Talk:Murasaki Shikibu/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Name

Note: 'Shikibu' is not a surname. Sort under 'M'.

(I am not the above commenter) As I understand it "Murasaki Shikibu" is a name assigned to the author by later scholars: her actual name is not known. Can anyone corroborate? adamrice 18:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You're right; her real name is unknown. Her diaries indicate that she was nicknamed "Murasaki" at court, after a character in the Tale of Genji. "Shikibu" refers to her father Tametoki's position in the Bureau of Ceremony (shikibu-shō). Hmmm. I'll add this to the article. Gdr 22:52, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

I believe that you are mistaken, since her father was a regional governer. She held a position in the Bureau of Ceremony. Some scholars believe her given name might have been Takako. (updated June 14th 2005)

Tsunoda Bunei thought Murasaki's given name was 香子. Some scholars consider it is not reliable. And how to read 香子 is also unknown. It can be Kaoriko, Takako, Yosiko, etc. but highly unlikely Kyōshi or Kōshi. Viking Rollo (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Dalek Cab

There's an interesting bit just now, on User:Dalek Cab who reverts and reinstates my edits in a heartbeat... Kinda weird. 132.205.93.62 02:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it was an accident. Oh well, weirdness happens. 132.205.93.62 02:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sei Shōnagon

Shouldn't there be something on that oft-talked about rivalry between Lady Murasaki and Sei Shonagon? (here and on Sei's article) 132.205.93.62 02:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Murasaki Shikibu Collection

The Murasaki Shikibu Collection redirects to Lady Murasaki's page... perhaps someone could write something meaningful on it? 132.205.93.62 02:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Murasaki's family

this article could use expansion on Murasaki's family connections, close relatives.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.93.62 (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2006‎ (UTC)

Chinese wasn't the official language, but kanbun was used for writing:

Chinese has never been spoken in Japan including the imperial court, but kanbun (漢文 lit. Chinese sentences) had been used for men to officially write Japanese, and classical Chinese literature in kanbun had been taught as the requisite culture.

Kanbun documents are pure Chinese documents (i.e. written with kanji in Chinese grammar) but read in Japanese. When read, the word order is changed and the particles are supplemented acccording to Japanese grammar, and the words are read in both on'yomi and kun'yomi according to the context. Also, sometimes ruby characters and kaeriten (返り点 the word order marks) are added for easy reading. Kanbun is still taught in Japanese high schools as a part of classic Japanese language.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.80.15.131 (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2008‎ (UTC)

Earliest novel?

This claim seems counter-factual:

"She is best known as the author of The Tale of Genji, written in Japanese between about 1000 and 1008, which is the earliest known novel in human history."

If the novel is a work of prose fiction unified by a central protagonist(s) and a plot, then see Ancient Greek novel. The Satyricon of Petronius (1st century AD) is an ancient Roman "novel", by some definitions.

Also, "human history" as distinguished from what? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The claim is a clear error, and the reference did not support it at all. It said that even if we speak of "modern" novels, all we can say is that "some claim" it is first in that period. Better removed until we have a real WP:RS clarifying its place in the history of novels, which, as you say, goes back well before the 11th century AD. Wareh (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I restored the claim with a couple of new references. I think they are RS. See also novel#Antecedents around the world and this. Oda Mari (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Darn edit conflict. Well, to the first two editors, please consider this reply as well:

True, the claim is not indisputable. See the section Tale of Genji#Stature. The wording in the lead should be changed to "credited as", "considered by many", or some wording not so restrictive. As for the term "human history", I believe this is used (or perhaps I use it) when I want to discourage a reader form thinking "this writer must mean 'the first woman' in history", or the "the first [insert ethnic group] in history", etc., because let's face it, people carry their preconceptions with them, even if they don't intend to think in a prejudiced manner.

As for REFERENCES, please consider the following:

• Felder, Deborah G. A Bookshelf of our own: Must-reads for women.
  • Called it the "world's first great novel", p.1.
• Kleiner, Fred S. and Christin J. Mamiya. Gardner's Art Through the Ages: Non-Western Perspectives. 13th edition. (2010).
  • Called "the world's first lengthy novel", p.99.
• Lockard, Craig A. Societies, Networks, and Transitions, Volume I: To 1500: A Global History. (2009)
  • Called it "the world's first psychological novel", p.293.
• Pollard-Got, Lucy (PhD). The Fictional 100: Ranking the Most Influential Characters in World Literature and Legend. (2009)
  • Called the Tale of Genji world's first novel, and ranked the title character as #5 in her list.
• Tyler, Royall (2003). The Tale of Genji. Penguin Classics. pp. i-ii & xii. ISBN 014243714X
  • Called it the world's first novel, and is considered the most complete annotated translation to date.
• Westling, Louise Hutchings, Stephen Durrant, and James W. Earl. The World of Literature. (1999).
  • States: "often called the world's first novel", p.1088.
  • States: "often considered the world's first novel", p.1100.

Will any of these suffice as reliable sources? Boneyard90 (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, most of these are low-quality sources. The more careful ones among them take pains to introduce a qualification: "lengthy" or "psychological" (another had "modern"). The only one whose error surprises me is the Penguin edition; I'd appreciate it if you could give a fuller quote so we know if it's really an unqualified assertion. Oda Mari's two footnotes in the article were press releases, but the online Britannica article would be a WP:RS, were it not committing a howler of an error here. I have no objection to an accurate statement but "often called the world's first novel," while true is weaselly -- who often calls it that? mostly uninformed and careless sources. The best sources are careful not to ignore the fact that it's not generally considered the world's first novel.

Let me try to be constructive instead of oppositional. The article, to improve, should say something like, "While there are earlier examples of the novel, including the Ancient Greek novel, the Tale of Genji has been considered to be the first novel displaying certain important features, such as its length and [fn] its psychological dimension,[fn] and also to be the first 'modern' novel.[fn]" Wareh (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This interests me because it raises the question of what to do on Wikipedia when sources assert claims that are demonstrably counter-factual. The Golden Ass by Apuleius is a lengthy and "psychological" prose narrative with a plot (beginning, middle and end) centering on the adventures of the protagonist Lucius; it survives whole, is uncontroversially considered a novel, and dates to the 2nd century AD. Unless we delete the article ancient Greek novel as a self-evident hoax, as well as the articles on the individual works, I simply don't see how the flat assertion can be made; something along the lines of Wareh's compromise is needed. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

To Wareh:

Good. I like it when opposing editors are constructive and cooperative rather than just critical and oppositional. I think we can work something out here. How about, "While the Tale of Genji is often referred to as the 'world's first novel'[ref], this is a simplistic claim, as there are other works in earlier literary forms that may also claim that distinction[reference to ancient Greek works]; it may be more accurate to say it is considered to be the first novel displaying certain [pick up with your line, and inserting references]." Boneyard90 (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Too much. Don't think we need "is a simplistic claim." How bout "She is best known as the author of The Tale of Genji, written in Japanese between about 1000 and 1008, and sometimes considered<ref></ref> the earliest novel. Although ancient Greek and Roman novels predate Murasaki's by several centuries, The Tale of Genji is the first extended prose work to yadda yadda." However, the "yadda yadda" needs to be something Apuleius didn't do in The Golden Ass. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

To Cynwolfe's earlier post:

I read the article on the ancient Greek novel, and I must say I was not impressed. It seems that even proponents doubt the authenticity of the genre, and leaves the authorship of individual works in serious doubt. The article states that the genre of ancient Greek novels was "a product of the Roman Empire", and "may be an illusion created by later Christians, who decided which to copy for posterity." The topic seems to be standing on very wobbly legs, and is comparable to, as you say, a "self-evident hoax". Boneyard90 (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't seem to have a frame of reference for this. Please take a look at this. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The "frame of reference" is the Wikipedia article I quoted. And if your link was meant to provide me with an alternative frame of reference, I'm afraid it didn't. I see book covers; they all mention the words ancient Greek novel, but don't tell me enough to refute my impression based on the Wiki-article. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Cynwolfe's point was that if you spend 15 minutes browsing through the top preview results for books about ancient Greek novels, you'd quickly realize that what may happen to be missing from our article Ancient Greek novel is, in fact, abundantly documented in easily accessible scholarly works. Meanwhile, your quotations "may be an illusion" etc. are specious and beside the point. (1) "A product of the Roman Empire" predates Tale of Genji, which is the point (do realize that there were Greek authors working under the Roman Empire), (2) it is an "impression of uniformity and moralism" that may be illusory, not the existence of the novels as novels!! Wareh (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

