Jump to content

Talk:Mo Li Hua

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Protests

[edit]

There is a disproportionate number of mentions of this song's association with the relatively minor 2011 protests. For such a classic piece of Chinese culture it is bizarre a supposedly neutral source would put such an emphasis on pro-US ideology. Constructive criticism, wikifriends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.253.94.182 (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen reliable sources calling the protest pro-US, and protestor demands did not mention the US. The Chinese government described the protests as pro-US, and put the People's Liberation Army on standby, which is expensive and suggests they did not think the protests minor. The protests dramatically changed the exposure and cultural context of the song, which seems like an important transition we should cover. HLHJ (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussion

[edit]

For an October 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mo Li Hua

Could someone please translate the lyrics? I'm horrible at Chinese... =| --Andylkl 08:31, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I could try a literal translation. Here goes:
好一朵美丽的茉莉花 Beautiful jasmine

好一朵美丽的茉莉花 Beautiful jasmine

芬芳美丽满枝桠 Fragrant, pretty, stems full of buds

又香又白人人夸 Sweet-smelling, white, everyone praises you

让我来将你摘下 Let me pluck you

送给别人家 And present you to someone [possibly "a friend"]

茉莉花呀茉莉花 Jasmine, oh jasmine
I'm not very sure what 桠 (third line) means, it's not in any of the dictionaries I've checked. In context it seems like shoots or buds.
Still, the translation needs a lot of work. Maycontainpeanuts 11:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Um yeah, it's kinda odd to translate.
It sounds totally incoherent in english as Maycontainpeanuts would have pointed out - his translation is already quite accurate, however literal

Fiveless 11:39, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

All right, edited your translation a bit to this:
好一朵美丽的茉莉花 A beautiful jasmine flower

好一朵美丽的茉莉花 A beautiful jasmine flower

芬芳美丽满枝桠 Fragrant and pretty, stems full of buds

又香又白人人夸 Sweet-smelling and white, everyone praises

让我来将你摘下 Let me pluck you down

送给别人家 And present to someone 

茉莉花呀茉莉花 Jasmine flower, oh jasmine flower

performance at the 2004 Athens Olympics

[edit]

A misconception goes that this song was performed by the 12 girl band, rather this was not. The 14 girls who performed this song in Athens were Beijing University students, not the actual 12 girl band. --24.86.74.191 (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checked my dictionary, "桠" is indeed buds... If there's no objections, I think we'll be using this translations (however arkward it may seem), thanks for helping out! =) --Andylkl 18:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hold on a sec, found a better translation through a google search, suppose we can use it?
Jasmine, Jasmine, Oh so fair!
Jasmine, Jasmine, Oh so fair!
Blossoming and budding here and there,
Pure and fregrant all declare.
Let me pluck you with tender and care,
Your loveliness with all to share.
Jasmine, Jasmine, Oh so fair!

--Andylkl 18:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Lead

[edit]

Since the content about recent importance and events have been removed from lead twice over the past half a year, let me state here the rationale for justification. WP:LEAD states that the article's content should be summarized in the lead, and the lead is not too bloated for a paragraph dedicated to summarizing this content, which accounts to close to a half of the article anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A summary should summarize the whole historical development of the song, which has been around since the 18th century. Instead the paragraph is about a few events of the last 10 years. That is Wikipedia:Recentism. At most, even if all these events should be mentioned, it should be a maximum of one sentence for the lead.--Sevilledade (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further, although they all share the same title, there are several different versions of this composition, with different melody and lyrics that has been developed throughout centuries. Can you actually specify which is used for the Summer Olympics, which is used during the Expo, and which is used during the Jasmine Revolution?--Sevilledade (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are not an encyclopedia of history only, recent events can be important - and the song gained fame for them. Feel free to expand on history, and the lead, but the recent use seems notable enough for a mention in the lead. And certainly, let's stress the existence of various versions. If you disagree, I'd suggest we seek a WP:3O on this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed the lead, making it all one sentence. You still haven't addressed Wikipedia:Recentism? The "song gained fame for them"? As if it wasn't famous before? You need to illustrate with evidence that the song only became well-known due to these current events.--Sevilledade (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mo Li Hua. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mo Li Hua. 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:

