| Revision as of 01:26, 1 October 2012 editHijiri88 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,389 edits →Tanka prose← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:07, 1 October 2012 edit undoTristan noir (talk | contribs)973 edits →Tanka proseNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| : '''Comment''' - It is difficult for non-specialists to form a proper judgement on a literary issue such as this. Firstly it is clear that Tanka is a recognised form with plenty of reliable sources. Secondly, the references already in the article, and the existence of journals like make it clear that Tanka prose also exists to the extent that many learned articles can be written about it, and many pieces of it exist. Thirdly it is at once clear that both the Tanka prose article, and ], are in need of considerable editing and wikifying. Fourthly, it is plain that there has been a dispute; please could everyone remember to remain civil. In this situation, without a great deal of study, the most I can say is that there is a ''prima facie'' case for an article on the subject; that many of the references seem to be appropriate; and that notability is at least close to being established. I would tend therefore to believe the article should be kept, though I'm happy to listen to further evidence, presented plainly. ] (]) 19:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | : '''Comment''' - It is difficult for non-specialists to form a proper judgement on a literary issue such as this. Firstly it is clear that Tanka is a recognised form with plenty of reliable sources. Secondly, the references already in the article, and the existence of journals like make it clear that Tanka prose also exists to the extent that many learned articles can be written about it, and many pieces of it exist. Thirdly it is at once clear that both the Tanka prose article, and ], are in need of considerable editing and wikifying. Fourthly, it is plain that there has been a dispute; please could everyone remember to remain civil. In this situation, without a great deal of study, the most I can say is that there is a ''prima facie'' case for an article on the subject; that many of the references seem to be appropriate; and that notability is at least close to being established. I would tend therefore to believe the article should be kept, though I'm happy to listen to further evidence, presented plainly. ] (]) 19:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :: '''Comment''' - My concern is that the sources are non-academic, and do not adequately explain why "tanka prose" is appropriate terminology. They discuss the term almost exclusively in relation to ancient Japanese literature, and I ''am'' a specialist in that. It does not appear in ''any'' specialist literature on the subject, and ] how the sources cited are not reliable when it comes to Japanese literature. It appears etymologically closest to the term '']'', which is why I initially moved that page there, but the user in question has insisted that it is closer to '']''. I think more evidence needs to be provided in order to justify this article's existence, and despite over three weeks of trying to locate or elicit reliable sources I have thus far been unsuccessful. It's most important, of course, to insure that no ''false'' information is put on Misplaced Pages, and the article in question was clearly created for that purpose . ] (]) 01:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | :: '''Comment''' - My concern is that the sources are non-academic, and do not adequately explain why "tanka prose" is appropriate terminology. They discuss the term almost exclusively in relation to ancient Japanese literature, and I ''am'' a specialist in that. It does not appear in ''any'' specialist literature on the subject, and ] how the sources cited are not reliable when it comes to Japanese literature. It appears etymologically closest to the term '']'', which is why I initially moved that page there, but the user in question has insisted that it is closer to '']''. I think more evidence needs to be provided in order to justify this article's existence, and despite over three weeks of trying to locate or elicit reliable sources I have thus far been unsuccessful. It's most important, of course, to insure that no ''false'' information is put on Misplaced Pages, and the article in question was clearly created for that purpose . ] (]) 01:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::'''Comment''' - The following observations are relevant to the proposed deletion of ]. | |||
| :::1) The article existed from 2008 until the present without significant alteration and without substantial objections being lodged toward its content or notability by anyone until done so by User Elvenscout742. | |||
| :::2) The article discusses a contemporary English-language literary form that is partly inspired by early Japanese literature but is independent of it; the writers of this form, by and large, are also practitioners of ] just as writers of ], by and large, are also practitioners of ]. | |||
| :::3) Such articles as ], ] and ] also discuss contemporary English-language literary forms partly inspired by Japanese literature but ultimately independent of it. Said articles cite as their sources, as does ], items drawn predominately, if not exclusively, from the literary small press (whether print or online) and, in fact, they discuss some of the same authors as are discussed in ]. The user who has submitted this request for deletion has worked likewise on at least two of these same articles (] and ]) without lodging any objection on their Talk Pages or elsewhere as to the notability of said subjects and without asserting that they represent original research; this latter circumstance suggests the application of a separate standard, by User Elvenscout742, for the article ]. | |||