To Cynwolfe's most recent post:

I can work with that line, but I'd rather dispense with the words "ancient Greek novel" in the actual text, as this is not a comparison of world literature; that's why I used the term "earlier literary forms". How about if the "ancient Greek novel" was moved to the "See also" section? Boneyard90 (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm encouraged to see the elements of consensus here. My two main points would be (1) Cynwolfe is right that "lengthy" and "psychological" are not exactly careful distinctions either, so I'd join her in suggesting we forget about those, (2) if we are going to use the word "first" at all, I think we pretty much have to mention and link ancient Greek novel to avoid rampant confusion. Wareh (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the sources I've seen call it the world's first lengthy, great, psychological, or modern novel. I looked at the Golden Ass article and didn't find reference to it as a "psychological novel", first or otherwise. As for mention of ancient Greek novel, I'm still kind of against this. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the body of text, when the concept of "first" is discussed, but I don't see why it should be in the Lead. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, I just came back from a library shelf groaning under the weight of books about ancient Greek novels. I believe an equally valid approach to this discussion could be to say: (1) show me a source that actually deliberately attempted to answer the question "What was the first psychological novel?" and produced the answer Tale of Genji (as opposed to the fluff and blather that comes up when a source with no pretense of comparative information tries to say what's so special about one or another work of literature), or else let's not put it in the encyclopedia; (2) show me a source that specifically compares ancient Greek and Roman novels with Tale of Genji and defends a claim that Tale of Genji is first in something important, or is a "novel" in some respect that Satyricon, Daphnis and Chloe, etc. etc. aren't, or else let's not put "first" in the encyclopedia here (because of the strong evidence that the claim "first" is an error: back to the shelf full of RS on Ancient Greek and Roman novels...). I believe the kind of specific addressing of the question I'm referring to here is the definition of the most appropriate kind of WP:RS for this kind of claim. Does that make some sense?

A Bibliography of the Ancient Novel Wareh (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point, and I can come back with some equally valid counter-claims. Do any of the sources you have meet the criteria of #2? I've encountered the same problem in other areas concerning East vs. West; for one specific example, there was a debate on Castle vs. Japanese castle, and if the Japanese version could be considered a "true" castle. Long story short, there were no "reputable reliable sources" that specifically compared European vs. Japanese castles. There were plenty of very reputable books on architecture, even medieval architecture, that supported my point, but though great and venerable architects they might be, they did not dedicate an entire book on this one comparison. And therein lies part of the problem: the validity of a source can be subjective. But look at the list of references I provided: there are several cross-cultural comparisons of literature, and several authors are PhD's: Kleiner is a PhD at Columbia Univ, Craig A. Lockard is a Rosenberg Professor at the Univ of Wisconsin, and Westling is a Professor of English at the Univ of Oregon. I'm not saying that Genji is undisputed first; all I said is that the author is "credited" or "considered" to have written a "first", and like many things, this is largely dependent on the definition of the work, in this case, the definition of a novel. Boneyard90 (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's look at it another way. Let's see where the difference lie between Genji and the Ancient Greek novels. As I said, Genji has been called the first novel, and alternately the first lengthy, modern, or psychological novel. Questions:

• Are the "ancient Greek novels" actual "novels"? Yes, at least by default of terminology, though not according to the Wikipedia article novel.
• Are the ancient Greek novels lengthy? I don't know; you can fill in yes/no, and # of pages.
• Are the ancient Greek novels "modern"? I would think "no". If there is a reference that calls them "modern novels", please provide it here.
• Are the ancient Greek novels "psychological novels"? No. According to the Wikipedia article psychological novel: "In the west, the origins of the psychological novel can be traced as far back as Giovanni Boccaccio's 1344 Elegia di Madonna Fiammetta." Again, if you have a source that contradicts this, please provide it.

Boneyard90 (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems a pretty reductive way to evaluate this writer's achievement. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Just trying to find a solution here. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I really, really don't understand why it's so needed to put "first" in this article, something which would be by the way quite misleading: keep in mind that to keep to a few issues you made here, way more RS would claim that the first "modern" novel is Robinson Crusoe and that Pamela or Clarissa represent the first psychological novel. As for what's a novel, many scholars see it as linked to the birth of the bourgeois and of capitalism, so be carefully not remoing the ground under your feet by doubting of the Greek or Roman novel. As for "lengthy", what does "long" mean? As a subjective term like few, the Satyricon (whiich also has been called the "first" novel) it could be argued was pretty long in its complete form, pity nobody knows exactly. More simply put, I see clear problems of WP:UNDUE with the first statement.Aldux (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're not providing sources, then you're just stating your opinions. I'm sure many novels are called a "first" in some way. I'm not dismissing those claims. The very definition of novel is (apparently) subjective or prone to changing with the times. Key terms are "credited" and "considered", and all claims at "firsts" are probably debatable, so as I have provided sources, I don't see why any credit should be denied this author. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, Aldux is stating what any person with a canonical literary education knows about the history of the novel. Sometimes you really do have to have a context for understanding the random sources that come up in a search. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then according to WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". (Italics inserted here)

In addition to the sources I have provided above, I would add the entry at Encyclopedia Britannica, which states that the Tale of Genji is "thought to be the world’s oldest full novel." I believe Britannica is considered a "commonly accepted reference text". Boneyard90 (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding sources, its as Cynwolfe put it I frankly didn't expect anybody to put in doubt what is pretty much considered obvious and of common knowledge. Regarding WP:UNDUE, I should have been clearer: I meant specifically a passage, that is "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Regarding EB, don't forget we are speaking of a tertiary generalistic source and I don't think I'm telling you anything revolutionary in saying that the use of Britannica is frowned upon and in the FAC they don't get any pass.Aldux (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Boneyard, I'm glad you're asking about ancient novels. I'm confident that once you inform yourself about them you'll realize that they are novels in many ways you hadn't known, and you'll see why the "first" point can't be asserted as fact. (And calling attention to the prevalence of it as a mistake seems undue.) In short, all your questions either have answers in favor of Greek novels' priority (they are novels, some lengthy) or else are beside the point (your own evidence shows that no one really starts the history of "psychological novel" with Genji or ancient novels; "modern" is a weaselly word that definitely doesn't apply to ancient novels but dubiously applies to Genji--if we canvass RS on "first modern novel" we'll overwhelmingly get non-Genji results, so, likewise, if this article uses that phrase in relation to Genji it would have to add something like "though almost all RS say the first modern novel was not this," just as with regard to priority in time it'd have to add "though almost all RS call novels written many centuries earlier 'novels'."). Do we want an article (and even lead) about what Genji actually is, or a summary of various ignorant claims together with comment on how frequently they are contradicted by RS? I think the latter would really be a black eye on an article on an important an interesting subject.

Leucippe and Clitophon runs to 227 pages in this translation (into English, with the exception of the racy parts, which the editor wanted to make easier for us to find by switching over to Latin). It's lengthy. Helen Morales credits it with "psychological exegesis" (Vision and narrative in Achilles Tatius' Leucippe and Clitophon, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 120), but Chariton's Callirhoe is probably better in its psychological observation. Petronius' Trimalchio, in Satyricon, is a masterful psychological portrait. The man is obsessed with death and enacts his own funeral for a captive audience of parasites to prove his importance to himself (all easily documentable from RS; Costas Panayotakis writes about how "Obsession with time and death is amusingly presented," and Jan Veenstra says of the werewolf episode that it "shows us the kind of psychological reactions it is meant to provoke. [1] The fact is, though, that anyone who speaks of ancient novels or Genji as "psychological novels" is engaging in muddy-minded boasts, because the term (as someone said above) generally refers to a certain historical strand in literary history, and properly used it has more meaning than "a novel with psychological interests and observations."

Online Britannica (not a particularly reputable encyclopedia in this form, and the article is unsigned) has made a mistake. It happens. Low-grade online encyclopedia makers have to hire mere human beings to compile their content in search of revenue (I've contributed to a scholarly print encyclopedia that certainly also contains errors--not in my work, I hope!--for the same reason). When Online Britannica makes a mistake, it violates undue to bother with it in our article (i.e. to write, what would be correct, "Online Britannica says X"). It's a tertiary source with no argument or sources. Yes, it's expected to present blandly correct nuggets, but here it just blandly repeated a common error. Sometimes we have to sift sources to find the higher-quality ones. Wareh (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

And we finally have a reference. I tell you, yesterday I was getting pretty irate as I felt like I was the only one doing any work here. The three editors have called the Murasaki claim an "obvious error". Since when has anything on Wikipedia been allowed to slide by as "obvious"? Ok, so the Greek novels have "lengthy". I agree that "modern" is pretty subjective. As for "psychological", I don't think your reference meets the burden of proof to displace Genji with Leucippe and Clitophon. It has "psychological exegesis"; it has a psychological element, as does the Bible. Not quite good enough.

As for Britannica, you stated in an earlier comment that you consider it reputable, but when it reports something you consider an "obvious error", you retract your support for the source. You are starting with the "obvious fact" that Genji has no claim to being any superlative, then moving to discredit any source that disagrees with your unsupported "fact". Theological debates run into this problem frequently.

Lastly, I want to say, even if it all claims at any type of "first" or "oldest" are all false, and all in error, or guilty of being "myth", then that should be included in the article, and explained what is and is not valid. We have all agreed here that multiple sources credit Genji as a "first" or "oldest", though we dispute the validity of the claims and the quality of the sources. Whether they are objectively right or wrong, the "reality" and the "myth" need to be put in the article, otherwise someone else is going to come along, notice the article is missing the "obvious" fact that Genji was the first novel, and fill it in. If you're paying attention at the time, you might catch it, and you can repeat this debate all over again. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion of this topic at the actual article on The Tale of Genji and its talk page is more nuanced, and the claim that the work constitutes a "novel" is even challenged. This last point seems incorrect to me; Aldux alludes to the "novel" as a product of the mass-print era in a culture where the middle class had time to read, and that's true of the classic "novel" as it's called in English; however, the French roman alludes to the alternative tradition of the romance, which was perhaps stronger in France and which produces a clearer genealogy of Petronius/Apuleius to Rabelais to Voltaire to Stendhal. The point is, there is more commonality between the Greek and Latin novelists and Murasaki than there is between Murasaki and Jane Austen, in part because the former were all producing their work within a society in which literacy was the province of an elite minority. In terms of the formal history of the extended prose narrative, the classic novel is a blip or aberration; beginning with Joyce, and continuing with works like Infinite Jest, Europe Central, Cloud Atlas and so on, narrative in the era of electronic media is returning to its natural eclectic sprawl, like the Arthurian romance cycles of interlocking tales within an open-ended mythos. This transition contributed to literary historians expanding the definition of "novel" to encompass works like those of the Greeks and Romans and Murasaki. I find her work extremely intriguing in that context, and would not like to have her achievement summed up like a sports stat. Shakespeare wasn't the first at anything, as far as I know; "earliest" is just not something that's decisive in evaluating the place of an author in literary history. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

So now you're changing the definition of "novel"? And it appears you're changing it to suit your position. Cynewolfe, you write quite well, and it's clear you are familiar with your material, it even gives a false air of authority to your words, but you still have not produced any references that support your position. Allow me to quote Novel: "Murasaki Shikibu's Tale of Genji (1010) shows essentially all the qualities for which works such as Marie de La Fayette's La Princesse de Clèves (1678) have been praised: individuality of perception, an interest in character development and psychological observation. Parallel European developments did not occur for centuries" Boneyard90 (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not changing the definition of anything. I'm pointing out that Genji, as well as the ancient Greek novel, the Satyricon, The Golden Ass, Gargantua et Pantagruel, and Candide, isn't structured like the classic novels of the late 18th to mid-20th centuries; these novels are structured more like postmodernist novels, hence literary historians after Finnegan's Wake began to look at pre-modern and early modern long-form fictions in order to provide a more capacious definition of the "novel," as it's called in English (somewhat erroneously to emphasize it was a "new" form); however, in French and other Romance languages, the word for "novel" (French roman) derives from the medieval "romance." A medieval romance cycle, in terms of intended audience and the form of the work, has more in common with Genjii, a product of life at court, than do novels of the classic period such as Madame Bovary or Portnoy's Complaint. The description of Genji makes it clear that it isn't a novel of the classic, narrowly defined type; hence the discussion at that article over how to handle the term "novel." As I said, the usage of literary historians supports the applicability of the term "novel", but Murasaki's achievement in terms of form, purpose, and audience is not the same kind of novel written by Melville, Dostoyevsky, or Bellow. As for "parallel European developments did not occur for centuries," it's demonstrably untrue: they had already occurred in antiquity. It is impossible to read Petronius either in Latin or in a good translation and not see that he's created distinctive characters (to such an extent that Fellini was able to dramatize them) based on psychological observation; it's simply impossible not to find "individuality of perception" in Petronius. Wareh has already cited sources to that effect, and I could spend the rest of the afternoon finding more. In no way does this diminish Murasaki's achievement. Look, Wareh and I recently found ourselves arguing against the statement "the Athenians invented theatre" as just a dumb and unduly argumentative thing to say for various reasons. One of those reasons was that in context it implied that this supposed "invention" in Athens had some kind of priority or precedence over Noh or kabuki. These kinds of things are meaningless assertions. If the contentious claim is omitted, and an actual description used instead, there's no need to go dragging the ancient Greeks and Romans into it at all. Ancient Greek novel might belong in a link or "see also" at The Tale of Genji. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify: (1) "you stated in an earlier comment that you consider it reputable": no, actually I did not (I said "would be...were it not..."), but surely it's obvious to you by now that it is in error. (2) No objection if you want to write up the "first" claim as something that has been falsely said. (3) No objection if you want to add "first psychological" with a real source, Princesse de Cleves comparison with a real source (however, with claims like "parallel European developments..." I think it's best to be cautious and always ask if the writer is simply ignoring ancient material and forgetting to specify "modern."), etc. Let's just make sure (A) "Who said so?" is answered for any of these claims, (B) the obviously false claims (first novel, first lengthy novel) are not here embarrassing Wikipedia. Wareh (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok... I think we're wrapping things up. I was just going to ask for a point-by-point list of what you all would want to see in the text, and I think you provided just that. And I think I can work within those parameters. If I might work with the initial wording, the summary of Lady Murasaki and her work may have a narrow focus in the lead, but spurious superlatives won't stand unqualified. I would expound more in the text under historical context. But then, we don't want to get too in-depth; this article is about the author, not the book. Tell you what, let me think on it, look for sources, etc. I'll work with the points you have made, and try to find reliably sourced wording that is acceptable to all. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding Japanese language sources

