This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hijiri88 (talk | contribs) at 14:29, 2 December 2012 (→Reinstating Saohime line: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:29, 2 December 2012 by Hijiri88 (talk | contribs) (→Reinstating Saohime line: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Japan Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
From the old Talk:Renku page
Curious on why Renku redirects to Renga, rather than to Haikai no renga. Renku is a modern Japanese (and now English) synonym for haikai no renga, which itself is a sub-genre of renga--Yumegusa (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
On reflection, the interrelationship of Renku, Renga and Haikai no renga is in need of reconsideration. Currently, Renku redirects to Renga. In fact, renga is the parent, and inclusive (super-)genre, while Renku is the more common term for Haikai no renga. The practice and study of renku, as opposed to classical (i.e. pre-renku) renga, are dominant both in Japan and the west/anglophonia.
Proposal: (1)Renga be written up as a largely historic article; (2)Renku be written up as a full how-to and examples piece; (3)Haikai no renga redirect to renku.--Yumegusa (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- As an interim measure I'm changing the renku->renga redirect to renku->haikai no renga, since the latter two are synonymous--Yumegusa (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Haikai or Haiku?
I've heard of Haiku but not Haikai. Are they the same?--Dennis Fernkes 00:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
"Basho and Haikai" section
Much of the contents of this section looks rather POV, and seems to have been written by a non-native English speaker. While this article would not be complete without mentioning the importance of Matsuo Bashō in the Haikai movement, I believe much of the content currently to be found in this section might be more appropriately placed in the Bashō article.
Would anyone object if I completely rewrote the "Basho and Haikai" section? Thanks
--Yumegusa (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Proposal to move "Haikai no renga" to "Renku"
In the same way that what used to be known as 'hokku' has been called 'haiku' for over a hundred years now, 'haikai no renga' has been known as 'renku' since the time of Shiki. Also in the same way that the term 'haiku' is applied retrospectively, to all standalone hokku, all haikai no renga are now referred to as 'renku'. Accordingly, just as the WP article Hokku redirects to Haiku (and not the other way around), I wish to propose reversing the current relationship whereby Renku redirects to Haikai no renga, so that the older name redirects to the current one, i.e. to move "Haikai no renga" to "Renku". Before making this move, I wonder are there any opposing POV's need to be considered? Thanks
--Yumegusa (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll take that as a tacit go-ahead then. We can always revert if necessary.
--Yumegusa (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Proposed restore of earlier version of Haikai
Editors watching this article may be interested in my proposed restore of an earlier version of the Haikai article. See Talk:Haikai for details and eventual comment. --candyworm (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Re: Journal of Renga & Renku
Hi Elvenscout. I'm curious as to your thinking regarding this edit to the Renku article. I was inclined to do a partial revert, but thought it might be useful (and more civil) to pick your brains first. I agree with your removal of Lisheanu; and Simply Haiku, though it continues at another url, no longer publishes renku. But why did you remove the Journal of Renga and Renku? It's a substantial print periodical, including heavyweights such as Horton, Drake and so on, and is the only journal in the west devoted to the genre. Several of the items you left in are trivial by comparison. In your summary, you mentioned, "Darlington Richards is expecting to publish a THIRD issue sometime NEXT YEAR". It's an annual publication, so I don't really grasp the relevance of this comment. Thanks for any explanation. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't consider the publications' mutual relative importance, or who writes for them. I noted that the section was titled "Periodicals regularly publishing renku in English". Like the other two defunct journals I removed, this description didn't seem to fit the Journal of Renga & Renku. It is apparently still in print, but while it was started in 2010 it has since had only two issues, with a third due for publication sometime next year. This doesn't seem regular to me, but if you want to change the name of the section and reinstate the link I wouldn't mind. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- This looks like a difference in interpretation of the section title: "Periodicals regularly publishing renku in English". I understood this to mean, "Periodicals which regularly (i.e. in every issue) include renku"; not "Periodicals which are published regularly, and also include renku". If the latter really is the intent, then the current section title seems a very obtuse way of expressing it. A more normal way of expressing this would be something like, "Regularly published journals which include renku."
- As far as this particular journal is concerned, its first issue was December 2010 and its second 14 months later. According to the website, the third will appear in "early 2013", so its publication does not appear to be "irregular" in the normal sense of the term. In any case, you seem to agree that regularity is of less importance than its content, but that your problem was that you felt it didn't fit with the section title. I propose to change the title to "Periodicals focusing on renku" and remove all of the others except for Lynx. The latter started life as a renku-only print magazine in the 1980s, but while it has for some years been online and included other genres, it maintains a substantial focus on linked verse. In contrast, none of the other periodicals focuses on the genre, though they do include some. What are your feelings about this proposal? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- One week has passed without response to your inquiry, Bagworm. Your solution above (viz., to change the section heading to “Periodicals focusing on renku” and to include in that section the two publications Journal of Renga and Renku and Lynx) is fair and sound. No one has lodged an objection to your proposal; I see no reason for further delay.Tristan noir (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- I was on a business trip with no internet in my hotel. I actually have no problem with the link itself (although I would personally wait until they at least get a third issue out), but I think the section title needs to be changed. I personally find it difficult to interpret the title the way User:Bagworm does. I also would prefer "Periodicals that publish renku" or "Periodicals prominently featuring renku" or some variant, as they sound a little bit more formal. elvenscout742 (talk) 10:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- On reflection, what's needed are not links to "Periodicals that publish renku" as you suggest, but to those containing translations, articles and reviews about the genre. And that actually only leaves JRR. Lynx neither focuses entirely on renku nor does it stretch beyond publishing modern English poetry. JRR, by contrast, includes scholarly articles and translations as well as renku in English. I think the section title "Renku journals" sums it up quite succinctly. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. \^_^/♪ elvenscout742 (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
An Exaltation of Forms as a source for haikai no renga
This Japanese phrase given as the "former name" for renku has bothered me for a while. It seems like a modern coinage, and even if it is classical, I would prefer to have specific dates. But more problematic is what came up when I tried to check the source just now via Google Books. (I don't own a copy, and since it doesn't deal specifically with Japanese literature I'm not interested in buying it.) The inline citation in this article gives a page number, but no quotation. It also lists the editors of the overall book, but not the author of the piece that p228 falls under. Since it is unlikely that Finch and Varnes are specialists in classical Japanese literature I would feel more comfortable with the author of the source being mentioned. And if possible, could I see the quotation? The Google Books preview does not include any part of the relevant essay, and doesn't even include the second page of the table of contents, so I can't even see the name of the author. (>_<) elvenscout742 (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Reinstating Saohime line
I have reinstated the statement Never before in Japanese culture had anyone dared to talk of the goddess of spring in such a manner. that was removed four years ago without justification. It lacking a source doesn't mean it's wrong, and simply checking the first chapter of Keene verified it. Maybe instead of tagging statements we don't like, waiting two months(!), and then deleting them because no one has cited a source yet, we should actually search for sources. As far as I can see, no argument was provided <!-- as a comment -->, on this talk page, or in the edit summary as to what was questionable about the statement. I appreciate that unverifiable statements don't belong on Misplaced Pages, but when the definitive English-language history of Japanese literature gives almost the exact same quote in the first chapter of its volume dealing with haikai, the article presently lacking a source is not really a justification for removal. The amount of time elapsed since a statement was tagged is meaningless, since it was never directly stated what was wrong with the statement. I had just started my 4-year Wikibreak at the time this happened, and no one other than Bagworm made any significant edits to the article throughout 2008-2009, so the removal basically said "I don't like this sentence (although I don't want to explain why) and so I am removing it because I don't want to check if it is backed up by reliable sources."
I know it's a bit silly to bring up something that happened four years ago like this, but User:Bagworm has recently shown a misunderstanding of WP:V on several other articles where he repeatedly insisted that having sources that appear to say one thing justifies adding questionable material to Misplaced Pages. Please remember that WP:IAR is a policy as well -- if one seemingly reliable source is being used to back up a questionable/inaccurate statement on Misplaced Pages, and another accurate/easily verifiable statement does not currently cite a source, then it is best for Misplaced Pages to delete the inaccurate-but-sourced statement, and find a source for the unsourced one.
elvenscout742 (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Categories: