Talk:Bangasayusang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
	Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. Please help us expand this article.
	High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Bangasayusang, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Indic Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions Tibetan Proposed naming conventions
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Image 2 Miroku bosastu 3 Twin 4 Tidy up the artilce 5 Evil twin

[edit] Image

I'm not going to personally remove the image or anything, but I don't think it's a good idea to use fair use images here. Can somebody maybe go to the museum and take a picture of it? -- Visviva 04:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

V: I wasn't sure about the image. (I saw some crowns using the fair use tag in the crown category and I figured it would be the same concept, an old three-dimensional figure.) If you want to remove, please do so. Whatever is best for the Wikipedia. I trust and defer to your experience which is far more than mine. Tortfeasor 05:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miroku bosastu

The number of Japanese National treasures is not important, it is just a code.--Mochi 02:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I put the reference to No.1 in for more accuracy. Please trust me when I say there is no intention on my part to imply that the Miroku is the top-rated Japanese National Treasure. Instead, if you would look at any of my edits in National treasures of Korea, I always put the number down because that is how the artwork, etc. has been classified and thus makes it easier to keep track of. Examples you could look at are: Crown of Silla or Bulguksa. Thanks! Tortfeasor 17:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Mirokubosatsu is one of the top ranked statues, that why it is a national treasure statue. But there are no ranks in the National treasure statues.

国宝又は重要文化財指定書規則[1] or "The rule of the form for designation of National Treasures and Important cultural assets" is the rule what to write on the National Treasure and Important cultural assets designation form.

On the form, these should be registered:

1. Name of the asset
2. Date of designation
3. Type of structure (if it is a building)
4. Size (if it is a picture, statue or craftwork)
5. The number of designation form
6. Address of the asset
7. Owner's name and address

The number of designation form of Mirokubosatsu is NO1 for statues. This is just the number of the form.

You can see national treasures owned by the Japanese Government at here(Mirokubosatsu is not included), but you can not find the Numbers of the treasures, because the numbers are not important.

In Korea, the number of the National Treasures may be important, but not in Japan. Thanks.--Mochi 07:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning the number does not make it more signifcant or not. But omitting the number makes it more inaccurate. Can you articulate again what is offensive about adding the number? From what you wrote it seems to suggest that the number of the diesgnation should be mentioned? Here is an example of the mention of the No.1: [2]. Tortfeasor 08:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

in both korea and japan, the numbers are not rankings by importance but used for identification. certainly useful info, commonly used. Appleby 08:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I can not find information at the google book link.

• Omitting the number makes it more inaccurate.
  • No. The Mirokubosatsu designated as a Japanese National treasure at the Koryu-ji is only one.
• The numbers are ~ used for identification. certainly useful info, commonly used.
  • No. Mirokubosatsu's number is used for advertising not for identification. If the numbers of National treasures are useful and commonly used, can you tell what is No2, No3, ... etc.

I'm afraid Korean people believe the number is a kind of ranking. Because the Board of Audit of Korea said "Namdaemun is not worth being designated as National Treasure No. 1"[3], although "it was a misunderstanding to assume the designation implied a kind of grade."[4] The number may be misleading information, as the Board of Audit did.--Mochi 14:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Mochi: You know the number isn't a rank. I know the number isn't a rank. The article you cited are Korean people being silly. and I'm getting the feeling that this is getting silly too. The Miroku is classified as No.1 and so it is relevant information. Someone might want to know that. Deleting it means useful information is gone. If its used for "advertising" than there isn't a reason why it shouldn't be included. If you want to make an article on Miroku, please do so. The google link, whether you can access it or not says "Japan's first national treasure."

I can't say using empty edit summaries to revert material is very nice. --KJ 08:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

KJ: Sorry if I did something wrong. I'm still getting the hang of all the proper Wikipedia protocol. Let me know what I can do better. Tortfeasor 18:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If the numbers are useful, other national treasures should also be called with numbers, but they aren't (See National treasures of Japan). Calling treasures with numbers are Korean custom. I'm afraid somebody think such custom are common also in Japan, so I delete.--Mochi 08:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting useful information is bad no matter what you personally may think is relevant or not. If you were so concerned about people thinking that the number was that misleading perhaps you should have clarified it in the article instead of continually deleting it. And to be honest, I really think that the article on the national treasures of Japan needs work. Besides the fact that I have provided a reference that mentions that the Miroku's designation as No.1 so there is evidence for my position as well which you have conveniently ignored. I have fixed the article to allay your concerns and I hope you don't delete information again. Tortfeasor 17:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the numbers are useful information. If it is useful and commonly used, all other national treasures are being refered with numbers, but they aren't. Futhermore, I cannot find the full list of designation numbers on the Internet.

Some people in Japan misunderstand that "Miroku-bosatsu is National Treasure NO 1, so it is the most important one." Of cource, it is the first designated, but some other treasures are also designated at the same time. It is one of the most important, but not the only one. Koryuji itself advertises "National Treasure NO 1", but that is nonsence. The author of your reference may have been affected by such.

You added the number is just a classification, so that OK. Thanks. But I wonder why you would like to write the number. --Mochi 01:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, There are no numbers:-) The number of ”国宝又は重要文化財指定書規則” is the numbers of DOCUMENTS not tresures itself. 220.211.227.126

I changed my opinion back. I think the number is not necessary, because the number is of the designation documents, not the number of national treasure itself. The number is something like ID number for people and have no meaning. What we should mention is that two statues looks similar, that's all.--Mochi 15:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)　Plus, there are several National Treasure #1 in Japan for several categories. So This edit by Appleby is inaccurate. --Mochi 15:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The art world consensus is that they are twins. Try reading Transmitting the Forms of Divinity. It is a very good book, published by the Japan Society, and details exactly why the Miroku is almost certainly a Korean piece. Or just the source provided in the article already. Also, without any citations, you saying it just "looks similar" is probably original research.

Can you provide a source saying there are multiple National Treausre #1 or explaining the designation document system? Thanks. Tortfeasor 17:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded the National Treasure designation document of Kenpon-chakushoku-Fugenbosatsu-zou. Kenpon-chakushoku-Fugenbosatsu-zou[5] is the National Treasure #1 in painting. This shows "絵 第一号", this means there are several National Treasure #1s.

I request you provide any documents that explain the numbers have signigicant meanings. I can not get useful information from the number.--Mochi 08:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since this is an English Wikipedia, English sources are preferred because they better conform to the requirement for verifiability. If you wouldn't mind finding some English citations verifying what you wrote above, espcially what you said about a painting having the same designation.

Here are three sources who have deemed that the inclusion of the number is sufficiently relevant to include mentioning: [6], [

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN477002018X&id=D7_MSioiABQC&pg=PA521&lpg=PA521&dq=miroku+%22national+treasure%22&sig=fN9xJ5IWjEWrrSGNQC1xW7Q62Us], [7]. Thanks. Tortfeasor 04:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Sources in languages other than English says;

"Foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources."

This is the copy of designation document, so I'm sure it is most reliable source in the world. In this document, most important words are following;

• 絵 第一号

  絵 = paintings

  第一号 = No. 1

• 国宝指定書

  国宝 = national treasure

  指定 = designation

  書 = document

Do you understand?

Plus your citation links do not work on my computer. I can only read the synopses of those books.--Mochi 12:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe that there isn't an English citation explaining what you are saying and it would make your case more credible if it were easy to look up, in English, because that would indicate the commoness of your assertion because English writers found it worthy enough to mention your point. Also, if you want to verify my links you can get a Google account or simply physically check out the books themselves and look up the information. This would still conform with verifiability. I made the links for your convenience but if they don't work on your computer for some reason there isn't any reason why you can't just check them out. The fact is that these three authors all found it relevant and important enough to mention that the Miroku is Japan's first national treasure, and it is a pretty common fact mentioned often when a source describes the Miroku. Tortfeasor 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in Japan, so Japanese books are far more accessible than English books, that's why I cite Japanese documents. I have a Google account, however the links do not work. Google may not accept deep links.

Two of your citations "New Japan solo" and "Gateway to Japan" are travelars guidebooks. Koryuji-temple advertizes Mirokubosatsu as the National Treasure #1, so it is natural the writers of the books write so.

You said "I always put the number down because that is how the artwork, etc. has been classified and thus makes it easier to keep track of." The books you cited probably mention about other National Treasures. Can you find numbers of those National Treasures? If the numbers are useful and helpful, there should be the numbers of them.--Mochi 17:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

M: I'm not sure if there is anything else to say. The sources provided state that the Miroku is generally noted as the first national treasure. Whether it deserves this "title" isn't relevant as long as we present a neutral point of view which we have done by compromising on the foot note already added which disclaims that there is no inherent ranking involved in the numbering. Whether you personally like it or not, the Miroku is generally acknowledged as the first Japanese national treasure as an interesting side note or for publicity, but it is still often times mentioned. I don't think I need to provide references of other national treasures here because I dont think its relevant to the Miroku because for whatever reason, the mention of the Miroku goes hand-in-hand with the mention of its statusas the first national treasure. Like I wrote before, if you could at least find a source that explicitly explains your point I would feel more comfortable rather than your personal interpretation/translation of a document without the necessary context and explanation to even understand what the document actually says. The number doesn't have to be useful per se so much as it is interesting information that is relevant and in that sense is useful to the reader to know. In conclusion, I'm not sure what else you want and I'm not sure about your motivations based on dubious statements about red pine earlier but unless you have another suggestion I think this is the best compromise. Tortfeasor 21:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You said the number is for accuracy at first, however, you changed your opinion and says "The number doesn't have to be useful per se so much as it is interesting information that is relevant and in that sense is useful to the reader to know." We should remember that this article is not about Miroku, but Bangasayusang. Are there any relations between the designation number of Miroku and Bangasayusang? Of course not. We should not write unrelated information just because it is interesting. If you would like to write the designation number of Miroku, you should do in the article of Miroku, not here.--Mochi 11:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