I have a question. This sentence from the lead: "Some scholars think her given name was likely Fujiwara Takako, recorded as a name of a lady-in-waiting ranked shōji in 1007 according to Fujiwara no Michinaga's diary.[1][2]" is sourced to Japanese language sources that I can't read or check, but the point is mentioned in the third paragraph of the "Early life" section, and referenced to Mulhern. Because it's the lead, I'd prefer not to use sources that a.) I can't read, b.) I don't have access to. I'd like to remove the two sources, and also the reference to the rank. Does anyone object? Or, if we need to keep the reference to the rank, I'd like to have the source verified. I can't find in history where this was added, but will trawl through one more time. Thanks. Truthkeeper (Talk) 01:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been under the impression that information in the Lead section usually doesn't need references if the material is mentioned and sourced in the body of the text. On that ground I have no objection to removing the existing references in the Lead section, but they should be transferred to the relevant section in the text. On the issue of rank, I think it should be left in place. For those who know what it means, it is a fairly significant point. For those who do not, it does not detract from the article. On the issue of the sources, your personal knowledge of the language is not relevant. Texts in the native language and by native authors, under most ordinary circumstances, should be considered more valid than those written in a foreign language. I would also argue that the validity of some information should be greatly increased when a combination of Japanese sources and a foreign source (Mulhern) all agree. If you like, when I have time this week, I'll try to track down the sources and confirm the information. Boneyard90 (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The relevant section of the text is sourced and because it's not really contentious, I'm not sure it's necessary for multiple sources, but if consensus is to do that, I wouldn't object. I'm mostly concerned about the issue of the rank. Haruo Shirane names the rank as nyōbō, but the lead names it differently, so if someone who can read Japanese could help sort that out, it would be helpful. Btw - I do intend nominate the page to FAC fairly soon - only needs some finishing touches. But the sources in the lead will be questioned at FAC, most likely, so should be sorted out, and the inconsistency re lady-in-waiting rank. Truthkeeper (Talk) 17:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to the sources, so can't help. A while ago I was searching on the net (google books, and web) for shōji (in Romaji) and did not find anything appropriate. So I would think that it is either a very obscure rank or it is incorrectly transcribed from Japanese. bamse (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

At least, you should not remove the reference by Bunei Tsunoda, because he is the first person who insisted that the real name of Murasaki Shikibu might be Fujiwara Takako (or Kaoruko) (藤原香子), the name of a certain lady-in-waiting ranked up to 掌侍 ([naishinojō] Error: {{nihongo}}: text has italic markup (help)) on the 29th day of the 1st month, Kankō 4, according to the diary written by Fujiwara no Michinaga. The previous reference lacked the proper volume and page numbers; the original article is written in Japanese with the title of Real name of Murasaki Shikibu (紫式部の本名, Murasaki Shikibu no Hommyō) published in a journal named Cultura antiqua (古代文化, Kodai Bunka)(ISSN 0045-9232) with the volume number and pages of Vol. 11 (no.1), pp. 1-27. Shōji was wrong, but naishinojō. According to his theory, there were seven recorded naishinojō women served for Fujiwara no Akiko in the 11th month, Kankō 5; Real names of four women are known; one of the other three women was from Minamoto clan; the nickname of another woman suggests that she was much older and should be ranked up much earlier; so the last women nicknamed Fuji no Shikibu (藤式部) sould be Fujiwara Takako (or Kaoruko) ranked up a year earlier, and this woman should be the same person with Murasaki Shikibu, who might be ranked up to Junior Grade of the Fifth rank (従五位, jugoi) on the 28th day of the 12th month, Kankō 2 (13 months earlier to her next grade), and might be ranked up to naishinojō later. Of course, there are a lot of opposition to this opinion, because this hypothesis is based on several hypotheses.Aurichalcum (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the clarification and the information. I'll work it in somehow, with the qualification. Truthkeeper (Talk) 13:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

why can not infobox be used here

Murasaki Shikibu
Murasaki shown writing at her desk at Ishiyama-dera inspired by the Moon, ukiyo-e by Suzuki Harunobu, c. 1767
Born	c. 973 Kyoto, Japan
Died	c. 1014 or 1025
Language	Japanese
Nationality	Japan
Genre	Novel
Notable works	The Tale of Genji
Spouse	Fujiwara no Nobutaka

I added an infobox template and was immediately reverted. The reason provided in the edit summary was "template is not required". But "the use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles). I like to know why an infobox cannot be used in this article. --Pengyanan (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"the use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited" (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles). Yomangani^talk 02:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I know it. But why it should be prohibited here. That's my question. --Pengyanan (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Because it is not required. The question should be not whether it is prohibited or required, but whether adding it contributes anything useful to the article. Murasaki isn't a chemical compound that can be defined by a neat list of physical properties, so she doesn't fit into an infobox (we have enough trouble trying to get a handle on her over several pages of the article proper.) Yomangani^talk 02:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Only chemical compounds can have an infobox? Of course not. What I added is Template:Infobox writer. Murasaki was a writer and the writer infobox apparently applies to this case. Many featured articles on writers have infobox such as Chinua Achebe, Mário de Andrade, James Robert Baker, Honoré de Balzac, Du Fu, William Gibson, Mary Martha Sherwood, etc.. Why cannot this article have one? The infobox is useful to readers to quickly get summary and overview information about the subject. Adding it is apparently benign and harms nothing. --Pengyanan (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The infobox is an option. This is a featured article - it achieved that particular accolade by virtue of the quality of the content. The article does not have an infobox and its primary editor (not me) chose not to use one...Modernist (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out, many featured articles on writer have infobox. A Wikipedia entry is a living article that anyone can edit. No one, even a primary editor, can claim that he or she has the ownership of an article. If the primary editor of this article chose not to use infobox, he or she has to give a reason. --Pengyanan (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You've been given reasons already - its not required, some feel that it demeans the complexity of content in the article by reducing complicated nuances into platitudes...Modernist (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of an infobox is to provide summary and overview information, not to replace the main body of text. The complicated nuances are still there. It's hard to believe that a writer infobox can demean the complexity of content. --Pengyanan (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The arguments surrounding this are always about personal preferences. You and many others like infoboxes, but there are many other people who don't like them - I'd like to remove them from the other authors too. I don't think you can give a reasonable overview of this topic in an infobox (Fujiwara no Nobutaka as spouse doesn't cut it for starters). Yomangani^talk 10:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not just a matter of personal preferences. The writer infobox, like other infoboxes, can of course provide a reasonable overview of a writer, including Murasaki Shikibu. Even though the parameter "spouse" in the infobox can be left blank here, other parameters, such as birth and death years, nationality, genre, notable works, etc., are still apparently useful for starters to quickly grasp the basic information of the subject. --Pengyanan (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That we disagree and that there are supporters on both sides of the argument suggests it is about personal preferences. Anyway, I'll say no more as I fear neither of us will be converted to the other's position. Yomangani^talk 11:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Because tehy hatez tehm. They and their friends camp out on their articles and will argue beyond the grave to keep their articles their way. Alarbus (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a violation of WP:NPA and WP:Civil alarbus. You seem to be stalking Truthkeeper88 as you usually do...Modernist (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The lead editor on this article has put in nearly 800 edits and chose not to use the infobox. That editor then nominated this article for featured status and fixed it to conform to various editors criticisms and opinions and critiques and the article achieved being featured on the front page. As a measure of respect to that editor; and since the infobox is not needed or required it should not be added...Modernist (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Asume bad faith much, modernist? This is on the main page, so it's kinda noticeable. All you're doing is claiming ownership and putting friendship first. Alarbus (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As you know friendship matters, in life and even here...Modernist (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You're off message; the mantra is something like The only thing that matters is content. Alarbus (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC) “…”

Modernist's argument is just claiming ownership of the article and is not based on merit. --Pengyanan (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This is nothing new. Alarbus (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Please review WP:OWN#Featured articles and respect the good discretion of the editors of this page. Eisfbnore ^talk 11:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It's much abused. Alarbus (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The page yes, with editors users showing no respect of those who contribute with content. Eisfbnore ^talk 11:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have read WP:OWN#Featured articles. It does not mention the editors' discretion. It just says that explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership. However, adding infobox here improves, not demeans, this article. I cannot find any source or policy supporting the current no-infobox version. --Pengyanan (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

see the mantra, above; for a more class-based wiki. Alarbus (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"I cannot find any source or policy supporting the current no-infobox version." – well, here you go: WP:DISINFOBOX. Eisfbnore ^talk 11:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It's an essay. Alarbus (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Neither a source nor a policy. --Pengyanan (talk) 09:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Primary contributor here: at the moment I have health problems that are keeping me from editing, so I won't be joining this discussion. Two things though - there was no infobox on the page when I began editing (not sure that there's ever been one ... ); Alarbus please stop following me - It's not cool at the moment because I'm not well and you're perpetuating a months' old feud. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

One other thing: the genre field is deeply flawed and in my view would be irresponsible to put out as the first google hit. Please see discussions above re novel - done before I expanded the page. And she was a poet and a diaryist as well. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

i've yet to read a good reason for there not to be an infobox on a biography article with at least dob/dod and occupation.--71.167.157.17 (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose any infobox. They are not mandatory and many pages don't have them; Emily Dickinson just to cite one. The infobox you want to add includes nothing to the article. It says where and when he did born and died, who was her husand and her only notable work. The infobox is not similar to this or this. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The infobox has no value here. The claim that it is "useful" is absurd to me: most of the information provided in the proposed infobox is available in the first two sentences of this article. (The article is the thing on the left of where the infobox is put.) It seems that many people think infoboxes can replace leads; they can't. They're boring; they say nothing. People's lives are not well described as database entries. The first three paragraphs of this article give you a short overview, if that is what you're truly interested in. That she was born in Kyoto (an item, gasp, not available at the top of article) is not fundamental, and a reader who wants that detail can look to the beginning of the article proper. Infoboxes are tails wagging dogs: it's easy to summarize "place of birth", so you make it a field in an infobox and waste the reader's attention by highlighting it. Other things that capture the subject, and the reason that the subject has an article, cannot be so easily summarized. The infobox distorts and distracts, and if you want a wikilawyerish argument, the infobox can even be seen as giving undue weight to biographical minutiae (that is, relative to the reasons the subject has an encyclopedia entry). Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Heian-kyo vs. Kyoto

Another non-essential commentary... it might be worthwhile to mention at least once Heian-kyō as the name of Kyoto at the time of Murasaki Shikibu. bamse (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Will add. Thanks for mentioning. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Bias

"Confucianism taught that women were unintelligent; generally they were not educated and never in Chinese, which they were considered to be incapable of learning." This passage is similar to the one cited in the reference but I'm not sure the author of that book was in a position to make this claim. Surely the exclusion of women was not simply because of Confucianism. Angry bee (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning - I'll have a look at the source. At the least maybe to avoid a generalization should be attributed to the source. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the source, I think it's fine. But others might have some suggestions here. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I am likewise disturbed by this passage. It's not that I believe women weren't discriminated against, I just don't remember ever reading or learning that Confucianism taught that women were "unintelligent". Sure, they were vehicles for the continuance of the state (by making babies), they were supposed to be chaste and subordinate, but I don't think there were comments on intelligence. See Lessons for Women, a Confucian text. I suggest removing the line in the article or altering its content; it's sourced to a general history of Japan, rather than a text on Confucian thought, so it's not really an authority on that subject. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know enough about Confucianism to make a judgment and followed the source. I've changed it. Thanks for the comment. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong picture

Prince Genji depicted in one half of a diptych from the mid-19th century by Kunisada showing a scene from The Tale of Genji

I moved this picture here because Kunisada drew this for Nise Murasaki Inaka Genji (ja:偐紫田舎源氏) a parody of The Tale of Genji written in the Edo period. The Samurai's shaved top of head is called Sakayaki (月代). Prince Genji with Sakayaki is an anachronism as he is a nobleman in the Heian period. Even in the Edo period the noblemen (公家) did not shave their head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viking Rollo (talk • contribs) 11:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look later at the museum description from which I uploaded and will replace if necessary, or modify the description. If it's a parody, it's still interesting. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

See Chonmage. Oda Mari (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I was wrong. Kunisada made a series of pictures entitled Genji Goshuu Yojou (源氏後集余情) which is not necessarily related to Nise Murasaki Inaka Genji. Note the title is a pun for Genji Gojuu-yo Jou (源氏五十四帖) which means the 54 chapters of Genji. This picture is one of them. Some pictures of the same series found here. Viking Rollo (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm confused - probably because I don't know Japanese. Is the image of Prince Genji or not? If not, then it can be replaced. If it is, then I believe it only needs to have the caption tweaked. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not the image of Prince Genji. See [2] and translation. The linked image is other nishikie, 源氏後集余情１ 第廿五の巻, in the series Genji Goshuu Yojou (源氏後集余情) though. But you can find our image in this list as 源氏後集余情５ 夕顔 大判. Select Shift_JIS in the view tab on your browser, if character encoding is needed. Oda Mari (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, less confused now. I'll have a look at those. Also I think Boston Museum might have some, so will see what can be done. I think we should try to have an image of Genji. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll either replace it with this [3] or with the calligraphy emaki - File:Genji emaki 01003 002.jpg. I'm leaning toward the one first one from the British museum - it's the best I can find and now understand why the other image appropriate. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. The first one is better. BTW, I have no idea who edited, but I think the image on the top of the article should be replaced as the kimono Murasaki wearing is not Jūnihitoe. And the ukiyoe looks somehow like a Chinese painting. I don't think it's the best choice. Oda Mari (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm, can't follow. Why should there be an image with a jūnihitoe? Also, can't see the likeness to Chinese paintings. Looks very much Harunobu to me. bamse (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The kimono in the ukiyoe is too modern, and the woman does not looks like a woman in Heian period. See the costumes in Heian period at here. As Japanese, I have a sense of incongruity at that image as if I saw an image of Queen Victoria wearing a mini skirt. Oda Mari (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, though personally I like the mix of old and more modern illustrations as it emphasizes that she was popular (at least in the arts) over a long time period. Do you know whether the oldest extant painting showing Murasaki Shikibu is in the Murasaki Shikibu Diary Emaki or something else? bamse (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

'The kimono in the ukiyoe is too modern.'

• The 浮世絵 genre postdates the Heian period by roughly half a millenium. So anything in a ukiyo-e is, ipso facto not going to mirror the historical world of Heian.

'the woman does not look(s) like a woman in Heian period.'

• I.e. not amply plump or with blackened teeth. We don't really know how Heian women looked, as opposed to how they dressed, since the later genres capturing these scenes are stylized, and in any case, the cosmetic principles of the time utterly camouflaged natural features. And since the aesthetic ideals governing feminine pulchritude in the Heian court were inspired by T'ang dynasty models, the 'authentic' Heian woman is a fiction, surely.
• The 源氏物語絵巻 is dated to the very end of the Heian era, postdating Genji monogatari by at least a century, and most Genji pictures were done centuries later, and, while drawing on earlier emakimono, reveal modifications that reflect changes in yamato-e conventions, though archaicizing. It's a bit like refusing to use Luca Signorelli's portrait of Dante because the Bargello painting is earlier, and thus must be more 'authentic'.

Aren't we making too much heavy weather here by assuming we must have a portrait mirroring the 'authentic' look of the Heian nobility? Heian culture itself prized Chinese textiles, much of court dress was imported. As for the ostensible dissonance, Queen Victoria in a Jean Shrimpton mini, well, really! Her contemporary, the Meiji emperor, to justify his use of Western formal dress, said he was abandoning the old court costumes because they were too Chinese-looking. Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hi all! To explain: a fair amount of thought went into balancing the images on this page and the visual arts editors pitched it. I wanted to do the following: add as many images as possible without cluttering the page and balance the images by color, subject, and age. The candidates for the lead image are below in a gallery.
• At one point of another each of these has been used as the lead image. The reason I chose the current one is: the Tosa faces in the wrong direction, is a crop and goes well where it's placed in the article; the image of her in Jūnihitoe with a fan is being used as the lead in The Diary of Lady Murasaki - where I think it works. Here it's a bit bland because it only shows a woman with a fan. I had the 3rd image (the 19th c. one) for a long time, but also moved it to the diary page. I think it's too late (19th century), and to be honest it's not as nice as the others (at least in my view).
• Then I found the 4th image, the current lead image, and liked it. It faces the text, it shows a woman writing, it shows her overlooking Lake Biwa - an iconic pose for MS - and imo it has nice movement and life. It's also an 18th century image which seemed to work well. It doesn't show her wearing a Jūnihitoe. If that's a requirement, it's not something I'd want to do without consensus, and we'd have to decide which of the one in the gallery to use instead.
• Furthermore, I understand the image of Genji is from a book that's a spoof - but nonetheless it's still Genji is it not? That particular image works well to balance the page and looks good in a thumb format - and the alternatives don't. I'm leaning toward keeping it and changing the caption, but haven't the time to do much about it at the moment. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• 
  Tosa of Murasaki
• 
  18th c. poet with fan
• 
  19th c. poet at her desk
• 
  18th c. image of poet writing on balcony overlooking Lake Biwa

