Talk:Yixian glazed pottery luohans

Untitled

• Formerly Draft:Luohan (Buddhism), then Group of glazed pottery luohans from Yixian (DYK, 4487 views)

Former talk page stuff

So I tackled this based on a note left at the Museums project. I realized it would be better as a general article about luohans since this group of eight seems quite notable. It was only in doing more research to broaden the scope that I found Seated Luohan from Yixian which seems to be a good start at that topic. I think this one has some decent history on the one at the Royal Ontario Museum so I don't think it should be deleted outright. But maybe it should be merged with the Seated... one and both should be at a better title? Also pinging User:Jononmac46 who created the other article as well StarM 03:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Informationally, wherever this lands, an interesting article (PDF) StarM 03:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the topic is notable - these are a highly important set, among the most famous Chinese ceramics, that the world's top collections have divided between themselves. They are covered in detail, with pictures, in the standard surveys: Sickman L & Soper A, The Art and Architecture of China, Pelican History of Art, 3rd ed 1971, Penguin (now Yale History of Art), LOC 70-125675, pp. 200-201, and Rawson, Jessica (ed). The British Museum Book of Chinese Art, 2007 (2nd edn), British Museum Press, ISBN 9780714124469, pp. 158-160. The article may not yet make that clear, but these . But the article would be better repurposed to cover the whole set. I never know how to extract articles from the hellish AFC process. Note that Seated Luohan from Yixian deals with British Museum's example from this set. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please excuse my ignorance of this topic, but after reading the Draft:Luohan (Buddhism) article, I am unclear if a Luohan is a statue or a being. Are these objects Luohans, or representations of Luohans? If the latter, then perhaps this article should be about the Buddhism perfected beings, with an example image, and one or more articles (depending on the amount of detail desired about each one) about the statues could be created with a title which better reflects that they are artistic expressions and museum pieces. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it is unclear in the present article. A Luohan is a person, or being anyway, well covered already under Arhat, the Sanscrit term, to which Luohan redirects. The set of statues should have their own group article. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I have no clue whatsoever how to get it out of AFC, but User:DGG said that any editor can do what we believe reasonable. Don't know if that means we can remove all the AFC banners or those need to stay so long as it's in draft space. I moved it from AFC space. I think the concept is notable but the info is scattered across too many articles including the See Alsos and the Seated... article referenced above which isn't helpful to readers. I think, but I could be wrong, that the Arhat is the being, but these are statues of luohans. I'm not sure if something especially notable about this subset vs. statues in general. I think the article (whether here or at seated or a 3rrd location entirely) should be about the statues as a whole with a subset of these seven/eight found in the cave, with a subset (if needed) for the museum pieces if there's something that sets them apart. StarM 03:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

What does seem likely is that the article should not be writen about this particular one of the small group, but aboutthe group. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Do the statues have a collective name, that could be used as a title when the article is moved to mainspace? The current title won't do if the focus of the article changes. Also, there are articles about two of the statues, so if a merger is being discussed, should a notice be put on the talk page of the other article? Also, don't worry about the Afc templates. They can be removed easily when the article is shifted to mainspace.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Group of glazed pottery luohans from Yixian or similar would be best, but there is no exact standard name. The Ontario title now redirects to this one. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If we're all still watching, I will move per just above in a day or so, unless anyone objects or has another suggestion. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Move and title makes sense to me. The AFC page and ROM Luohan page redirects need to be fixed before we break the poor bot. Can't read the article you linked below though. Page unavailable. @DGG thanks for your clean up to de-AFC it. StarM 03:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Good. The link works for, in the UK - sometimes it depends where you are. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

stuff to add

• the plot thickens Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Record re one in Japan

References/Notes etc.

I'm not too familiar with the different styles of referencing, but I think it would make more sense to the reader if the full cites (i.e Steinhardt, Nancy Shatzman, "The Luohan that Came from Afar" (PDF) .... and Jump up ^ Sickman, p. 483, note 11 for p. 200; ....) come first, followed by the abbreviated cites. If that's a UK v. US style guide thing it's fine as is, just seemed confusing to me StarM 03:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I follow you, but I'm just doing my usual style, which you will find normal in that respect for FAs, wherever written. Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The full citations are in References, the abbreviated ones are in Notes and it's that section that comes first. Maybe flip those two sections so the reader finds the full cite first. Or put the full cite when it's first used? I don't know the difference between those two types of sections though StarM 05:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:FNNR; some version of what I do is normal for advanced articles with two sections covering citations. Johnbod (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for link. That clarifies the sections a lot. I still think a reader might be slightly confused to come to "^ Sickman, 200; Rawson, 159, both quoted" first and not know what Sickman is, but I guess if they're interested enough, they'll scan down to find the full cite. StarM 03:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

article WP:OWN issues bordering on editwarring

First, you abused WP:AGF from the start with me, so I'm not compelled to adhere to it in your case. Start the thing with a chip on your shoulder, you won't win.