M: I think you missed my point entirely. If you have another suggestion I would like to read it but right now the information should be included per the sources and the disclaimer should be included because of your seemingly nebulous fears. That is a neutral point of view. Tortfeasor 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point exactly. Please tell me simply. At this time, I have no idea about another suggestion. Unrelated information should not be on the article.--Mochi 06:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we have to agree to disagree and just stick with the compromise. Tortfeasor 07:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What is your compromise?--Mochi 08:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The status quo of the article, the compromise, is based on the fact that you said it was okay to leave the number if there was a clarification of what the number meant. Even if you've changed your mind now, I think that the statue quo is the best solution because it presents the information in a neutral way by presenting both sides of the "issue." I still think the number is relevant so, again, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree unless you have a better suggestion. Tortfeasor 08:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to add the number of Mirokubosatsu, you should add the number of all other Japanese National Treasures and footnote to maintain consistency on Wikipedia. No.1 is not a special number and if all the number is provided, this may help somebody as you said before. Consistency is very important.--Mochi 16:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if what I wrote was too long for you to bother to read it but now we're going in circles. I've already written a response to what you've written before above. Thanks. Tortfeasor 17:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you ignore my compromise? You can write all the designation number. Why not?--Mochi 17:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. I prefer to work on Korea-related topics. For whatever reason, the Miroku is oftentimes mentioned as the first national treasure per the sources provided. The current version is fair and neutral. Tortfeasor 07:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, No.1 is not a special number. When Miroku is designated on June 9th 1951, some other treasures are designated. We should mind that Miroku is not the only first designated National Treasure. I don't mind if some guide book mention "Miroku is the first National Treasure" as a trivia and I don't mind if somebody write so on the article of Miroku with footnote. But this is the article of Bangasayusang. That's why you are insisting to write unrelated information violating neutral point of view. How many books you cite, I don't agree to write the designaiton number., because this is the article of Bangasayusang. Only a compromise is to write the National Treasure designation number all the time as you do to Korean National Treasures. However, you are not willing to accept this idea, we should delete the number from this article.

Plus, you may ask me what the other first designated National Treasures are. Some examples I found are in Yakushi-ji. According to National Treasures list in Yakushiji Official Website, five sculptures in Yakushiji are National Treasures designated on June 9th 1951. June 9th 1951(（昭和26年 Showa in Japanese) is the day when present National Treasure system started.--Mochi 11:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Tortfeasor, do not revert without reason. You have not shown any relation between the designation number of Miroku and Bangasayusang. This is not the article of Miroku but Bangasayusang, so it is natural to delete unrelated infomation about Bangasayusang.--Mochi 08:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tortfeasor says "Revert per citations provided and because there is no consensus to change", however, there are no citations about the relation between the designation number of Miroku and Bangasayusang. Please privide as soon as possible. There's no consensus to keep unrelated info.--Mochi 23:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The number doesn't need to be related to the relationship between the two statues but since the Miroku is often, when mentioned, described as Japan's first national treasure that is why it is added and why it is cited. I've provided three English sources while you have provided a rather dubious personal translation of some document. I have never seen Miroku refered to as the first sculptural national treasure in English sources. [8]. Tortfeasor 23:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"the Miroku is often, when mentioned, described as Japan's first national treasure". Then you should add so in the article of Miroku, not here. The document you are doubting is the first source, which is more reliable than any other English documents. I have already uploaded the document with original scan and in English. If you do not trust my tranlation, why not ask somebody to translate the article if you do not understand Japanese? Please do not ignore Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

As you understand, "The number doesn't need to be related to the relationship between the two statues", we should not mention the number.--Mochi 06:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal interpretation of an original document may be original research. Translation of someone else's interpretation would be okay.

I think the number is relevant. So I think we should agree to disagree. Tortfeasor 16:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The document I uploaded is not an original research. It is scanned from a widely published book by a major publisher, Shinchosha. If you do not like my translation , you should find some other ways to understand the document by yourself.

You do not admit there are several categories in Japanese National Treasure system, ignoring the official document. You seem not to know/admit there are several National Treasures designated at the same time with Miroku-bosatsu. If you are not familiar to Japanese National Treasure sytem and Japanese language, I propose you not to be involved in unfamiliar things. You are not persuasive about this topic because you are not familiar to Japanese National Treasure sytem. "I think the number is relevan" is just your opinion.--Mochi 13:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is unfair to ask for an English citation.