break 1

The current image is the least appropriate portrait. Look at the global usage of it. The image is used only at en and id WP. As for the kimono in Heian, see these. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14]. The cuff must be widely open. There was no kimono with the flower design in the ukiyoe in Heian. Not only the kimono, hair style is also wrong. Compare with women in other emaki images. What is the comb? It reminds me of oiran. The Ishiyama dera lies, not on the lakeside of Biwa, on the right bank of the Seta river, not on the left bank. It is said that Murasaki had the idea of the tale of Genji when she visited the temple. But as far as I know, there's no record that she wrote it at the temple. It seems to me nothing is correct in the description of the ukiyoe, but the name Murasaki. The ukiyoe may be a good work by Suzuki Harunobu, but it is a terrible portrait of Murasaki. The image is misleading. The Tosa image is my first choice as it is most widely used image of Murasaki in Japan. The other two images will do if other users think any one of them is appropriate. But not the ukiyoe. That is an image native Japanese speakers never think to use in the article of Murasaki. This one is said to be the oldest portrait of Murasaki, We can use it if we want it. Oda Mari (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a preference for either of the four images. Just a question on the oldest image. Perhaps, the image you linked is the oldest portrait (Momoyama period), but what about non-portraits. Apparently she appears in several paintings of the Murasaki Shikibu Diary Emaki, but are there any older depictions? Perhaps in the Genji scrolls? bamse (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's an artistic depiction created in the 18th century. It's probably not used elsewhere because I uploaded it just before taking the page to FAC and I do understand the issue of the kimono but there are artistic depictions of her from various eras in the article. I didn't realize I had to use the earliest. Shall we remove all the others as well? To be honest, I'm baffled by this. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the page went through FA review and passed. The page must adhere to MoS and MoS images is clear that images must face the text - so the Tosa really can't be used and is fine where it's being used in the text. I'm very busy in real life at the moment, but if anyone else has the time and would be kind enough to upload the image Oda Mari linked, with full file description including the artist if we know who it is (which I can't read) and the appropriate licenses, then that would be a fine image to use. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Haven't found a decent quality version of the image, maybe somebody else is more successful. Image description should include: "By fr:Kanō Takanobu, Momoyama period, in possession of Ishiyama-dera". On the other hand, if I did not mess up the translation, this blog says, that the image was only until the Showa period considered to be the oldest portrait of Murasaki Shikibu. After that, this (3rd image) (alternative image) has been considered the oldest portrait. Interestingly this oldest portrait is entitled "紫式部聖像" (Murasaki Shikibu sacred image/icon), so I wonder whether it was actually worshipped (which would make for an interesting addition to the article text...) bamse (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This has a tiny bit of information on the oldest portrait (Murasaki Shikibu Seizo). bamse (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Murasaki Shikibu SEIZO: The large portrait of Murasaki Shikibu in Ishiyama-temple is attibuted to 15-16th century by scholars. Although it is claimed as the eldest portrait of her, I cannot call it the eldest. Since images in Murasaki Shikibu Diary Emaki were painted in 13th century, these are older than it. Focusing popularity or effect in japanese people, drawing on the card for cardgame should be more effective.--ReijiYamashina (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read this carefully, ReijiYamashina. It says "最古の紫式部単身の肖像画といわれています". 単身の肖像 means a single-person portrait. The explanation excludes more-than-two-persons drawings in older emaki. Oda Mari (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess Ishiyama Temple has some portraits of Murasaki Shikibu.This portrait is attrubuted a painter: Kano Takanobu(1571-1618). Nowadays Ishiyama Temple officail Site call another painting MURASAKI SHIKIBU SEIZO: the eldest portrait. This is much damaged, but it likes elder than that. Shirahata YOSHI (famous art historian) thought about Kamakura-Muromachi period. The descripson may be obsolete now.--ReijiYamashina (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that one's been linked, but there's not compelling reason that we must use the oldest image in the lead. There's a much more compelling reason that we use one that's clear and adheres to policy. Truthkeeper (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Bamse for looking around. This is the problem with the very old images - they're not always the best for a lead image. Anyway, I'd like to see whether others will weigh in on this issue and to think about it more myself. The contested image has been in place since last summer (as has the Genji) image, so I think it's okay if we leave it a bit longer. In the meantime, as I have time, I'll think about alternatives. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced the lead image but I'd like to put back the Genji image. I'm not finding the arguments above compelling that the image is not Genji, although I readily admit it could well be because I don't understand Japanese. Can someone explain clearly why the Genji image is unfit for this page? Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

break 2

As for the lead image, I said any image would be acceptable before, but I retract it. Now I look at the article, I don't think it's appropriate. What was the reason you choose the current image, Truthkeeper88? I'm afraid it seems to me that you pushed the image you uploaded and I think it's a kind of COI. Ask for consensus first. The reason I choose Tosa Mitsuoki's image as the first choice was that Tosa was born in a painter's family and he was a court painter. It means he knew better than anyone else in the early Edo period how to depict court ladies in the Heian period. That is why the image is most widely used in Japan. But Kunisada was only a designer of ukiyoe in the late Edo period. He did not have any relationship to the court and his knowledge of Heian period was limited. Not only that image, but I think other 19th century ukiyoe should be removed from the article as they all have no atmosphere of the Heian Period.
As for the Genji image, it's not Genji. Didn't you read the the translation of link #2, it's a terrible machine translation though? It says "この時期の草双紙や浮世絵には、「源氏」の名をつけるものが多く、これも『源氏物語』によるものではなく、美男・美女を大判線絵二枚続きとし、５０組１００枚を出版したものとみられる。". It means "There are lot of ukiyoe with Genji title, but this 源氏後集余情 is also not based on The Tale of Genji, but a 100 nishikie series of handsome men and beautiful women". See this page too. Translation is here. See the 6th and 7th paragraph. It says "奢侈な風俗を禁じる幕府の方針に対し、「古典文学を主題にし......」と言い逃れる中で世に広められた錦絵の世界。私の手元にある「源氏後集余情」はその一つです". Toyokuni used the title of Genji in order to evade the censorship, he didn't depict Genji. See Tenpō Reforms and [15]. It is clear that he is not Genji as he wears a kimono in the Edo period, holding a katana with chonmage, a samurai hair style. Like the previous lead image, everything is wrong. Oda Mari (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I said up-page I didn't think it was appropriate but you wanted the one in place changed. I changed it. Now I've changed it again. Filling a post with Japanese does me no good, but basically I won't argue about an image. I brought this page to FAC, and now will let others decide what to do. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Oda Mari: I might agree with your argument for Tosa's image as lead image, but I don't see why we need to exclude all ukiyoe to have a "Heian Period atmosphere" throughout the article (using Heian "imitation" images created several centuries after the Heian period). Also what about this ukiyo which is a bit Heian style if you want. Can it stay? The Tale of Genji and Murasaki Shikibu have been popular for many centuries, and influenced many painters and ukiyoe artists. Why not show this with images? All the images are dated in the caption and I believe the reader is intelligent enough to realize that artistic styles changed and that none of the images claims to be a realistic depiction of her. bamse (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm coming a little late to the discussion, but for me the images are as beautifully balanced as the text; more to the point, as per the legacy section and some of the above, what's interesting about Genji/Murasaki is not just the World of the Shining Prince but also the reworking in later literature, painting etc These prints are part of that, and so surely belong - though precise identification if there is a question mark would be good. As for COI - relative to the time and thought clearly invested, clicking upload image is relatively trivial; but while we're on the subject, does a stub of the above-mentioned Fake Murasaki and her Bumpkin Genji belong anywhere? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Oda Mari: Because the article is an Featured article, it has to adhere to the featured article criteria which includes MoS requirements. If we didn't have another image available, I could make a case for a right facing image in the lead - but we do have other images available. I am aware of the Tosa School of artists and I am aware an argument can be made to have it be the lead image (though a new one would have to be uploaded and I haven't found it on any databases) but the fact is, we must adhere to MoS. Given that, we have three choices from the grouping above. And yes, I did upload a left (text) facing image, because they do exist. Furthermore, because we don't actually have a portrait of Murasaki Shikibu, the page is filled with artistic representations of her made over the centuries. I went through a great deal of effort, and had a great deal of help with editors from the visual arts projects such as Modernist balancing the page with art that spanned the entire thousand years. At this moment, without consensus, I'm hesitant to change anything. I will replace the Genji; however, because he was a fictional character, I think quite honestly we're getting a little too literal about this. Also, I'm very very busy in real life at the moment, so please forgive me if I can't give this my full attention. As soon as I have more time to devote to wikipedia, I'll work on it. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm busy right now. I'll post my comment/explanation asap. Later on today, or maybe tomorrow as it takes time for me to write en. Please be patient. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see ja:源氏絵. Translation. And these. [16] (translation). [17] (translation) Most of these Genji ukiyoe in the end of Edo and the early Meiji are not true Genji images but genre works. As I wrote before, the Genji ukiyoe are parody/criticism of shogunate and Ōoku used the names of the Genji characters to evade censorship. That is why I disagree with the inclusion of 19th images in this biography article. Ukiyoe are mass market prints, you know, of course some of them are great pieces of art though. I don't understand why so many portraits of Murasaki are needed in the article when no one knew/knows how she actually looked like. See William Shakespeare and Geoffrey Chaucer. Comparing with them, this article is too loud. I think some readers of the article do not know Murasaki and the tale well and I do not want her images in the article mislead them. The article is a biography article, not an art/portrait article on Murasaki. I strongly oppose the use of the current ukiyoe portrait as the lead image for the reason I wrote above. Oda Mari (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Oda Mari for your reply. I haven't yet had time to process the links with the translations you've provided but I will and if I have anything else to add will return. I have no objection to using this which is really quite lovely if we can get a nice high quality image and if someone who understands Japanese can help with the upload file so that the description and license fields are filled out correctly. As for the page being a bit loud, and I do understand what you mean by that, please let me explain: my feeling is that here's a woman who has inspired a significant amount of art in a thousand year period, my intention, in writing this biography, was to present the best on-line resource, shall we say, of Muraski Shikibu, in a single page. It's my belief that not everyone reads all the text, but people will look at the pictures and read the captions and the captions give the opportunity to provide small description, bits of information, and link to other pages, if done well. If you look at each section, you'll see I was quite careful to match the images to the section: the early life section has a picture of Michinaga and one of Murasaki dressed in violet - which are mentioned in that section. The next section discusses her retreat to the Ishiyama, which is shown in pictures. The following sections are about life at court (shown by the Tosa's), the other women writers (with images of them) and more about court life (more Tosas). The sections about her work include images from her work, one of the early scroll of the diary, and the new one I've added for Genji (done by a late 17th c. court painter which you will find by following the source link). Finally the section about her late life shows her at Lake Biwa again and the section about genji-e shows examples of that and so forth. As a westerner, a person who believes these to be wonderful example of Japanese art, and a person who believes Murasaki Shikibu deserves a page as lavishly decorated as the court at which she lived, I purposely worked to bring as much art in as possible. To be honest I do this with all the pages I write, for example Edmund Evans or Bal des Ardents or The Magdalen Reading because I think if pictures are available, and this case they are, then we should use them. Regarding the lead picture, my sense is that the objection is that it's ukiyo-e, which maybe can be called "popular art" or "low art" whereas the Tosa is not. I would agree with that. Unfortunately the Tosa is facing in the wrong direction and honestly I think it works well where it is in the text. So let's see if we can find another image that will satisfy the demands of the en wiki, the demands of the page, and demands of a primarily western audience. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to add - the images you've linked in your post above are clearly "floating world" art and as far as I know I haven't used any of these, unless the lead image can be construed as such - although it is a late 18th c image. If that's the case, then it needs to explained clearly so that all of us have a full understanding of the issue at hand. In the meantime I've downloaded this and will work on it to see how clear I can make it. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

break 3

Why did you restore the Suzuki image? As I pointed out above, it's the worst choice. The image does not depict a Heian woman authentically. You repeatedly says that the Tosa image is not suitable as the lead image just because Murasaki faces in the wrong direction. Is that the only reason? I don't think she faces in the wrong way. There is paper on the floor and it seems to me that Murasaki is trying to do something like picking it up. I have no idea why Tosa depicted that way, but why should Murasaki face the other direction? On the other hand, the Suzuki image has too many authentic and geographical mistakes and the woman does not look like a Heian court woman at all. It's a mystery to me that you didn't notice the incongruity of the Suzuki image and thought it was appropriate as a lead image. What do you think the kimono in the Suzuki image? Didn't you notice the difference between kimono in Suzuki and Jyunihitoe in Tosa? What do you think about the authenticity of images' depiction? Isn't it important? I do not want readers think the attire of Suzuki image is a Heian period costume. Because it's wrong and misleading and I think the lead image needs authenticity. We do not have to find another image for the lead. It should be Tosa. Yes, the article is loud because there are too many images and the it seems to me the layout is terrible. It should be more neat. But that's another matter. What I want to do right now is replace the wrong lead image with the authentic image. I'm afraid your comments are WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and you don't admit your lack of knowledge on Japanese art and the history of Japanese costume. Bamse agreed with the use of Tosa. Why don't you? Please answer my questions. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I restored it because you objected this post to the image I replaced it with [18]. I'm sorry it's distasteful and that the lay-out is distasteful. But the fact is, the page passed FAC in this design and this point we need strong consensus to change per this policy. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, since you're canvassing FAC reviewers for an RfC, please leave a message at at FAC talk for the delegates and director to see. I also think if you canvass Wikiproject Japan, that other Wikiprojects in the banner above should be canvassed, or none at all. It's up to you. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The lead image ideally faces into the article, (from the right side facing into the text); as a guideline and as a stylistic pointer; in my opinion the article does well to keep all the imagery; it needs the imagery as explanatory aides to the western reader. As to the lede - all 4 above are beautiful although I prefer this one File:Lady Murasaki at her desk.png for its power, if we don't have a good version of this [19]...Modernist (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as the Tosa images - I like that we are using them in a separate section in the article, not needed in the lede...Modernist (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a happy compromise would be ?for Oda Mari? to draft a brief extension to the caption accompanying the lead image, highlighting how access to the "authentic" Murasaki is filtered through creative (re)inventions/"mistakes"? Or is there scope (well clearly yes, but does anyone have the sources?) for a page on this print, that could then be linked in, so as not to swamp the lead with such detail? Images as explicanda rather than illustrations? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The description of the print is here at the museum website. It's not very informative, but clearly identifies her as Murasaki Shikibu. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here as I reviewed the images at FAC. First off, at FAC my concerns were that the images were free and properly licensed (and they were). I am not an expert on Japanese history or culture. Second, the lead image (which is File:Lady Murasaki writing.png) is clearly of Murasaki, even if it was made over 700 years after her death. I think the caption, which gives the year of the lead image, makes this clear and would expect most readers to "get" that it is thus not a contemporary image of her. I do think there is room to improve the caption, but I think in many ways this is an excellent lead image. It is clearly Japapnese, it is free, it shows an important incident in her life (her inspiration to write the Genji), and by being so much newer than her, shows in part how she continues to be an important cultural figure centuries after her death. I also happen to think the image is beautiful and that helps too. Finally, it is usually better in cases like this to suggest an alternative - if there is a better free image out there which meets the other criteria I listed, please suggest it. My impression is that many of the same objections to this image (not accurate in style) could be made of lead images in other publications about her. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

PS PLease don't call this an "RFC" unless it is listed at WP:RFC, which does not see m to be the case. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Belatedly I straightened the matter. If there's something I should do, please let me know. Again I apologize the mess I created. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Crop

File:Murasaki - Mitsuoki (crop).jpg is the best crop I can get. In my view it's not featured article quality, but putting it here for others to decide. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Because only a thumbnail is freely available for that piece, you're not going to get a good resolution endproduct after cropping. I think everybody knows this. Maybe you didn't quite get my point, but I am saying the higher resolution images exist, but they are not mad freely available, and you may have to negotiate with the Harvard museum for the use of it or a cropped version of it, and I will grant you, it is not an immediate solution, but one that may be ultimately possible. I would add that the Mitsuaki art in question is a frontispiece to an older [Genji album], and if you go to this linked site, you will see that all the other pages of the album are available at higher resolution.