| :::4) User Elvenscout742’s claim that the article “appears to have been substantially edited by only one user,” were it true, would be irrelevant to the issue at hand but this same user’s active editing role on the article, over the past few weeks, contradicts his own representation. To reconstruct the history of these edits, however, one would have to review the edit summaries of not only ] but of ] as well. User Elvenscout742 redirected the original ] page to ] on or about Sept 12 and the history of the edits for the original ] article, 2008 to present, are archived therein. | |||
| :::5) The judgments offered by User Elvenscout742, as regards the literary form and/or movement of Tanka prose in his proposal for deletion above, are apparently offered with bias, their goal being to discredit the article by painting the associated form/movement as “obscure,” “small,” “non-notable” and “minor.” User Elvenscout742 does not offer any insight into how he arrived at these conclusions and, indeed, elsewhere has not disguised his antipathy for the subject or for its participants. That no writer of tanka prose appears on the New York Times Bestseller List is conceded but the same might be said of English-language writers of haiku, of tanka, of haibun, of gogyoshi and, indeed, of writers of many other contemporary literary forms that have Misplaced Pages articles. | |||
| :::6) User Elvenscout742’s characterization of the term “tanka prose” as an “obscure neologism,” like his claims about the literary phenomenon it describes, reflects his personal opinion and nothing more. The term is clearly defined in the sources that the article cites and in the article in question. Critics and artists often coin new terms to discuss new literary phenomena; that a term is a “neologism” should not alone disqualify it from Misplaced Pages, particularly when the nomenclature, as in this case, has acceptance within the English-language tanka community. This term, which User Elvenscout742 elsewhere has described as parallels various well-known literary terms in construction, e.g., “prose poem,” “sanbunshi,” “haiku prose” or “haiku story” (see the writings of the Welsh poet ), or “waka-prose complex” (see Jin’ichi Konishi, ''A History of Japanese Literature, Volume 2'', p. 258). User Elvenscout742 redirected the original ] to his rewrite of the page as ]; the same user translates “uta monogatari,” accurately enough, as “poem-tale”—an oxymoron whose construction mirrors that of “tanka prose.” | |||
| :::7) User Elvenscout742’s assertion that “when repeatedly prompted” this user “refused to cite reliable, secondary sources” is patently false. His request for sources touched upon that portion of the original article and of the rewrite that discussed the Japanese literary background. In the revised article , citations from scholarly sources were provided for every summary offered of the Japanese background. However, User Elvenscout742, who admits that he has yet to consult any of these sources, promptly deleted the material in question and did so merely upon his imputing bad faith to this user. | |||
| :::8) As evidence of User Elvenscout742’s idea of what it means to “request sources” from a fellow editor, I offer his entry where he offers a laborious list of scholary and literary sources and concludes somewhat triumphantly: '''I have cited better-known and more widely available books written (or translated with introduction and notes) by both Konishi and McCullough, and no one has demonstrated that either of these authors have ''ever'' used the phrase "tanka prose" in their writings. Any more questions?''' | |||
| :::I offer two observations on the above. First, neither the article under discussion here nor the sources it cites claim that the term “tanka prose” was ever employed by ancient Japanese poets or by modern scholars of Japanese literature; the term refers to the contemporary English phenomena and so User Elvenscout742’s supposed debunking proves nothing, unless it can be said to demonstrate his inability or unwillingness to read ''with comprehension and without prejudice'' the subject article and its cited sources. Furthermore, while “tanka prose” may be fairly characterized as anachronistic when speaking of ancient and medieval Japanese literature, so too may such modern Japanese scholarly nomenclature as ''nikki bungaku'' or ''zuihitsu'', concepts unknown to the early poets. Second, I wish to highlight the sneering rhetorical flourish of User Elvenscout742’s conclusion, '''“Any more questions?,”''' which is inconsistent with the civility due a fellow editor but rather carries the tone of a patrician addressing his menial. I draw attention to this because User Elvenscout742 alludes in his proposal above to the personal attacks that he believes he has been subject to. | |||
| :::9) User Elvenscout742, as late as , was offering this user a compromise which would retain the current page that he now seeks to delete. In doing so, he did not raise the questions of notability or of original research that he now raises. It is fair to infer therefore, despite User Elvenscout742’s denials in his Comment above, that the fundamental problem is one regarding a ''dispute over content''. This user on two occasions asked for time to review User Elvenscout742’s proposed compromise but, in each instance, before he could do so, User Elvenscout742 posted further demands and personal attacks. | |||
| :::10) The body of the article, as originally posted, numbered less than 700 words. I’ve been compelled, by User Elvenscout742’s innumerable postings on the Talk Pages of ] and ] and by his countless edits, to devote several thousand words to this article’s defense in the past few weeks. His criticisms and objections are frequently shifting. This dialogue, if it may be so called, has been largely uninstructive and has become a hindrance to participation here nor do I believe that it represents the spirit of cooperation that is supposed to be a standard at Misplaced Pages.] (]) 03:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:07, 1 October 2012
Tanka prose
- Tanka prose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article discusses an obscure neologism without citing any reliable sources. It was apparently created to promote said neologism. Does not meet WP:N. Describes an obscure modern poetry form/movement, and all the sources cited are primary sources, written by members of the small, apparently non-notable movement in question. Article itself fails to establish the notability of its subject-matter, and since it only cites primary sources is apparently original research. Appears to have been substantially edited by only one user. Said user, when repeatedly prompted, refused to cite reliable, secondary sources, but has admitted elsewhere that it is unlikely any such sources exist. I have tried extensively to discuss this issue on the article talk page with said user, but have only met with than personal attacks. The minor literary movement described in the article clearly does not meet Misplaced Pages standards of notability, and even the primary sources it cites are poorly-researched and make ridiculous claims that the movement has existed since eighth-century Japan. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment -- While only peripherally related to the above AfD nomination, I need to point out that I put a proposed deletion tag on the page yesterday, and the user responsible for the page deleted it. Said user then posted a comment on the talk page, not addressing the core issue of the lack of sources, but instead attacking me personally. Said user mentioned a dispute over content, but this dispute is already over and is entirely irrelevant to the proposed deletion. It concerned this user's repeated attempts to include ridiculous theories about ancient Japanese literature in the page. Since the page is original research, and discusses a topic for which no reliable sources exist, the former dispute about content is irrelevant. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - It is difficult for non-specialists to form a proper judgement on a literary issue such as this. Firstly it is clear that Tanka is a recognised form with plenty of reliable sources. Secondly, the references already in the article, and the existence of journals like Haibun Today make it clear that Tanka prose also exists to the extent that many learned articles can be written about it, and many pieces of it exist. Thirdly it is at once clear that both the Tanka prose article, and Tanka in English, are in need of considerable editing and wikifying. Fourthly, it is plain that there has been a dispute; please could everyone remember to remain civil. In this situation, without a great deal of study, the most I can say is that there is a prima facie case for an article on the subject; that many of the references seem to be appropriate; and that notability is at least close to being established. I would tend therefore to believe the article should be kept, though I'm happy to listen to further evidence, presented plainly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - My concern is that the sources are non-academic, and do not adequately explain why "tanka prose" is appropriate terminology. They discuss the term almost exclusively in relation to ancient Japanese literature, and I am a specialist in that. It does not appear in any specialist literature on the subject, and I have already demonstrated how the sources cited are not reliable when it comes to Japanese literature. It appears etymologically closest to the term uta monogatari, which is why I initially moved that page there, but the user in question has insisted that it is closer to nikki bungaku. I think more evidence needs to be provided in order to justify this article's existence, and despite over three weeks of trying to locate or elicit reliable sources I have thus far been unsuccessful. It's most important, of course, to insure that no false information is put on Misplaced Pages, and the article in question was clearly created for that purpose . elvenscout742 (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - The following observations are relevant to the proposed deletion of Tanka prose.
- 1) The article existed from 2008 until the present without significant alteration and without substantial objections being lodged toward its content or notability by anyone until done so by User Elvenscout742.
- 2) The article discusses a contemporary English-language literary form that is partly inspired by early Japanese literature but is independent of it; the writers of this form, by and large, are also practitioners of Tanka in English just as writers of Haibun, by and large, are also practitioners of Haiku in English.
- 3) Such articles as Haiku in English, Tanka in English and Haibun also discuss contemporary English-language literary forms partly inspired by Japanese literature but ultimately independent of it. Said articles cite as their sources, as does Tanka prose, items drawn predominately, if not exclusively, from the literary small press (whether print or online) and, in fact, they discuss some of the same authors as are discussed in Tanka prose. The user who has submitted this request for deletion has worked likewise on at least two of these same articles (Tanka in English and Haibun) without lodging any objection on their Talk Pages or elsewhere as to the notability of said subjects and without asserting that they represent original research; this latter circumstance suggests the application of a separate standard, by User Elvenscout742, for the article Tanka prose.
- 4) User Elvenscout742’s claim that the article “appears to have been substantially edited by only one user,” were it true, would be irrelevant to the issue at hand but this same user’s active editing role on the article, over the past few weeks, contradicts his own representation. To reconstruct the history of these edits, however, one would have to review the edit summaries of not only Tanka prose but of Uta monogatari as well. User Elvenscout742 redirected the original Tanka prose page to Uta monogatari on or about Sept 12 and the history of the edits for the original Tanka prose article, 2008 to present, are archived therein.
- 5) The judgments offered by User Elvenscout742, as regards the literary form and/or movement of Tanka prose in his proposal for deletion above, are apparently offered with bias, their goal being to discredit the article by painting the associated form/movement as “obscure,” “small,” “non-notable” and “minor.” User Elvenscout742 does not offer any insight into how he arrived at these conclusions and, indeed, elsewhere has not disguised his antipathy for the subject or for its participants. That no writer of tanka prose appears on the New York Times Bestseller List is conceded but the same might be said of English-language writers of haiku, of tanka, of haibun, of gogyoshi and, indeed, of writers of many other contemporary literary forms that have Misplaced Pages articles.
- 6) User Elvenscout742’s characterization of the term “tanka prose” as an “obscure neologism,” like his claims about the literary phenomenon it describes, reflects his personal opinion and nothing more. The term is clearly defined in the sources that the article cites and in the article in question. Critics and artists often coin new terms to discuss new literary phenomena; that a term is a “neologism” should not alone disqualify it from Misplaced Pages, particularly when the nomenclature, as in this case, has acceptance within the English-language tanka community. This term, which User Elvenscout742 elsewhere has described as “inherently oxymoronic,” parallels various well-known literary terms in construction, e.g., “prose poem,” “sanbunshi,” “haiku prose” or “haiku story” (see the writings of the Welsh poet Ken Jones), or “waka-prose complex” (see Jin’ichi Konishi, A History of Japanese Literature, Volume 2, p. 258). User Elvenscout742 redirected the original Tanka prose to his rewrite of the page as Uta monogatari; the same user translates “uta monogatari,” accurately enough, as “poem-tale”—an oxymoron whose construction mirrors that of “tanka prose.”
- 7) User Elvenscout742’s assertion that “when repeatedly prompted” this user “refused to cite reliable, secondary sources” is patently false. His request for sources touched upon that portion of the original article and of the rewrite that discussed the Japanese literary background. In the revised article here, citations from scholarly sources were provided for every summary offered of the Japanese background. However, User Elvenscout742, who admits that he has yet to consult any of these sources, promptly deleted the material in question and did so merely upon his imputing bad faith here to this user.
- 8) As evidence of User Elvenscout742’s idea of what it means to “request sources” from a fellow editor, I offer his entry here where he offers a laborious list of scholary and literary sources and concludes somewhat triumphantly: I have cited better-known and more widely available books written (or translated with introduction and notes) by both Konishi and McCullough, and no one has demonstrated that either of these authors have ever used the phrase "tanka prose" in their writings. Any more questions?
- I offer two observations on the above. First, neither the article under discussion here nor the sources it cites claim that the term “tanka prose” was ever employed by ancient Japanese poets or by modern scholars of Japanese literature; the term refers to the contemporary English phenomena and so User Elvenscout742’s supposed debunking proves nothing, unless it can be said to demonstrate his inability or unwillingness to read with comprehension and without prejudice the subject article and its cited sources. Furthermore, while “tanka prose” may be fairly characterized as anachronistic when speaking of ancient and medieval Japanese literature, so too may such modern Japanese scholarly nomenclature as nikki bungaku or zuihitsu, concepts unknown to the early poets. Second, I wish to highlight the sneering rhetorical flourish of User Elvenscout742’s conclusion, “Any more questions?,” which is inconsistent with the civility due a fellow editor but rather carries the tone of a patrician addressing his menial. I draw attention to this because User Elvenscout742 alludes in his proposal above to the personal attacks that he believes he has been subject to.
- 9) User Elvenscout742, as late as Sept 26, was offering this user a compromise which would retain the current page that he now seeks to delete. In doing so, he did not raise the questions of notability or of original research that he now raises. It is fair to infer therefore, despite User Elvenscout742’s denials in his Comment above, that the fundamental problem is one regarding a dispute over content. This user on two occasions asked for time to review User Elvenscout742’s proposed compromise but, in each instance, before he could do so, User Elvenscout742 posted further demands and personal attacks.
- 10) The body of the article, as originally posted, numbered less than 700 words. I’ve been compelled, by User Elvenscout742’s innumerable postings on the Talk Pages of Uta monogatari and Tanka prose and by his countless edits, to devote several thousand words to this article’s defense in the past few weeks. His criticisms and objections are frequently shifting. This dialogue, if it may be so called, has been largely uninstructive and has become a hindrance to participation here nor do I believe that it represents the spirit of cooperation that is supposed to be a standard at Misplaced Pages.Tristan noir (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)