Talk:The Founding Ceremony of the Nation

Re Chinese and pinyin

You may not have noticed that 开国 (in the lede sentence) is Simplified Chinese and 開國 (on the box) is Traditional. If you are only going to use one it would be the simplified.

Since this is a proper noun both words should be capitalized if I read Pinyin#Words.2C_capitalization.2C_initialisms_and_punctuation correctly. That will make it Kāiguó Dàdiǎn if you want to include the tone marks, which I'd personally prefer. Siuenti (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection. I would be very grateful if you would make whatever correction is necessary to make things correct and consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Citations for lede

Are you sure that everything in the lede that might be challenged is cited somewhere in the article? I'd like one for "one of the most-reproduced paintings of the People's Republic" or is that based on "sold 5,000,000 copies"? I think "arguably the most celebrated work of official Chinese art" would be a possible replacement or addition. Siuenti (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I overlooked that. Even if a source said that, can they really know? I like your second one better and will change it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Bring damnatio memoriae inline

It would be nice to remove the "see also" section by bringing damnatio memoriae inline. I believe this German thing is a reliable source making the comparison so you can say "an example of damnatio memoriae" or something. I'd suggest one paragraph quickly explaining who went away/came back and when before going into detail. Siuenti (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you tell me where it says that so I can cite page number? And do you mean add a summary in the lede? I was thinking of a summary chart of the changes might be useful. In the peer review, it was suggested having the images in a sort of slideshow but I still haven't found a copy of the 1972 version.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I mean a summary at the top of "Later history and political changes". If you search the pdf for "in Rom" you'll see the bit about damnation memoriae. It says Dong retouched the painting at the party's request, retouching wasn't a new way of "correcting history"... in Rome they had damnatio memoriae. But you should really get someone who knows better German than me to check it.

Diese von Dong Xiwen auf Parteiwunsch kreierte Version wurde wiederum medial verbreitet ...

Die Retusche als Mittel der Geschichtskorrektur war nicht neu ...

In Rom galt die damnatio memoria als höchste Strafe.

Siuenti (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt could you do me a favor and take a look at this? Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but not right now, possibly tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting source, but for a decent comparison of that article and the WP article, I'd need more time than I have today. The sentence in question is on page 220, preceded by mentioning that already in ancient Egypt, memory of pharaos who were not approved anymore (missliebig=literally: fallen out of love) was tried to be erased by destroying both their images and the mentioning of their names. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That's all we need. Thank you. I got a sense of the content with Google translate and I think that's the main point we need to add.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Founding Ceremony of the Nation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170328022653/http://sd4bb1662e19773c6.jimcontent.com/download/version/1391372073/module/9070462621/name/Christian%20Unverzagt_Einbildungen%20der%20Geschichte.pdf to http://sd4bb1662e19773c6.jimcontent.com/download/version/1391372073/module/9070462621/name/Christian%20Unverzagt_Einbildungen%20der%20Geschichte.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Founding Ceremony of the Nation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://en.chnmuseum.cn/tabid/549/Default.aspx?AntiqueLanguageID=2421
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150828024211/http://en.chnmuseum.cn/tabid/545/Default.aspx to http://en.chnmuseum.cn/tabid/545/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Founding Ceremony B.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Founding Ceremony B.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Version displayed in the lede

Why is the 1967 revision with the most removals chosen for the lede? AFAIU, the text says that this revision was deemed unexhibitable by officials and that it might have been the result of sabotage by Dong himself. Arguably the lede should feature either the original revision as made before any political pressures or the latest party-ordered revision, i.e. the post-Dong replica (which is, AFAIU, quite close to the original one anyway, except for the addition of a Deng-like figure). 62.73.72.3 (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

At the time this article was written, seven years ago, we did not have copies of each version. It made sense to put the original version near the description of the painting, since that description describes the painting without the changes. It also made sense to put the Gao Gang deletion, the first, near the discussion of same. That left us with the 1967 version for the lede. If other versions are available on the web and can be uploaded as non-free images (since the painting is still technically under copyright in the US, I believe until 2044), I'd be glad to participate in discussions about which should be included and where. I should also note that there's only so many copies of this painting that we can have in the same article, and with the two shots of it in the museum also worth including in my view, well, I'm open to suggestions. Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The history of the article aside, I don't see why the addition of other versions besides the currently present ones should be necessary - unless I'm missing something, all of the versions are already included somewhere in the article. For every version it would be preferable to place it next to the place where it is discussed - that includes not only the 1954 version and the original, but also the 1967 version - but there will always inevitably be at least one deviation from this principle, because one of the versions has to be in the lede (unless copies in different sizes are included). These things hold true regardless of which version is placed in the lede and can't be a reason to choose one over the other. Here my arguments above apply. IMO, the logical thing is for the 1967 version to be placed in the section on 'Later history and political changes', just like the 1954 version, since it is precisely part of the, well, later history and political changes. Whatever is placed in the lede is given prominence as the 'default', 'legitimate' or 'official' version, so either the author's original intent and historical accuracy or the current official preference of the CPC are more appropriate than the maximally censored and distorted version from 1967. Otherwise the article is giving the impression that time is frozen in 1967 forever and Wikipedia considers Mao's latest orders to be the supreme and most legitimate authority with respect to this painting for all time. --62.73.72.3 (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

But later versions are shown in showing the two versions on display at the National Museum of China. And at least in the ones showing the tourists, that is a higher resolution picture than the ones you mention.Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Low resolution of images

Why images are so low-res? Is this a copyright issue or a censorship issue? Can someone clarify? R Alexandrov (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Why would it be a "censorship issue". What would that even mean? Remsense ‥ 论 03:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Copyright. Since Dong has been dead more than 50 years, the copyright has expired in China but under the URAA, the painting is copyright in the US, where the Wikimedia Foundation's servers are, until sometime in the 2050s.--21:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)