centenary". Asian Theatre Journal. 25 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1353/atj.2008.0012. JSTOR 27568433. for today
Created by Crisco 1492 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 717 past nominations.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article is new enough, long enough, and within policy. Citations are used throughout to reliable sources, and no copyright violations are detected. Photo licensing checks out and can be used. The hooks are interesting, but both of them have some issues. To begin with, I don't think we can pipe in "Chinese spoken drama" or "spoken drama" as a substitute for Huaju. It's not specific enough, particularly because there is a whole genre of revolutionary model dramas that were made during the Cultural Revolution under the support of Jiang Qing. These are also "Chinese spoken dramas". "Chinese modern drama" would probably be an acceptable substitute. The alt 1 hook would be acceptable with just this minor change. The original hook, however, is currently not usable because the hook fact is not directly stated anywhere in the article. It needs to be explicitly stated with similar language in the article's prose text followed by an end-of-sentence citation in order to pass DYK review. Please ping me when these issues are solved. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Hi 4meter4. I have made the change to "Modern Chinese drama". The hook fact is cited in several sentences:
  • Although most troupes embraced high levels of realism, some – such as the national theatre movement under Yu Shangyuan – sought to maintain hybridity in stage performances and thereby retain elements of Chinese culture.[9] Critics of this movement, most of whom were students, decried it as capitulating to feudal norms, and it was quashed by the end of the decade.[11]
  • Efforts by civilized drama writers such as Xu Banmei to again reintegrate traditional operatic forms into huaju, under the name tongsu huaju (popular spoken drama), gained some traction in the late 1950s, but were ultimately futile.[14]
  • During the Cultural Revolution that began in 1966, huaju was branded a "poisonous weed" and banned.[1]
  • Others, such Sun Huizhu and Fei Chunfang, incorporated elements of Chinese opera into their performances.[16]
Could you indicate where in WP:DYKCRIT it is stated that the hook fact must be stated in similar language? I have reviewed the criteria, and I do not see this stated. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492 I'm not going to approve a hook fact I can't obviously find in an article as those kind of hooks tend to get pulled/challenged at WP:ERRORS. You are welcome to raise this at the DYK talk page, but I doubt that any reviewer or admin would be willing to approve or promote this hook without having the hook fact more clearly stated in the article. Even in the text you've provided in quotes above I'm not overtly seeing the hook fact between them. In effect you've created a hook through synthesis which could be challenged on the main page; particularly because it requires analysis on the part of the reader. This violates the WP:DYKCITE and WP:SYNTH policies. I can however, approve alt 1.4meter4 (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel strongly enough about ALT0 to go to WT:DYK; that's one of the reasons I provided ALT1. That being said, I am going to note that the combination of facts from different references has a long history on the main page (the upcoming Charel Allen has one, for example), so I do not believe that this application of the DYKCRIT is correct.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492 I agree that combined hooks do get approved, and I have approved several of those hooks when appropriate. I believe I did so on your most recent hook which I also reviewed, and it was a combined hook. Traditionally those hooks have clearly stated the hook fact(s) in the article using nearly identical language to that found in the hook in sentences followed by inline citations. You have not done that in this case. It's not clear to me at all that "feudal norms" for example is equivalent to "traditional norms" as a whole which could encompass time periods outside that time frame that are also seen as "traditional", or that the specificity of traditional operatic forms is necessarily equivalent to the breadth of all traditional norms found in traditional Chinese drama (were traditional things other than opera accepted?). That may be due to my lack of overall expertise in the area (in which case the hook fails for requiring "specialized knowledge" under WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE), but the fact that it isn't obvious to me tells me that the article isn't clear about the hook fact. That's a problem.4meter4 (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Approving Alt1 only. This hook can be promoted.4meter4 (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So how is this different from Western drama at all?

[edit]

From the description, I don't understand how this is different from Western(-style) drama, apart from the fact that it is written and performed in the Chinese language. By this logic, there would have to be a special word for, say, Czech drama. Does standard Western drama (think Ibsen, Chekhov, Shaw), whether performed in the original language or in Chinese translation, count as Huaju? If not, why not? 62.73.72.3 (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sources indicate that translated adaptations of foreign works are categorized as huaju. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the distinction, most East Asian countries have a marked socio-cultural difference in their adaptation of Western dramatism. The Japanese shinpa was an intermediary form, which led to the more westernized shingeki form. The Indonesian peoples had various forms of dance theatre and puppetry, while writers such as Roestam Effendi later took influence from Dutch drama to create a modern form (though most of the earliest drama there was intended for reading rather than performance); the current situation there has started drawing from traditional theatre more, as seen in the works of Nano Riantiarno as well as the films of Garin Nugroho. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Highly formalised'

[edit]

'It remained highly formalized, despite efforts to introduce elements of Chinese opera, through the 1960s.'

I don't see how incorporating elements of Chinese opera could possibly have made the genre less formalised, because Chinese opera is about as highly formalised as any genre can be. Maybe some other meaning was intended? 62.73.72.3 (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • They were both highly formalized, but using a different "formal". Efforts to innovate by integrating elements of non-Western drama were resisted well into the 1960s; once they had an Ibsen-esque realistic drama, the mainstream stuck with it and resisted further change (and the post May Fourth Movement mainstream was very much against anything that seemed to be harkening back to the pre-Republican era) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Huaju&oldid=1263630022"