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) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Music

[edit]

About how to create a rhythmic improve vision on the first part of the song mo li hua using with two beats 49.146.44.44 (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

@HLHJ: Would you mind to explain the argument that "details of a 1700s diplomatic mission which collected the song are less relevant than modern censorship of the song," defining such "relevance" as it relates to editorial policy? This is a centuries old subject and the establishment of its background context is a principle of MOS:LEAD, the lead is obligated to fulfill such coverage so long as it is representative of the content body. It is one thing to expand coverage of due controversies in a manner that is WP:DUE, but to simultaneously skim down all other paragraphs from the lead and elsewhere in the content body with regards to a topic that has a long historical background is WP:RECENT. The additional reduction of its usage in other recent notable events into a single phrase, "turn-of-the-century official events," just plainly inaccurate in terms of defining events that go up to 2010 as such, to skew coverage towards favoring its coverage in a singular event is against WP:PROPORTION, as those other events are just as significant in terms of RS coverage and notability, which is the barometer that editors must abide by in terms of defining relevance. Sleath56 (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the song was published in Europe in the early 1800s is relevant for the spread of the song to Europe. I don't think it matters much who did it, whom they were attaché to, or what diplomatic mission they were engaged in; none of that really affected the song. So I took it out of the lede and put it in the detailed section lower down. 1990-2010 seems like a reasonable time period to describe as "turn of the century"; within a decade of the turn. I cut down all the paragraphs in the lede, by simplifying the phrasing and removing details I thought not directly connected to the song. I also summarized 5 individual events and a bunch of Party meetings as "official events", because listing that many events from 1990-2010 seemed undue in a lede summarizing centuries, and they do all share that similarity, a single promoter/organizer/organization in charge. The protests mark a dramatic shift in the exposure and cultural context of the song, and certainly weren't official events.
There's been a lot of debate about the lede. If you like, we could put together an RFC on what belongs there. HLHJ (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues with the lead: the deletion through simplification of passages on content from the lead, which had been valid for the principles of MOS:LEAD and, more narrowly, had been written in a manner satisfactory of MOS:LEADREL and reflective of the content body and the matter of WP:PROPORTION in conflating five (5) major events through a single phrase while alternatively expanding one singular event to the point that it is currently a run on sentence.
More specifically, to focus on one point, reducing or removing the details of the diplomatic mission—central to the song’s initial transmission—does not respect the principle of contextual relevance in the lead. As MOS:LEAD suggests, the lead should summarize the most important aspects of the topic, particularly those that establish its historical background, which is relevant for a subject of this sort of historical dating. The specific context of the song’s collection and its notable renditions in Puccini are a foundational part of the song's history covered by extensive WP:RS, not just an incidental detail. Simplifying or omitting this background creates a skewed view of the song’s origins and significance, which diminishes the lead's introduction of its historical impact. The omission contradicts the principle that the lead should “cover all significant aspects” of the topic, as long as they are representative of the content body.
On the dueness of content in the lead, this is a matter of following editorial policy within WP:DUE and not of arbitrary conditions of what the "organizer" was. To be more specific, this is a matter of what is covered by WP:RS. This is the primary measure which the appropriateness of coverage, particularly in the lead, must be assessed by. Those separate events have wide coverage of varying degrees by RS and are also developed within the content body, thereby it is both lacking in WP:DUE to omit their explicit reference through an arbitrary categorization and renders the lead unrepresentative of the content body, though the immense shifting around of content has also rendered that connection rather obscured.
I am open to RFC if the opinion is that consensus cannot be reached, though I would encourage that the broadness of present issues with the lead be pared down to points amenable for a concise RFC process. Sleath56 (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Turandot" content has been simplified in phrasing, not informational content, thus:
  • Old: "The song was adapted in performances such as that of the Italian composer Giacomo Puccini's final opera, Turandot, set in Imperial China, where the tune served as the leitmotif for the titular fairy-tale Chinese princess."
  • New: "Giacomo Puccini's 1920s opera Turandot uses it as the leitmotif for the titular fairy-tale Chinese princess."
"final" has been replaced with "1920s", which helps the reader with relative timings if they don't happen to know when Puccini died. I don't think we need to state that a story about a Chinese princess is set in China, as this is the natural assumption, and we can probably guess it's not Communist China. She could be merely Royal rather than Imperial, but I don't think it's vital to distinguish in the lede. If you really want to re-insert the words "final" and "Imperial", feel free.
The lede named Barrow, described him as the first transcriber "in writing in the West", and gave his diplomatic title, employer, and mission in the lede; the body named him only as a person who noted the song was popular in China. This seems to fit worse with MOS:LEADREL. Having the date of first publication in Europe in the lede, and details about who and how in the body, seems better. John Barrow is hardly central to the song; he's a historical figure that influenced its transmission to the English-speaking world, but if it had been transmitted by someone else I can't imagine it would have made much difference. If there are reliable sources asserting otherwise, we need to add body content on how Barrow's employer and job title and mission affected the song. It is not obvious.
Lumping together similar things is necessary in a lede. The playing of Mo Li Hua at assorted official government events has been mentioned in RS, but RS have not described these bland, unsurprising uses as significantly affecting the cultural context of the song. The sources on the use as a protest song, on the other hand, explicitly discuss the song's contextual relevance, and how the protesters transformed it, and how this utterly changed the song's social significance.
Sources on the protests say stuff like "The real story is the indirect ways that Chinese citizens can use music and historical meaning to make this incredibly subversive statement, to take a most popular folk song and post it". Sources do not say stuff like "The real story is how the Chinese government has made an incredibly transformative statement, using this popular folk song as a national symbol in an Olympic Games Opening Ceremony again". HLHJ (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still must admit I do not understand your rationale for context deletion in the lead. Possibly the first principle of the entirety of Wikipedia's editorial guidelines is that the process is biased towards improvement and the expansion of information. The lead has not nearly come to the state where it could be considered a candidate for WP:BLOATED.
It is not appropriate to simplify an expansion of information simply if "the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version," which appears to be the case in the reduction of every point in the lead that is not that singular event of its usage in a protest. My comment in that latter subject revolves around WP:PROPORTION while there is no policy rationale for simplification of the former subjects which you have proposed.
To the latter note, things on Wikipedia are only "necessary" in terms of whether they conform to editorial policy. Your argument for "lumping together" those notable events through your attempt to clarify is still unsustained by actual MOS:LEAD guidelines. Source meta-commentary on what they perceive to be "the real story" is irrelevant. The contents of the lead is based on representation in RS and as an accurate reflection of the content body. Those notable events that have been conflated were indeed covered by RS and also reflective of the content body before the current spate of reversions that have shuffled everything around rather arbitrarily. The comment that its usage in historically significant events like the Handovers and its widely covered usage as centerpiece at the stage of the Olympics is "bland" is also the definition of such arbitrariness. I suggest that you hone your editorial conduct in terms of how it relates to fitting collectively established editorial philosophy rather than your subjective judgments, which is irrelevant, as all of ours are, to the merit of content. Sleath56 (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any text that can be cut down to less than half the length without conveying less information is bloated, in the common sense. I do find wordy phrasing and irrelevancies detrimental, because they make the article hard to read. The lede is a concise summary.
Summarization requires editor judgement. Not all notable events covered by RS belong in the lede. Uses of the song the sources find unremarkable are "bland, unsurprising"; uses the sources say are subversive, and caused dramatic changes in social reception of the song, are significant.
My extensive shuffles were not reversions; I was sorting the content by topic and putting it in sections, for readability. I don't recall deleting any, but if I have, I'm pretty sure it will be mentioned in my edit summary. I recall commenting out a very peacocky, WP:MANDY section, with explanation. HLHJ (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mo_Li_Hua&oldid=1264202913"