Talk:Toyohara Chikanobu

Classification

It's a minor thing, I know, but I am wondering what the issue is with describing Chikanobu as an ukiyo-e artist. I have on several occasions edited the second sentence of the article to read "Like most ukiyo-e artists..." or "Like most artists in the ukiyo-e genre..." and every time, my changes have been reverted to the far vaguer "Like most artists involved in the production of ukiyo-e..."

Describing artists involved in the production of ukiyo-e as "ukiyo-e artists" is far from an uncommon or unusual practice; neither is it a Western (English-language) invention, as the word 浮世絵師 ukiyo-e-shi is a perfectly normal and commonly used term in Japanese.

Chikanobu certainly was an ukiyo-e artist, just as much as Harunobu, Kiyonaga, or Utamaro were. So why is he not being described as one? LordAmeth 23:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sentences without citation support

These sentences convey no useful information:

• An album of twenty-five triptychs was published in 1877 by several artists, <:ref>Okumura Toshinobu, Hasegawa Sadanobu, Nakai Yoshitaki, Suzuki Toshimoto, et al.</ref> including Chikanobu, which brought to light the events of this important domestic insurrection, known as the Satsuma Rebellion.

/////This was a album of war scenes (triptychs) offered for sale by a gallery in the United States. In all likelihood the publisher of this album hired the aforementioned artists to create these scenes of this war and then published them in a single book. What I am attempting to point out: there were some publishers who wished to present a theme to the public; they then hired artists to create scenes around this theme. I believe this to have been a common practice during this period. I am trying to say that this is the only instance of which I know where Chikanobu was a participant; though there may have been other times, I have not been able to find them. I'm certain this album has since been purchased, and broken up, and sold as 25 individual triptychs so there cannot be any documentation. GaryD144 (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• There is a newspaper series, shinbun nishiki-e (新聞錦絵), in ōban tate-e format, kyōdō risshiki (教導立志基) «1886» [4] Exemplars of Learning and Achievement, which includes two prints by Chikanobu amongst a collection of fifty three by several Meiji artists.<:ref>Kobayashi Kiyochika, Inoue Tankei, Mizuno Toshikata, Toyohara Kunichika, Utagawa Kuniaki , Taiso Yoshitoshi, et al.</ref>

//// Newspaper publishers used woodblock cuts as colored inserts in the newspapers during this period. There were many such series, kyōdō risshiki, being just one. Again, the publisher, in this case a newspaper, hired several artists to present a particular theme. In this particular instance, Chikanobu provided two prints to this series. More scholars, far more erudite than I, are just now investigating this particular field of endeavor. I don't believe any citation is needed for this second point since copies of these prints are available for viewing on-line. What I am trying to point out is that Chikanobu was a rare participant in these publisher collation ventures. "Citation" in so faar as woodblock prints are concerned is a point that I will be happy to discuss with you, privately. Please email me. GaryD144 (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

With citation support, these sentences could be restored, of course. --Tenmei (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

These paragraphs are restored to the main page. A "citation needed tag" is appended. Please feel free to ignore it, if you like. The tag may yet serve a useful purpose in that it alerts other editors that the relevant questions have been discussed already. --Tenmei (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Treaty of Chemulpo

I removed this phrase temporarily from the main page.

" ...the Korean Riots of 1882 leading to the Treaty of Chemulpo, First Sino-Japanese War of 1894–1895, and ..."

As you know, this phrase was added in a short sentence which is supported by a verifiable citation.

These works documented the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905.<ref:>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</ref>

I have re-visited each of the linked sources, and I find no explicit mention of Korean riots or the Treaty of Cemulpo. In contrast, I do find specific mention of the First Sino-Japanese War and the Russo-Japanese War.

The phrase can be restored, of course; but my guess is that this is the sort of thing which needs citation support. Do you agree? --Tenmei (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree it does seem to need a ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Imo Incident in 1882

I should be happy to provide you with a print of the Kkorean problem of 1882 bearing Chikanobu's signature. Please advise me how to do this. GaryD144 (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you email me the print and agree to release it into the creative commons I can upload it to Wikimedia for you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I have uploaded the image. As a depiction of an historical event, the fair use of this image is permitted for limited use in Toyohara Chikanobu and in Imo Incident. The 1882 event is identified as the Imo Incident in Korean, and I note that someone has created an article on this subject. The Jingo Incident (壬午事変, jingo jihen) might have been construed as controversial if the words "Korean riot" had been permitted to remain in the text. This hyper-sensitivity also informs the change of section heading.

\\\\\ Please note that I was presenting the title of the work translated into English. I believe I also noted in a letter to Dr James that this title could be read as "The Korean Uprising." If Wikipedia is going to be that P.C. as to have every entry bowlderized might someone somewhere take offense, I don't believe Wikipedia will be able to fulfill its promise. These particular triptychs (and there are several) refer to a late period of Japanese "expansion" into Korea as one of the new world powers of that period and prints relating to this particular martial period should be classed in the sensō-e genre. GaryD144 (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You may notice that I have also posted this image at Imo Incident; and this may be perceived as controversial or deemed to be cause for complaint. We'll see. --Tenmei (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have also created a new article about Hanabusa Yoshitada‎. who is the central figure in this woodblock print. I will change the wording to indicate that the title includes the phrase "Korean Uprising."

I do not disagree with your point of view. I will make the change you suggest; but I will not defend this title against any unreasonable attack which may ensue. --Tenmei (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Chikanobu in pre-Meiji eras

I believe Tenmei has written: "During the late Keio era and early Meiji period, Chikanobu created prints which illustrated the period of domestic unrest. " Documentation of this statement ("the late Keiō era") is needed, preferably in the form of a print with Chikanobu's name and a date stamp or a statement of the date in the publication box. GaryD144 (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

GaryD144 -- Yes, what an elegant way to ask a question. As you must have guessed, I did have a specific image in mind when I drafted this prepositional phrase -- "During the late Keio era and early Meiji period ...."

I was thinking of the over-panel in "Mirror of the Ages" (Jidai kagami: Keio no koro), which was not published in the Keio era. As you must have known, it was published in 1897. My sentence was plainly wrong; and I've removed the misleading Keio reference.

Please note that I have also restored your mention of the Chemulpo incident. As I understand it, there are two functional methods for asking a question about a specific fact in the context of an article:

(a) to move the unverified text to the talk page, accompanied by a question about citation support; or

(b) to append a "citation needed" template, e.g., {{fact}} .

When you added the Chemulpo phrase, I moved it and posted a question on the talk page. I was mistaken or you were unfamiliar with this conventional pattern of inquiry. I note here that your contribution history has encompassed scant interaction with others. In this instance, my edit summary was insufficiently clear. I'm sorry this was confusing.

The edit history for the article you began here reveals your long-term record of excellent work -- with only one perhaps nit-picking exception. The text is not supported with inline citations. There are many very helpful inline notes, but no indication of verifying sources. In other words, there are no reference sources indicated (although there is suggested "further reading").

My comparatively trivial additions to your superior article were scrupulously cited. When you expressed concern about the verb "emcompassed" in a sentence about senso-e, I responded with explicit citations including the one with is re-posted at "Treaty of Chemulpo"-thread above.

I wonder if it is convenient for you to add further inline citation support to the text you have created over the course of many months? If so, that would be a reasonable step towards conforming your work with Wikipedia:Good article criteria.

The Anglo-American bias of our English Wikipedia will be slightly mitigated when Toyohara Chikanobu is recognized as meeting Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.

When I moved the Chemulpo phrase to the talk page, I presumed that I was proceeding in a manner which was consistent with a pattern of communication we had already established. This was intended to avoid friction rather than causing it.

Please construe my small contributions as an expression of confidence in the solid foundation your scholarship created. If not for the high quality of your work, I would not have invested time in this specific topic. --Tenmei (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

///// To be particularly explicit, please remove the following statement from the page: "These are incomplete lists, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding them with reliably sourced entries." You might have noticed that it is repetitive for I do state "A partial list." If you feel it is of absolute necessity in the body of the article, please make sure that everywhere else in Wikipedia that there is such a partial list, that you, personally, place this same statement. In other words, I will expect to see this same statement in the same location in the article about Utagawa Kuniyoshi with your signature attached in the history. If it is not necessary to place it in the body of the article, a footnote may be the proper place for such a statement GaryD144 (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to comply. In my view, the important part of the template wasn't its acknowledgment of incompleteness. I thought that the explicit invitation to supplement the list and to add verifying citations is a constructive gambit. In other contexts, it has been helpful; but I am pleased to defer to your point of view in this article and in Utagawa Kuniyoshi. --Tenmei (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Image galleries

The images galleries are somewhat larger than average; but each image in the array is justified by the context GaryD144 has created. Factors in assessing these galleries include:

• Wikipedia:Picture tutorial supports using a gallery for displaying images which are relevant to the subject of a specific article.
• Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image_galleries recognizes that galleries are appropriate when

(a) the images collectively have encyclopedic value

(b) the array adds to the reader's understanding of the subject.

(c) the elements of the galleries are suitably captioned to explain the relevance to the article and to the theme of the gallery

• WP:NOTREPOSITORY emphasizes that encyclopedic context is a core concept in evaluating the utility of galleries which present grouped examples of Yōshū Chikanobu's artwork.

My overall impression is that GaryD144's scholarly approach in developing these galleries does enhance the quality of this article. --Tenmei (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Collections

This article is not about collections but about an artist thus moved this content here for discussion:

==Chikanobu and Yoshitoshi Woodblock Prints== The Scripps College Collection of Japanese Prints at the Ruth Chandler Williamson Gallery contains over 500 woodblock prints, many of which were created by Chikanobu. Originally founded through donations by two Los Angeles area families, Fred and Estelle Marer and Dr. and Mrs. William Ballard, the collection has frequently been used in the classroom. In collaboration with the Claremont Colleges Digital Library, a digital collection for the woodblock prints was created to expand access to the prints for the general public. The collection, entitled Chikanobu and Yoshitoshi Woodblock Prints, has received excellent reviews from members of the anime community and the Online Computer Library Center. The most recent expansion of access to the collection has been through addition of certain pieces to the Claremont Colleges Digital Library’s Flickr site.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

References

Russo-Japanese War

Sentence removed pending further research:

A decade later, his work also depicted events in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905.

<:ref>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</ref>

See diffs here and here.

Also removed from gallery pending further research: Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905 (Nichiro sensō 日露戦争) --Tenmei (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article was removed from Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/ToDo. --Tenmei (talk) 13:40, 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)