Your first mistake was to conflate me with some other editor you've apparently had problems with, per your snarky edit summary "it's not peacock if quotes from (2) RSs, and these are VERY famous. some idiot blocked this at AFC on grounds of notability." Sorry you had a bad day, princess, but I am not that editor, and you need to take that up with them.

Your second mistake was to be bitey with me at my talkpage, and incorrectly as you were and are in the wrong, at that. I've been here a bit longer than you, and since you do not seem to have read WP:PEACOCK as you directed me to, I will quote from it here since you are too lazy to read it yourself, and I've bolded what you need to read so you don't hurt yourself.

"... legendary, great, acclaimed, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, extraordinary, brilliant, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso ...

Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.

Articles suffering from such language should be rewritten to correct the problem or may be tagged with the {{tl|Peacock}} or {{tl|Peacock inline}} templates."

So, in my first edit, per policy, I removed what appears to any experienced reader to be puffery, complete with scare quotes, which actually detracted from the impression that the statues are either really famous or celebrated. Those claims need to be properly explained in the lead paragraph, no later. Fame speaks for itself. If something is truly famous and celebrated, that information, properly sourced, should be where the claim is first made. If something is quote unquote "famous" and "celebrated", it appears as if it implies skepticism or disagreement with the quoted terminology. It's not a proper quotation or use of quotes. In my second edit, I tagged both places where citations should be with {{cn}}, which you removed, showing you further have WP:OWN issues, your third mistake. Any admin reading this can see I was being constructive and that you reverted me without fixing your problems.

This is not your article, this is now Wikipedia's article, and I have every right to try and correct your very poor writing about an interesting topic that may indeed be both famous and celebrated. I will now tag it with the {{tl|Peacock inline}} template. Your best bet is to quit editwarring and fix the issue. The onus is on you to prove, in the lead paragraph, that these statues, beautiful and exquisite as they are, are also famous and celebrated. Such wording does beg the question, if they are indeed either famous or celebrated, why has it taken 13 years of Wikipedia before we had an article on them?

Your fourth mistake, keeping score, was to troll me with the second dumping of your vomit, editing and then removing the edit just so you could violate WP:POINT (and good job, you are a professional troll-not something I would aspire to or be proud of, but it suits you). You should be fixing your poorly written lead rather than going after someone who was not going after you. I never heard of you before today and had no axe to grind with you. You changed that. Have I used strong language with you? Proudly. I have no doubt that you are competent in your field, but you are a poor writer and a worse sport. Punch the wall, have a drink, whatever, but the next time you leave a nastygram on someone's talkpage, don't. I didn't shit on your talkpage, but I had to clean your shit off of mine, and it turned out you were wrong all along, surprise surprise.

Fix it or we can take it to WP:3O. I'm not going away, and I'm not out to trash the article. Well-written, it would be quite good.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

From WP:PEACOCK, at the top - "The guideline does not apply to quotations". Both quotes were clearly referenced at the end of the sentence, and always have been, to standard works on Chinese art. I never confused you with anyone, you are just as you usually are. Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I am who I am and I always do as I say I will do. I've watched your haranguing of the other user, who is much more patient with your crap than I am, and who also pointed out the same flaws in your writing. You undid him too, verging on editwarring and adding a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT violation to your list of mistakes, number 5, mired as you are in your own self-aggrandizement and serious WP:OWN syndrome. So having watched that play out, it's time to turn this over to WP:3O.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:3O

Response to third opinion request:

Reading the above discussion and examining the edits, I conclude addition of "famous" and "celebrated" is unacceptable. Two solutions come to mind here: 1) Simply remove them from the lead intro per WP:PEACOCK--such words don't add any more meaning; it's assumed their notable or famous because they have an article here. 2) Attribute these words to whoever has described them like this and place it somewhere else in the article. Of course, merely these words won't be of much value and maybe a more expanded quotation can be taken from the given reference to which it is sourced. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You can't have done any of this very carefuly at all. From WP:PEACOCK, at the top - "The guideline does not apply to quotations". Both quotes were clearly referenced at the end of the sentence, and always have been, to standard works on Chinese art. This article, in its original form, was held at AFC for 8 months as the notability of the objects was questioned. Kinetsubuffalo did not see the reference, and has been in a red mist of denial ever since. The quotes (and the one in the next sentence) give, in an understated way, the important information that these are key works, very famous indeed, which are described and illustrated in all surveys of Chinese art, and most of world art, such as Gombrich and Honour and Fleming. Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to say that it's true that PEACOCK doesn't apply to quotations, but in this case it cannot be considered valid quotes unless they are attributed to who has said it (shouldn't be made to be presented in the encyclopaedia's voice). Without direct attribution, they remain as just scare quotes, hence my above point 2). Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

