Talk:The Ape and the Fox

File:Dancing monkey.jpg

Why is this using File:Dancing monkey.jpg, a Japanese statue, not a Greek one? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Because there isn't a Greek one Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Why use a Japanese statue at all? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Because it is of a dancing monkey. In addition, the fable is one of the few whose eastwards journey we can trace, so an eastern depiction of the subject is justified. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

So it can be traced to Japan (or at the very least, the Sinitic world) ? "The east" is very vague. Greece itself is "the east" -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The first recorded arrival of Aesop's Fables in Japan is in the 16th century. Thereafter they were published continuously, often in illustrated editions. Here on WP you'll find Kawanabe Kyosai's woodblock prints illustrating The Two Pots and The Belly and the Members; pictures from Japanese books also illustrate Hercules and the Wagoner and Belling the cat - there's also a pop video] based on the last which is discussed in the article.

In drawing up guidelines on illustrations for articles on the fables, a colleague and I have agreed that they should be drawn from a wide variety of sources, and be witty and stimulating. The idea is to indicate the many areas and media that the fables have influenced. However, Wikimedia guidelines are very strict on use of three-dimensional images, so the recently granted availability of that netsuke was a real find. Your interest seems to indicate that our policy is working. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Why are you choosing 3D imagery instead of standard 2D illustrations? The slapdash nomination of files for deletion when they already have all the pertinent information available in the file page is what brought me here. (there have been ever so many slapdash deletion nominations) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to an illustration from Japanese art, if a footnote can be provided indicating that the depiction was influenced by the reception of Aesop's tale in Japan. In fact, that would be wonderfully interesting. But without a secondary source, it's an original interpretation, and it's possible to violate the policy against OR with images. I don't understand the objection to using a photograph of a 3D object, as long as the photograph itself is appropriately licensed. There's no preference for using 2D art to illustrate articles; it's just that licensing for 3D art can be more complicated. If the current illustration is apt, then that needs to be made clearer in the caption (it isn't clear now); if information in a caption is subject to challenge (as this obviously is), it indeed becomes advisable to footnote a caption. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

In what way is the caption's information subject to challenge, Cynwolfe? It comes from the description given by the museum itself. Not OR, therefore, since the subject of the fable is a dancing monkey. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Because the museum description says only that it's a dancing monkey. It doesn't say it represents Aesop's Fable. If there's no connection to the fable, it doesn't illustrate the topic. If the museum description had said "depictions of dancing monkeys in Japanese art of this period reflect the popularity of Aesop's Fables," or something to that effect, then we'd be good to go. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, would a photograph of an actual monkey be inappropriate if nobody can find an illustration of this fable in the public domain? If so, then it seems to me that the statuette might be a reasonable choice of illustration too, whether or not it's related to the fable. Obviously an illustration of the fable would be ideal, but if one isn't available, then my first inclination would be to allow even a tangentially-relevant illustration, at least until something directly on point could be substituted. Of course, you have more experience with this than I do, and I'm willing to be persuaded that it isn't a good idea. But at this point, it seems like a reasonable way of illustrating the article. P Aculeius (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm amazed by the stretching of the OR guidelines on images and their captions to the kind of objections raised here. It verges on the kind of interpretation one gets from small-time bullies on WP, from whose incivility and intransigence I know Cynwolfe has sometimes suffered in the past. Policy on use of images states that 'In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article.' There are upward of a hundred articles on individual fables that are listed at the end of the articles on Aesop's Fables and La Fontaine's Fables. It has seemed to me and my occasional collaborator (who is as interested in East-West correspondance as myself) that it is the task of a responsible editor to make illustrations of these as varied as possible and ensure that they are not dominated by a single cultural source. That is one reason for trying to avoid story-book illustrations when there is an acceptable alternative. As to width of illustration, no one has objected to the photo of a 'noble cockerel' in the article on The Cock and the Jewel, nor to the woodcut of Cicero in the one on the Nun's Priest's Tale, neither of which were my choice. So I do not see why an amusing and thought-provoking Japanese artifact that illustrates a tale about a dancing monkey should be found unacceptable - unless through prejudice. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, no, please do not for a moment imagine this is some kind of aversion to Japanese culture. Let's not make this personal, but for reasons I can discuss on my talk page if you like, you are barking up the wrong tree there. Any wrong I do to Japanese culture would be from inadvertent ignorance. And P Aculeius is just about the least bully I know on Wikipedia, so that too is uncalled for: nor does he reject including the figurine. You've actually cited the guideline that explains my objection: images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article (bold mine). The article says that the tale spread into Central Asia; it says nothing about Japan. Above, you explain very well the reception of the Fables in Japan: the article does not say anything about this. If it said something about the kind of illustrations you describe above, and also mentioned the related popularity of dancing monkey figurines, then I would have no objection whatever. Would it be possible to add some content that would explain the relevance of the image? That is my point, and I thought I had stated that pretty clearly above in asking for context in the caption. It would seem to be an omission in the article.

I could explain what I meant about image OR above, but perhaps I no longer need to? In this article as it stands, the image is puzzling, because there's nothing in the article about the Japanese reception of the tale. I'm extremely sorry that you read this as cultural chauvinism; I began by stating I wouldn't object to an illustration from Japanese art (I was including this figurine as "art" ), and I would think you would want the explanation you gave above to appear in the article. I hope you will look more closely at what P Aculeius and I are saying, and not confuse us with the IP. I completely agree with you about the two examples you dislike above. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

We have been talking at cross-purposes, it appears. I agree that what is suggested is a sensible way forward. Finding suitable references may take time. And thanks, P.Aculeius, for stating the common sense position! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)