The sources I provided don't make the distinguishment that you seem to be so concerned about. They simply acknowledge, correctly or incorrectly, that the Miroku is the first national treasure of Japan without any caveats what so ever which makes me doubt your personal interpretation. I don't think I believe you, not because I don't trust you, but because you haven't provided any credible English sources and because all the sources I have read mentioning the Miroku and the fact that it is the first national treasure never make as many addendums to the title as you do. I have seen the statue mentioned like that many times, otherwise I would have never included the fact.

If you are going to be so audacious as to suggest that I should only edit articles where I am an "expert" I would say that that goes against what Wikipedia is about and I hope you didn't mean it. Clearly, your attempts to suggest that the statue is "Japanese" when almost all scholarly sources state that the Miroku was from Silla/Korea shows your own seeming "inexpertise" but I would never tell you to "but out".

If you would like, any other time I mention a Japanese National Treasure, I will write the designation number. But I am not going to go out of my way to do that. Perhaps instead of arguing about a number that has an adequate footnote addressing your concern, a little more effort in fleshing out the Japanese National Treasure article would perhaps be a better use of time because I would be very interested in reading about them. Thanks. Tortfeasor 19:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So you do not admit my source because I haven't provided any English sources. That sounds strange and you are still ignoring Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You should keep in mind that not all information have been translated into English. No source mentions the relation between the designation number of Miroku-bosatsu and Bangasayusang and you have already said there are no relations.

You think I suggest that the statue is "Japanese", however as I said I wonder where the Miroku was made. I 've read several Japanese books and find both stories are mentioned. I'm still unsure about the place of birth about Miroku-bosatsu, so I have not edited about this topic. I'm neutral. --Mochi 10:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I found New Japan Solo at a library. It says "Miroku bosatsu is the first national treasure", not "national treasure No. 1". As I said there are several first national treasures. Plus Tortfeasor added "Both South Korean and Japanese National Treasures are numbered by order of official designation, not by order of importance.", however I can not find Japanese national treasure numbering policy. If you would like to write so, please cite a source of "Japanese National Treasures are numbered by order of official designation".--Mochi 13:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twin

I think its well established that the Japanese miroku and the Korean mireuk are related. The miroku is made of red pine, which until relatively recent times was unknown to grow in Japan. --Kjoonlee 18:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Red pines can be seen in many places in Japan. See Japanese Red Pine.--Mochi 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, red pine was a recent introduction to Japan. Tortfeasor 17:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

From "Transmitting the Forms of Divinity": Red Pine is a rare material for wood sculptor in Japan (pg 55). The statue is believed to be of Korean origin. (pg 55).

Kj: I think you're comment is right even if you deleted it. There is a suishoku, or cloth ornament, which most believe to have been an addition to the statue that was not part of the original creation and was made from camphor wood, not red pine. (pg 56). Tortfeasor 18:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have exact English references now. But I introduce a Japanese source;

"Red Pine is a rare material for wood sculptor in Japan" is true. However, no red pine sculptors made before 882 remain in Korean Peninsula. The Miroku is said to be made in 7th century. So we cannot compare the Miroku with its contemporaneous Korean sculptor. "Red Pine is a rare material for wood sculptor in Japan" does not mean "Miroku was made in Korean peninsula".

Furthermore, Miroku's backboard was made of Camphor Laurel, which does not grow naturally in Korean Peninsula.

So I wonder where the Miroku was made. Some historians think it was made in Korea and others think in Japan.--Mochi 17:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tidy up the artilce

KJ: I don't know if you saw my earlier edit but I saw you didn't think it was kosher to just add revert in the edit summary? I never figured it out, so let me know if you were writing to me. Also, I'm not sure how much more consensus we need but did you say there was a nickname/colloquial name for this statue? I move the article there if its legit. Thanks! Tortfeasor 18:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, no, I meant mochi was wrong to use an absolutely empty edit summary when reverting without discussing. I'm sorry for the confusion, and for not replying earlier. I can't find a nickname for this statue. --Kjoonlee 18:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evil twin

The article says “Bangasayusang, or Geumdong Mireuk Bosal Bangasayusang” – so the Geumdong Mireuk Bosal Bangasayusang is no. 83, and the Geumdong Mireuk Bosal Bangasang (NB, no sayu here) is no. 78? Perhaps we should have some DAB template in those articles… Wikipeditor 00:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipeditor: You wouldn't happen to know a colloquial name for either statue? We've been trying to figure out alternate names or some solution otherwise we might have to do what you suggested above. In talk [9] KJ said that no. 78 is also called "samsan bangasayusang" so I was thinking of moving it there. Tortfeasor 02:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)