As with any quotations, the quotation marks remove them from the "encyclopaedia's voice". Your first comment makes it unequivocably clear you failed to realize they were referenced at all, despite the form of the reference having been clarified by the time you saw it. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo probably didn't see the source for the quotes, as I certainly didn't, because the citation was confused and misplaced. Why does your citation include both a footnote on geographical names and this unrelated source for the quoted terms? If you were to simply split this citation in two, possibly relocate one part to be closer to the quotes, that alone would be enough to reassure my questions here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice any questions, any more than Kinetsubuffalo; you just jumped in to tag and revert. The original form of the reference was:"Art history sources mostly use "Yixian", though "Yi xian" appears more correct; Sickman, 200; Rawson, 159, both quoted", which I have since clarified, but it was clear enough to anybody who actually looked. When I have time I will refactor the opening somewhat as you suggest, probably now in the second sentence. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

One thing I did mention on my talk page is that you need to stop talking down to other editors – even someone who has just popped up anew from 3O. How the hell did WMUK decide that someone with your obvious attitude issues were a fit person to represent WP as WiR for the Royal Society? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am not involved in this conversation, but recently I was taken aback by the attitude of John Byrne to happen to now search his contributions to get a better sense of his behavior. This is what I find straight away. Assuming good faith and all, perhaps he is just having a rough few days and is snapping at faceless people on the internet to make himself feel better. If someone is going to stand up and say they are representing Wikimedia, this should go hand in hand with certain attitudes and behaviors, otherwise everyone looks bad. Lesion (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Believe me, I am more snapped against than snapping, and unfortunately neither Kinetsubuffalo or Dingley are at all unknown to me, though I suppose they are "faceless". I can't believe you have actually looked at the history of this tempest in a teacup here and on the various talk pages (you have to look at the page history for Kb). I have a life, and lots to do in the garden, or I would take this behaviour to ANI where it belongs. (PS some might say your own contributions leave something to be desired in terms of tone). Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I Had to go back several pages in my contribs to find what you may have been referring to (and a contrite message soon follows), whereas no searching was required in your edit history. First page I looked at was this, and while you may suggest that I have no life, even I apparently did not feel the need to search further. Unprovoked, you searched my user page for any info and used it to (inaccurately) pigeon hole me and talk down to me. I will get my user page deleted after this unpleasant experience, there is an admin who carries this out I recall. I think it is best that we have no interaction from now on. Lesion (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm fine with that, though it should have been clear from the above that there was no suggestion you had "no life"; you are apparently extracting from it what is not there. Nor was I referring to what you seem to think - merely the interaction that from your own account brought you here. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

(I saw this at AN/I) I don't really consider it the best style to use statements of importance in the lede. It is assumed they're important, by having an article, and the goal is to show it in the text of the article. But the inclusion of the judgment in the article is right, and others should be added. (It's not just a quote of the nature "The statues were called "important" by ...., but includes the context, as it ought.) I think the problem arises because the lede is disproportionately long. The background is important, considering the likely readership, but it should really go in a separate section and perhaps be a little expanded. The reception and judgements also, (They don't really fit into History in the art world, because what that section is actually discussing is Provenance--perhaps that's a clearer section title? DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You may recall (see top of page) this was held up for nine months at AFC, and nearly deleted, because of wholly unjustified notability concerns, which was why those "assertions of notability" were added, and much later another in the second sentence. Unfortunately it is ridiculous to say "It is assumed they're important, by having an article" when the entire approach of WP's reviewers of new articles is not to make this assumption! In general it is a great fault with our art coverage that we fail to make clear the relative significance of different works, partly because of the "peacock police", who as this article has rather dramatically shown, operate whether there are references or not. There is a big difference between notability and importance, and explaining technical aspects and the history of the pieces in the rest of the article does not speak to this. If a work is important the best way to convey this is by saying so, often by quotation, and of course with references, and the lead is the best place to do this. Not to do so is a breach of WP:LEAD:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.[2] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources".

If an object is very famous within its field, as this group is, that in itself is one of the most important things about it, and certainly belongs in the lead.

I don't especially agree that the lead is too long - generally I think the majority of our leads are much too short and not compliant with WP:LEAD, as quoted above. One might make the last 2 paras another section (I think they were like that for a period as the article developed), but then one has summarize them again in the lead, which cannot be done quickly. The current later sections are intricate and detailed and will not be of much interest to many readers, and as it is the lead contains what is important for the general reader. I normally use "Provenance", which in this case would have to be "Provenances", but chose not to do so in this case for various reasons, including the general lack (before museum acquisitions) of facts that are certain, which is what a provenance is supposed to consist of.

Since this page has finally attracted admin attention, is it too much to hope for the removal of the personal attacks by three editors and wholly gratuitous quasi-outing by User:Lesion (I don't make any great secret of my real name, but never use it on my Johnbod user or user talk pages)?

It at least is heartening to see so many editors taking an interest in Chinese art. The great majority of our articles on this vast subject are very poor indeed, and fairly easily improved, and I look to see great improvements with such a concentration of editors now interested in the subject. That would be more useful for the project than picking over in such detail the few new articles that appear. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)