At the other end, a Japanese person might try to negotiate with Ishiyama Temple to release the cropped painting of a similar composition (Murasaki Shikibu Ishiyamadera kangetsuzu (紫式部石山寺観月図)) for use. A thumbnail is found on the temple's official blog (Ishiyama Temple (November 27, 2011). "ご覧になりましたか？" (blog). Ishiyamadera official blog "Shiki no tayori". Retrieved May 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help))

Perhaps some of you are already aware there is a standing portrait of Murasaki Shikibu looking out from Ishiyama temple (attrib. to Mitsuoki?), to be found in the Ishiyama dera engi emaki (石山寺縁起絵巻) . I have found decent shots 三橋順子 (February 8, 2012). "石山寺縁起絵巻を読む（『源氏物語』の執筆事情）" (blog). 続・たそがれ日記. Retrieved May 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) and at 一炊学舎 (November 24, 2003). "石山寺" (blog). 琵琶湖の竜を探す旅. Retrieved May 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help).

Some other images, which are not necessarily well-sourced are as follows (see also some I linked at Talk:Suzuki Harunobu):

• Hiroshige, Murasaki Shikibu Ishyamadera sanrōzu (「紫式部石山参籠図 」)　(1854)　 a nikuhitsu (T-maru(尚智庵 ) (January 4, 2006). "近江八景－石山秋月 (追記)" (blog). 広重の八景物. 石山寺. Retrieved May 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)), from artbook (「広重肉筆画名作展」).
• No Byline (2012). "Murasaki's Pen". Tribe Magazine Online. Retrieved May 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) (captioned photo, attrib. Tosa Mitsuoki (17th century)
• Sato (May 23, 2001). "El libro de la almohada". La Nacion Digital. Retrieved May 2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Text "Amalia" ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)"Thirty-six Immortal Lady Poets, de Tosa Mitsuoki." --Kiyoweap (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you suggested a crop if as you say everyone knows a crop can't be had - I shouldn't have wasted the time. Let me make myself very clear: I am quite busy in real life this month, now spilling into June, and I've spent time here trying to be accommodating. I have not seen a single other image uploaded, with appropriate descriptions and licenses, and presented for consideration. Instead, now I'm being told to contact Harvard, and to check other museums, during my spare time for an activity that do I do on a voluntary basis, to satisfy the assumption that the woman in the existing picture may perhaps be a courtesan. Perhaps someone can take the time to contact the curators at the Boston Art Museum and ask them why the image is identified as Murasaki Shikibu, rather than speculating, because speculation gets us nowhere. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if you've seen, but per Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Assessment there are two Top Importance FAs, of which this is one, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is an interesting read regarding Suzuki Harunobu and other artists relevant works: Richard Amaro, Evaluation of The Tale of Genji...Modernist (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't inspire confidence. It cites, for example an outdated source which contains an egregious error. 'This peculiarity of style is called “hikime-kagihana,” or drawn eyes and key nose.' That's from Tsuda Noritake (津田敬武)'s dated work on the History of Japanese Art, and mistranslates 引目鈎鼻, confusing the character 鈎 'kagi' (hook, gaff) for the homophonous 鍵 'kagi' (key) (A History of Japanese Art, pp.124, 329). Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

For your consideration

Someone was kind enough to drop these two images in my sandbox for consideration: [20] [21]. The first I wanted to use as the lead when I was writing the page but couldn't find information about it to determine whether it's PD, the second is PD - but help from a Japanese speaker would be helpful in terms of trying to find these on a museum site. If anyone wants to dig around to try to identify these, that would be great. In my view, either would be fine for the lead, and if not there, can be added elsewhere. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I really like this image [22] it has character, panache and lots of feeling - I saw it online the other day when I did a search and found Amero's paper...Modernist (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I still like the one we are using it's fine; - here's another [23] lifted from this article: [24] also here [25]...Modernist (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This, the first in Truthkeeper's post, looks perfect to me, and beats the rest in this rather comical wiki replay of Genji Monogatari ch.17 (絵合). We need a representation of her, facing left, pensively mulling her novel at her writing table for the lead, much as both Tosa Mitsuoki and Harunobu Suzuki have her. This is lacking in the second Hiroshige (1854) autograph, which is quite attractive, however (and which, to her credit, Kiyoweap brought in earlier for consideration).Nishidani (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That first one I recognize, and it came up after reaching gazoulog.com site. I didn't pursue it because the art looked too modern, like the sleeve area, though interesting, and she is sitting on a rope zabuton. I traced the .jpg url to this blog: Asakawa, Wataru (朝川渉). "旅の歌（１）". かたつむり行進曲. Retrieved June 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) which says it is by Terasaki Kōgyō (寺崎広業) (1866 - 1919), so you can double-check based on that lead. The second one is the standing Hiroshige is, as Nishidani says, from the blogger I already gave out, but blogger's attribution to Hiroshige I've taken on faith and haven't corroborated. I can't quite read the rakkan signature which might be in one of Hiroshige's other names. The other woodblock print that Modernist pulled is a Yoshitoshi print already featured in the article.

(correction) The item I called "rope zabuton" for lack of knowldege of a better term is also called enza (円座), and it seems it was in use since the Heian period (source: Motto shiritai onmyoji, Bessatsu Takarajima 613, , p.67 ISBN 4-7966-2440-6) --Kiyoweap (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have found other images you may be interested in if you are trying to develop a gallery. But Japanese sites usually assert copyright, and some give liberal permission, but not unrestricted use ones. So I'm rather reluctant about uploading them into Wiki Commons (Right now kind of confused about what the copyright rules are). But I will disclose the links so you can view them:

• Tokyo National Museum (about 6 hits)
  • 宮川長春 (江戸時代＿18c). "紫式部図". Retrieved May 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help) (Miyagawa Chōshun piece). This one is the typical sitting at Ishiyama temple composition. Mentioned also in this here blog "日本画と浮世絵・日華（日中）連合絵画展覧会Ｓと合理的疑問 (追記)". March 11, 2011. Retrieved May 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) and a monochrome photo there seems to have be from the the book 日本画大成"・肉筆浮世絵 published 1933.
• 古典籍資料（貴重書等） (National Diet Library, digitized classical materials):
  • "抱一応挙等粉本. 紫式部". 国立国会図書館デジタル化資料. Retrieved May 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help), Hōitsu Ōkyo etc. konahon, evidently signed by Hōitsu but listed as a collaboration with Maruyama Ōkyo et al, I guess. kona-hon" seems to be a "study" or vignette for a larger work, painted on paper rubbed with gofun, or something like that. This was is wrong way facing for lede.
• Murasaki shikibu portrait from "onna kasen-e" Bibliothèque nationale, fond japonais 5341 (17th cent.) @ Mandragore (1 hit).

(corrected links) There were a couple of dead links above and hopefully I corrected them. For the blog that mentions Miyagawa Chōshun's piece (marked "＊(22)" in this blog) I replaced with a working link. The blogsite has a decent quality monochrome photo of this painting. The corresponding color photo is at the webstite for Tokyo National Museum, which might be temporarily down(?). Also, the pic from the France's National Library image search (Mandragore), I replaced the unstable link with alternative links. --Kiyoweap (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

All we need is a simple yes or no. I'm taking that as a no. I do understand copyright and do know how to upload, and although I don't object to the current image, I'm willing to find an alternative - I've presented two alternatives. A gallery already exists and we don't need to add to it - we're discussing the lead image per Oda Mari's RfC. Just to be clear. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Having looked at the alternatives, the various links, the story at the Tokyo Times, I once again think we should keep the Suzuki Harunobu - File:Lady Murasaki writing.png image that we have...Modernist (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC).