Jump to content

Talk:Haibun

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

To do

[edit]

To conform with WP guidelines, consider the following:

Done.--Yumegusa (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of kanji in article

[edit]

What's the point in removing the kanji I've inserted -- twice now -- after certain Japanese terms? It's information some people would like to have. Those who don't need it can simply let their eyeballs slide over it. Shosai (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shosai. Please read WP:MOS-JP#Using_Japanese_in_the_article_body. In each of the cases where you added kanji, it was already included in the target article. --Yumegusa (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naruhodo. OK, so no kanji after Basho, but kanji are ok after Phantom Hut, etc. One other point: the second sentence seems overly inclusive with genre such as short stories, autobiographies, and the like. I take it this categorization refers to haibun in English, not Japanese. I've not read all existing Japanese haiibun, of course, but I don't recall them being so broad in scope. Shosai (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first contest for English-language haibun?

[edit]

In this edit I changed
The first contest for English-language haibun took place in 1996{{Citation needed|date=May 2010}}
to
An early contest for English-language haibun took place in 1996
as the specific claim ('first') had remained unreferenced since May 2010. Now this edit has just reinstated the unreferenced claim. I'm about to revert the edit, and would request that, in accordance with WP guidelines, any such claim should be properly referenced before reinstatement. Thanks. --candyworm (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion was again reinstated here, with slightly altered wording. I've again reverted, and left a note on the IP's Talk page requesting her to engage here. --candyworm (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book Wedge of Light asserts that it was the result of the first English-language haibun contest. The editors/judges had been heavily involved with haibun for many years, and knew of no other haibun contest ever held in English. What more citation is possible? It needs no further citation than the unchallenged claim later in the same paragraph that Bruce Ross's Narrow Road to the Interior was the "first anthology" of English-language haibun (which, in fact, it was). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.180.101 (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supplying the requested citation. According to WP guidelines, the info should be confirmed by an independent third-party source, but this will suffice unless the assertion is challenged again.--candyworm (talk) 08:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I reverted to the original "External Links" text as Elvenscout's edit of 21 Sept 2012 introduced an error in description and deleted a relevant existing link. Please engage here on the Talk Page before reintroducing these errors. Elvenscout's edit described Haibun Today as "Jeffrey Woodward's haibun and criticism blog" whereas the publication in question is an online literary quarterly, no different than Contemporary Haibun Online or Simply Haiku which are so described. Haibun Today also has multiple editors, like these other two journals, and there is no point in identifying it as belonging to an editor or editors anymore so than it would be relevant to qualify Contemporary Haibun Today as "Jim Kacian's haibun journal" or Simply Haiku as "Robert Wilson's haiku journal." Elvenscout also deleted the link to Modern Haibun & Tanka Prose and offered his reasoning, in his Edit Summary, that the journal was minor and that it was concerned predominately with tanka. Modern Haibun & Tanka Prose published two issues in 2009 before going defunct. Only two known journals dedicated to haibun in English preceded it (Contemporary Haibun Online and Haibun Today) and it has further historical importance in the literature as being perhaps the first in-print periodical on the subject. Nor was Modern Haibun & Tanka Prose predominately a vehicle for tanka as Elvenscout claimed. It published two issues, each 180 pages or so in length, and divided its contents between haibun, tanka prose and critical articles; it published no solo tanka or haiku. Tristan noir (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It ultimately doesn't matter, though, how much of which journals (and blogs -- they are different from "journals") are devoted to haibun. The fact is that of the eight external links on this page at the moment, seven of them are just sites that publish examples of haibun, and add very little to the article itself apart from advertising the particular blogs. Please see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming. This article, if it is really about haibun and not about advertising, should not have more than two or three of these links. I'm just trying to figure out which five to cut. Also, it is inappropriate to remove information without providing any justification here or in your edit summary, and uncivil to blindly revert attempts to fix that. elvenscout742 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But justification was offered here (on Talk) and in the edit summary. I did not intend to be "uncivil." You write, It ultimately doesn't matter, though, how much of which journals (and blogs -- they are different from "journals") are devoted to haibun. Fair enough. But you were the one who raised the subject and employed it to justify your edit in your Edit Summary. For the record, Contemporary Haibun Online, Simply Haiku, and Haibun Today, again, are not blogs but are quarterly journals. How external links to non-profit literary publications that are free can be construed as advertising is beyond me. Nevertheless, since the article, by your estimation, should carry no more than three external links and since the article is concerned with the subject of haibun, it would be consistent, in making your decision as to which to cut, to retain links to those few publications in English that specialize in the article's subject.
Tristan noir (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, by "advertising" I meant "promotion". I meant you should not just change the word "blog" to "literary journal" without providing a justification. Even if you are right, other users might be inclined to revert you unless you provide a reason, and all you said was "repairing external link". I did not use the problem of too many external links as an excuse to push through other edits. Please do not make such accusations. I made a number of small edits simultaneously, and you should have considered all of my edit before blinding reverting everything. Please assume good faith. Also, you can't just say add brief history of pioneering H. anthologies & periodicals to justify an addition - you have to explain how they are pioneering by reference to reliable secondary sources. I otherwise agree with your point. Older, inactive sites and ones that don't specialize in haibun should probably go first. elvenscout742 (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

In this edit editor Elvenscout742 removed three els with the edit summary Removed vanlistspamcruftisementkill. These are self-published sources/blogs and are basically irrelevant to this article on Japanese literature. Per WP:EDSUM: Avoid inappropriate summaries: Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause tension or bad feelings, which makes collaboration more difficult. Explain what you changed, and cite the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but try not to target or to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack or an insult. In addition, kindly keep your edit summaries intelligible.

To attempt to denigrate a magazine/journal/periodical as "self-published" is oxymoronic, and suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of how the publishing world works: all such publications are literally self-published, but the question is whether they contain edited content. If they do, then the authors concerned are published by the journal, not self-published. Accordingly, I am restoring the links to Contemporary Haibun Online and Haibun Today, as there is clearly no consensus to remove them from this article. Both are quarterly publications which have appeared regularly for eight and five years respectively, and contain articles, interviews and reviews in addition to selected examples of the genre in English. To describe them with such gibberish as "vanlistspamcruftisementkill" is not constructive. Kindly engage in a constructive and civil manner in order to work collaboratively towards reaching consensus. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was already established elsewhere on this issue. My edit summary simply stated that the links are unnecessary and were probably placed here as WP:ADVERTISEMENT. "Denigrating" them as such is natural. One or two links to commercial publications that run "haibun" regularly may or may not be allowed, but the fact is that at the moment this article on Japanese literature focuses far too much on a derived English form, and links to external publications that publish this English form are essentially inappropriate. Your referring to my coinage of the above phrase as "gibberish" is an irrelevant personal attack. I simply took the established wikiterm "vanispamcruftisement" and added "list" and "link overkill", which are appropriate for the nature of these links. They don't belong in the article, and that is why I removed them. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The haibun publications Contemporary Haibun Online and Haibun Today (those external links that you have now twice removed) were not at issue in the discussion that you refer to above as “elsewhere.” The consensus established there touched upon another article and another topic; it has no bearing upon the current article on haibun or upon its external links. Furthermore, neither publication in question is “commercial,” as you’ve misrepresented them above (while tendentiously citing WP:ADVERTISEMENT!); they are quite simply free online literary publications focused upon haibun – the only periodicals in English, in fact, dedicated to this genre. There is no plausible reason for removing these links. I’ve restored them, therefore.Tristan noir (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As should be self-evident, any discussions on another article's talk page do not constitute consensus regarding this article. This article is about a literary form originating in Japan, and it is entirely appropriate that in English-language Wikipedia a considerable amount of detail should focus on its manifestation in English. Elvenscout742's personal speculations on the thinking of whatever editor originally added the 2 el's in question are of no interest or relevance. The two periodicals in question clearly qualify under WP:EL as has already been shown above. To simply repeat "They don't belong in the article" is neither helpful nor constructive. To repeatedly remove content against consensus is WP:DISRUPTIVE. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just re-reading an old thread, and I need to point this out here for posterity: The "journal" Haibun Today: A Haibun and Tanka Prose Journal works to promote the ridiculous, made-up term "tanka prose", which Jeffrey Woodward coined in summer 2008, roughly two weeks before the WP:SPA account Tristan noir created a Wikipedia article on said topic. Consensus was reached at the AfD discussion on "tanka prose" that the term only exists in the writings of Woodward and his cohorts, and therefore probably does not belong on Wikipedia. Additionally, WP:ELNO clearly disqualifies ELs to sites that publish inaccurate or misleading information. Both the websites that were under discussion here have "in-print", for-profit (essential) sister-projects in Modern Haibun & Tanka Prose (shop/search.ep?contributorId=544983 with http://www.lulu .com/ before it) and contemporary haibun ([1]), respectively. The latter's website advertises its sister project blatantly, and the former's editorial team, contributor list and general style and content are so similar to its for-profit counterpart that it might as well be the same "journal". Also, on Wikipedia, WP:ADVERTISEMENT includes promotion, spam and link overkill, even if the owners of the sites being linked to do not directly make a profit. However, as has been been pointed out numerous times by now, both of these links fail both WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE, so the entire debate was irrelevant. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is supposed to be about classical Japanese literature, and the links are to unrelated websites that are published by someone who has made ridiculous claims about classical Japanese literature. The policy I linked to specified that [t]hose promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. Inclusion of links to irrelevant blogs in an article about classical Japanese literature, apparently in order to draw attention to the blogs in question, is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. And of course I wouldn't know which Woodward sources are for-profit or not as well as you would, given that you clearly have a close personal relationship with him. As a student of Japanese literature, I do not feel comfortable working on an article about my chosen field knowing that a significant part of the article is devoted to promotion of non-notable, modern English writings. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some points drawn from WP:DISRUPT:

A disruptive editor is an editor who:

  • Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors.
  • Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
  • Does not engage in consensus building:
    • repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
    • repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
  • Rejects or ignores community input

In addition, such editors may:

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.
--gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change the name of this page to Haibun in English and allow for the Haibun article to focus on the early-modern Japanese literary genre its name implies , or you are the editor being disruptive. A link to a blog that publishes English compositions loosely related to the early-modern Japanese literary genre in question is WP:SPAM. It's equivalent to an article on ancient Greek or Norse mythology linking to the Age of Mythology homepage because Age of Mythology is an English-language "work" (a video game is still a work) loosely based on that subject. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Haibun, when written in French or Russian or Japanese or English is called haibun and it is entirely appropriate that the article which deals with it, in all its variety, should be called haibun. Haibun originated in Japan but is no longer confined to that country. If you bothered to inform yourself by reading the journals you are repeatedly removing from ELs against consensus you would be aware of that. You claim that English-language haibun are but "loosely related to the early-modern Japanese literary genre" without a shred of evidence. Your editing here fits remarkably closely with the list above describing a disruptive editor. You have added nothing useful to the article, but harangue, harass and hector at every turn. You continue to push your own POV in the face of opposition from other editors and display no interest in consensus-building. It is becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith, and any further removal of the links to the competent and accepted periodicals in question will be justly labeled Wikipedia:Vandalism, with all of the results that that implies. I trust I have your attention. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, your marking of this edit (your latest removal of the ELs in question) as 'minor' is in direct conflict with WP:MINOR which states i.a.: When not to mark an edit as a minor edit: *Adding or removing content in an article *Adding or removing references or external links in an article. As mentioned above, your edits are increasingly stretching credulity as far as WP:AGF is concerned. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my misunderstanding of what constituted a "minor" edit. I was under the impression that removing two links at the bottom of the page that are not given extensive coverage within the article itself, and not actually touching the content of the article, constituted a "minor" edit, but it seems I was mistaken. I am sorry for that.
HOWEVER, the fact that the only coverage in the actual article of these links, and the wording of those links, were added by someone with a very close to Jeffrey Woodward, a non-notable (1, 2) poet, given WP:WEIGHT and WP:COI, means I am still highly skeptical of the links. Your POV that I have not added anything of worth to the article is a personal attack, and your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS is clearly highly flawed. How am I opposing "consensus" when one WP:SPA with a WP:COI, and ONE other user agree on something, and I disagree? Would you like to take this to dispute resolution as well? elvenscout742 (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You appear unable or unwilling to resolve disagreements with fellow editors on Talk Pages without resorting to dispute resolution, if one is to judge by your recent history as regards the articles Tanka prose and Prosimetrum. I’m not surprised, therefore, to see you threaten to raise the flag of “dispute resolution” again for what would be the third time in one month. Be that as it may, kindly refer to WP:WIKIHOUND. You have directed numerous insinuations and allegations at this editor as well as having made frequent hostile allusions to the same not only
  • (a) in edit summaries of the articles Haibun, Tanka in English, Uta Monogatari, Tanka Prose, Prosimetrum and the related Talk Pages of said articles,
  • (b) on your personal talk page, my personal talk page and various other User Talk pages, and
  • (c) in AfD and RfD discussions on Tanka Prose and in the current Dispute Resolution on Prosimetrum that were opened upon your initiative.
I would like to participate in Wikipedia in a productive and collaborative way. Please refrain from further employment of the various “soapboxes” cited above to push your individual POV and to lobby personally against me. Let’s try to keep discussions, where necessary, civil and focused upon pertinent issues, not upon personalities.Tristan noir (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you show a willingness to abide by Wikipedia policies regarding spam, original research, due weight, etc., I will work with you peacefully. It is very difficult to resolve disputes with you without going to dispute resolution and/or AfD, etc., because you have consistently been unwilling to listen to my reasoned arguments on Talk pages. It is also impossible for me to single-handedly overrule both you and Bagworm, even when Wikipedia policy is clearly on my side, while you are this stubborn, which is why I have had to resort to those external forums. I do not believe you should be banned or blocked solely for having personal links to the author you have repeatedly tried to publicize via Wikipedia, since if you are willing to edit articles in a constructive capacity that alone is not a valid reason for banning/blocking. This is why I have consistently gone for low-level dispute resolution forums rather than a request for arbitration or some such. However, I am perfectly entitled to oppose you on individual issues where your COI is clearly in play, as long as I quote Wikipedia policy and avoid making personal attacks. I have consistently remained focused on article content throughout ALL of my dealings with both of you, and have met with little other than ad hominem attacks. In fact it would be fair to say that over half of your edit history at this point in time consists of little other than personal attacks against me and/or other defenses of blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I will ask you kindly to pause, to reflect and to refrain from further unsupported allegations and assertions directed at my person with WP:WIKIHOUND in mind. If you choose to do otherwise and to pursue your many previous attacks, as your comments immediately above imply, then I will duly consider those other options for resolution available to me within the Wikipedia community.Tristan noir (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The assertions are not unsupported. You wrote a bogus article that cited as a source a book that had not yet been published, which was written/edited by the person you continue to promote here. This much is easily verifiable fact. elvenscout742 (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, your (User:Bagworm's) interpretation of Wikipedia:Vandalism is deeply flawed. My removal of links which I view as spam and compromising of the integrity of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, cannot possibly be considered vandalism. Vandalism implies a deliberate attempt to disrupt said integrity; I have not accused you or Tristan noir of it, since, even though in my point of view your edits have that effect, I believe it is not your intention, but merely that you have a point-of-view that is in conflict with mine. Consensus was already reached that Jeffrey Woodward's self-published sources are not a reliable source of information. I contend that any Woodward source being linked to on Wikipedia should be treated with extreme skepticism as a result. Your unilaterally defending the inclusion of Woodward material in Wikipedia does not reflect any "consensus". Your stating that just because this is English Wikipedia we should give undue weight to modern, non-notable works in an article that should be about Japanese literature is highly suspect. The fact that at present 3 out of the 5 external links on this page deal exclusively with modern English haibun, and all three are self-published blog-style websites is abysmal. And the one that I have missed up until now is apparently a vanity site belonging to one poet, and its inclusion is not justified by anything in the article. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With this edit, Elvenscout742 has unilaterally and against consensus added a {{spam link}} template against the two external links which have been extensively discussed above, and which have been clearly shown to be valid per WP:ELYES: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues", and not to fail WP:ELNO in any way. Elvenscout742 is continuing, despite warnings, to edit in a WP:DISRUPTive fashion, fitting precisely the following points: tendentious, disruptive tagging, does not engage in consensus building, rejects or ignores community input, campaigns to alienate productive editors, and fails or refuses to "get the point". --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, Elvenscout742 has unilaterally removed(Apologies for that. I saw in the diff that the el's had disappeared from where they had been, and without looking further made the assumption that you had repeated their removal. The rest of this post stands. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)) the two el's in question with this edit and the summary: I am not the one being disruptive. Please provide an explanation for why half of the external links on an article about classical Japanese literature should be to modern English publications, or create a separate article on English Haibun.[reply]
Nope. Read Nobuyuki Yuasa's comments in the article. Haibun is no longer confined to its country of origin, and has established itself as a genre in world literature. Haibun, when written in French or Russian or Japanese or English is called haibun and it is entirely appropriate that the article which deals with it, in all its variety, should be called haibun. If you bothered to inform yourself by reading the journals you are repeatedly removing from ELs against consensus you would be aware of that. You claim that English-language haibun are but "loosely related to the early-modern Japanese literary genre" without a shred of evidence. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making ridiculous accusations. I did not remove any links this time, I merely replaced the templates that you removed without providing a justification, and moved the links down so that they at least are not given precedence over more relevant links. This is an article about Japanese literature, and including links to blog-style websites by modern English poets that promote commercial properties and also include misinformation about Japanese literature is highly questionable. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider WP:WEIGHT. Just because a genre called "haibun" exists outside Japan, it does not mean that 60% of the links and 50% of the text should be devoted to modern English haibun. I started the page Tanka in English to avoid this kind of problem on the Tanka article, where devotees of a small English literary movement were hijacking an article on classical Japanese literature. I have now proposed a compromise with you several times that we make a similar compromise here and you have repeatedly dismissed me. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any WP:WEIGHT issues can easily be dealt with by expanding this very thin article appropriately. If half the energy poured into this pointless and time-wasting disruption were spent on actually improving the article it could be considerably better than its current status. What you did or didn't do in Tanka in English is of no interest. Please focus on this article here. What is your basis for discounting Yuasa's assertion that haibun is no longer confined to its country of origin, and has established itself as a genre in world literature? You persist in describing haibun as an article about classical Japanese literature, whereas haibun is in fact a literary form originating in Japan. What is the basis of your claim that English-language haibun are but "loosely related to the early-modern Japanese literary genre"? By your logic, the sonnet article should only be about Italian sonnet, and we should make a separate article for sonnet in English! --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shakespearean sonnets have received extensive coverage in respectable (non-self-published) literature. If haibun is really established as a genre in world literature, why are you and TN unable to link to external sources that cover "English haibun" in some depth without being burdened by false/misleading information and that aren't self-published blog-style websites? elvenscout742 (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating, without providing any basis, the term 'blog' in relation to two journals which have been publishing for eight and five years respectively, and contain articles, interviews and reviews in addition to selected examples of the genre in English. You keep repeating the term 'self-published' which, as has been pointed out to you on several occasion, is a nonsense when applied to periodicals. In doing this you continue to betray an apparent misunderstanding of how the publication of periodicals works. You continue to ignore the points raised and instead choose to repeat these erroneous assertions. You continue to ignore the following questions: What is your basis for discounting Yuasa's assertion that haibun is no longer confined to its country of origin, and has established itself as a genre in world literature? What is the basis of your claim that English-language haibun are but "loosely related to the early-modern Japanese literary genre"? If there is any basis at all to your position, then simply address the points raised. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The inaccurate information on those websites and the ignorance on the part of the "editor" Mr. Woodward in regard to the history of Japanese literature in general and haibun and so-called "tanka prose" in particular are self-evident. Even if they were reliable publications, they would not rank about all the other well-regarded publications that are not cited in the article. elvenscout742 (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please directly address the questions above. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What questions above? I have directly addressed why I am concerned about the links promoting the works of Jeffrey Woodward, who is demonstrably ignorant/offensively dismissive of Japanese literature. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"What questions above," you ask? Why, those questions that you continue to evade by repeatedly seeking to change the subject. Your fellow editor's respectful questions were as follows: What is your basis for discounting Yuasa's assertion that haibun is no longer confined to its country of origin, and has established itself as a genre in world literature? What is the basis of your claim that English-language haibun are but "loosely related to the early-modern Japanese literary genre"? We're patiently waiting for your answer.Tristan noir (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone in the above comment is highly arrogant, and you two are the ones who continue to evade my questions. No one mentioned Yuasa until Bagworm's most recent comment above, so I don't see why you accuse me of "repeatedly avoiding" that question. The fact is that Yuasa (who, I might add, is an English teacher, not a specialist in Japanese literature) has said that haibun is not confined to Japan. That is all. That comment alone is no basis for well over half of this article being hijacked to discuss English-language haibun. Unless he has written extensively about how Jeffrey Woodward and his "journals" are reputable sources of information on haibun, and are the most noteworthy English-language-haibun resources worth linking to on Wikipedia, citing him is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I apologize for accidentally deleting your comment above once. I thought I was reverting a previous edit by you that was entirely unjustified and altered the nature of MY comments. But the fact is that it, like almost everything you have ever posted on any of these talk pages, is an aggressive, pointless and irrelevant personal attack. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your apology for deleting my comment above. Accidents happen. And if my tone came off as arrogant, that was not my intent and I offer an apology in return. Back to business, however. You were first asked by Bagworm to respond to Yuasa's comment and to explain your claim that English-language haibun are but “loosely related to the early-modern Japanese literary genre” here. You did not answer. You were again prompted to respond on three further occasions [1] [2] [3]. Again, you did not answer. Bagworm’s questions are directly relevant to your repeated argument that this article should be about Japanese literature alone, in the face of RS citations that haibun is now a literary form being written not only in English but in many languages worldwide. And that issue, of course, is pertinent to the matter of the ELs that you continue to rail against so illogically and intemperately. Your remark above about Yuasa’s profession does not disqualify him as a reliable source and still does not address the fundamental question in play. Nor have you yet to offer the slightest support for your empty assertion that English haibun are but “loosely related” to the Japanese genre.Tristan noir (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for having previously failed to notice this, but the above You did not answer is misleading. I directly addressed the question of Yuasa's statement and how it was irrelevant to this dispute. One author, who is not a specialist in Japanese literature, having stated once merely that haibun exists outside Japan cannot be taken as a justification for two-thirds of this article being devoted to modern American literature. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was originally about classical Japanese literature, and the title still implies such. Readers (myself included) would be surprised to see that over half of the article is devoted to modern American literature. None of the modern works mentioned in this article are themselves notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, unlike Oku no Hosomichi, so an article on the genre of Oku no Hosomichi should probably focus more on it and the works directly linked to it. Perhaps "loosely related" was a poor choice of words on my part. I did not mean to imply that they were not directly related to early-modern Japanese haibun, but rather that they are somewhat removed from the main theme of this article. Yuasa's assertion (which I maintain, as per my statement immediately above, is largely irrelevant) that haibun exists outside Japan is not direct justification for the inclusion of the links in question. Why, when Bagworm makes a ridiculous accusation against me [2], should I be expected to focus exclusively on the largely irrelevant comment beneath said accusation? This article deals with classical Japanese haibun, and since the latter is far more notable and better-established than the modern English variant, the majority of attention in the article should be given to it. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Elvenscout742. I am happy to see that you have changed your position, and are no longer advocating that such a short article should be split. I have no basic disagreement with your position that a greater proportion of the article should focus on classical Japanese literature, but given that its coverage of the latter is so thin, it would surely make sense to expand it, thereby addressing any WEIGHT issue, rather than chipping away at what little we have. The same principle applies to the el's. Those two at issue happen to be the only online resources focussing primarily on the genre in English, so removing them would actually create WP:WEIGHT issues. (There are several offline publications which include and discuss haibun in English and other languages, but that's neither here nor there.) What this article needs is expansion in the right direction, not depletion. Lastly, on Yuasa. To describe him baldly as an English teacher is at best misleading. In addition to being a distinguished John Donne scholar, Yuasa is the translator of Bashō's The Narrow Road to the Deep North and Other Travel Sketches (Penguin Classics) and Issa's Oraga Haru (University of California Press), so anyone dismissing his position on haibun as "irrelevant" says a great deal more about themselves than anything else. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Let's put this dispute behind us and work on the WEIGHT issue. My problem with the links is that, when this dispute began they accounted for 60% of the external links at the bottom of the article, and still account for 50%. The fact that the one I previously removed exists is evidence enough that the two remaining two are not quite the only ones in English. If the two remaining were the only print journals I would understand, but Haibun Today in particular seems not to be substantially any different from the other one I removed, in that it is online, free-to-access, and if it has any editorial oversight it is not the kind that weeds out factual errors in essays and the like (it uses the inaccurate term "tanka prose" regularly, etc.). Honestly, if we can express a mutual commitment to expanding that part of the article that deals with early-modern Japanese haibun to fix the WEIGHT issue, I have no problem with at least one link (I am leaning toward contemporary haibun online) to a contemporary English website. If we agree to expand the coverage of Japanese haibun I honestly don't see the inclusion of a proportional number of links as spam.

On the largely unrelated matter of Yuasa's credentials, I will drop my argument that he should not be used as a justification for this article focusing on modern American literature, since you seem willing to let the article let the article not focus on American literature. However it should be pointed out that Oku no Hosomichi has been published in English at least 9 times, and Yuasa in his native Japan is known almost exclusively as a professor of English language and literature (his only notable published works in Japanese are about Donne and other English poets).[3][4] I ultimately don't mind him being cited as a source, however; he clearly at least knows a lot more about haikai literature than I do. I just don't want to see him used as a source for 50-60% of the article to focus on modern American literature, is all. :D

elvenscout742 (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll be happy to put this dispute behind us. I agree with you, E, that the section now entitled “History” needs greater expansion, i.e., more detail and emphasis upon Japanese haibun. The “Haibun in English” segment provides a brief sketch, perhaps sufficient, of some main events and publications on the English side of the article. That section now entitled “Characteristics” is weak and doesn’t do justice to either Japanese haibun or to its English manifestation. The “weight” issues can be dealt with, I would think, largely by greater expansion of the first and third sub-sections above.
This brings me to the two ELs previously in question. Bagworm wrote, … it would surely make sense to expand it [the J. literature], thereby addressing any WEIGHT issue, rather than chipping away at what little we have. The same principle applies to the el's. That is my view, in summary, as my paragraph above should make clear. So I’d argue that we should retain both English ELs; there are critical differences between them, particularly in the large archive (book reviews, interviews, articles and bibliography) offered at Haibun Today. To counterbalance two English ELs, I’d suggest that we add two or more ELs to the two that we already have that focus upon the Japanese heritage. Without adding these ELs unilaterally, I’ll simply propose them here to see if we can agree upon their usefulness.
In addition, the two Basho ELs we currently have are old and lead the reader to their source via a redirect. I’ve found alternatives for B’s Genjuan no ki (available directly here) while the Yuasa translation of Oku no hosomichi can be found here. Perhaps we should consider these direct links as possible substitutes.Tristan noir (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You see, the problem with those links is that they do not deal with the genre of haibun specifically, but with the person of Bashō, who while inextricably linked with haibun also already has his own article. The two NG links and the SimplyHaiku link are basically biographical texts on the form's creator, and as far as I can see none of the four actually use the word haibun. That isn't in itself a significant problem, but the ELs should probably be specifically linked with the topic of the article, given that Oku no Hosomichi and Bashō already have separate articles. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looking more closely at the matter, I'm inclined to agree with you about the NG links in particular. The translation of the Kikaku text may be of marginal use or interest but, as you remark, it is basically biographical. Back to the drawing board, then, in search of better Japanese haibun-specific ELs. Do you have any alternates that you would propose?Tristan noir (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not specifically early-modern Japanese haibun, but the Haibun Research Society (of Japan) (俳文学会, Haibun-Gakkai, also translatable as "Haikai Literature Society" -- I don't think it has an official English name), seems like a good place to start, although it would need the tag "(Japanese only)". I also should point out that I don't have a problem with one link related to Oku no Hosomichi, since it is the archetypal haibun, in the same way that Tanka#External links links to a translation of the best-known and most-widely studied waka anthology. The thing about ELs is that Wikipedia articles should use them only sparingly. I also still am opposed to the Woodward link in the article as it now stands, since it appears to violate the Wikipedia guideline on ELs in that (1) it "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" and (2) it "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research"; the above debate has also demonstrated that it is not the only English-language haibun publication. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps agreement and compromise continue to elude us then. On the point of the English ELs, which is where this dispute began, it appears that your position is fundamentally unchanged and that you remain fixed upon your earlier opposition. We’ve discussed these matters at interminable length across this talk page. You are reciting the same objections and offering the same claims that you held previously, without any real substantiation of the personal opinion you offer to discredit a publication that is widely recognized and read by the English-language haikai community. We do have agreement that the Japanese side of the article should be given greater weight but that issue was never truly in dispute anyway and certainly cannot said to be so now; we’ve also agreed that this is English Wikipedia and that the English side of the article is also due proper weight. I’m disappointed to discover that we seem to be exactly where we were a few days ago, despite earlier indications that you may have shifted your position somewhat. Meanwhile, I’ll review the Haibun Research Society link to see if it seems applicable to the article.Tristan noir (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My position has not changed, because my position was always that we need to grant due weight. This Wikipedia article can discuss the (small) modern Western variant of haibun, as long as it gives proportional coverage to Japanese haibun, which is the genre of Oku no Hosomichi, one of the best-known and most-highly regarded works of classical Japanese literature. Ideally, this article would contain all the relevant, worthwhile information on the topic of haibun and we would need no external links. I appreciate, however, that the provision of a few relevant examples from both branches of the genre is desirable. This is why I removed the spam tag from contemporary haibun. However, Wikipedia's guideline specifically discourages linking to websites that contain false or misleading information. The website in question, in its about section states: "Haibun Today is dedicated to the publication and preservation of haibun and tanka prose in English" -- this is evidence enough that the website does not specialize in haibun, the topic of this article, but also promotes the made-up term/genre "tanka prose". elvenscout742 (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The EL in question has been demonstrated throughout the long dialogue above to be valid with respect to WP:ELYES and does not fail the requirements of WP:ELNO. Nor can it be said to violate WP:SPAM. Your tagging of the link as spam is clearly tendentious. You’ve failed to provide a reasonable argument, across this talk page, for your several earlier attempts to delete the same EL. You have yet to present a sound justification for tagging it as spam. Please do so now or remove the spam tag. Nor can you reasonably revive your argument of “undue weight” as specific good faith suggestions have been made for adding text and other relevant ELs that would expand that part of the article devoted to Japanese haibun. Your opinion that the EL in question contains “false or misleading information” is merely your personal POV and seems based solely upon your interpretation and rejection of the term “tanka prose”—a topic, I will remind you yet again, that is not at issue in this article. To assert that the publication “does not specialize in haibun,” as you have done above, is simply ludicrous, given its title, its reputation in the field, and its broad following.Tristan noir (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that "tanka prose" is not at issue in this article. That is why I don't think we should include a link to a publication that, while its name has haibun in it, its actual mission statement gives equal space to "tanka prose". I have conceded that a link or two devoted to modern English haibun is acceptable in this article. However, these links are here to provide references to published examples of the genre. They should therefore, if possible, be to websites that specialize in it. "Tanka prose" is not the same as haibun. In fact, "tanka prose" is a ridiculous concept that only exists in the minds of Woodward and his friends. Please show me numbers to demonstrate this "broad following". The fact is that the article itself demonstrates the relative dominance that contemporary haibun has over Haibun Today, and the name of the latter is not justification enough for a "journal" that publishes crack-pot theories about "tanka prose" to be linked to in an encyclopedia article about haibun. A Google search for instances of the term "haibun" on that website brings up only 500 results, as opposed to a search for "tanka prose", which brings up 609 results. This despite haibun being in the name of the publication. The fact is that your activity on Wikipedia for the last four years has been devoted almost exclusively to promoting and defending so-called "tanka prose", and then when your article finally got deleted you moved over here to post a link to[5] and otherwise promote[6] Haibun Today: A Haibun & Tanka Prose Journal. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only crack-pot theories (your language) that I’ve encountered recently on Wikipedia are those espoused by you, via your total misapprehension of the nature of publishing and your self-professed ignorance of English-language haibun, tanka and haiku. Your comments above are replete with your usual misleading statements. For example, the former article “tanka prose,” which really should have no bearing whatsoever on this article’s talk page, was not deleted as you well know; the AfD closer directed that it be merged with another article. You were unhappy with that decision and so immediately, within hours, took your case to RfD where you achieved one vote for deletion (your own vote) and found that discussion closed with an affirmation of the original AfD administrator’s decision. I’ve accepted the decisions of those two discussions. Apparently, you are unable to do so as you do not miss an opportunity to lobby on the talk pages of various articles, such as this one and at Tanka in English, against the consensus already reached at the AfD and RfD. Your other representations above are as accurate as your portrayal of the AfD and RfD results; your comments are a smokescreen, and a rather desperately transparent one, to disguise the fact that the link in question is in accord with WP:ELYES and does not violate WP:ELNO or WP:SPAM. This is why you have reverted to your ad hominem attacks, instead of simply addressing in a straightforward manner the Wikipedia policies cited.Tristan noir (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your extensive coverage of prior disputes is irrelevant. My following the closer's recommendation and immediately posting the as-yet unresolved redirect for discussion was unfortunate -- I had no prior experience with RfDs, and did not understand how they worked. However, the fact is that the overwhelming consensus was against "tanka prose" getting its own article, largely because "tanka prose" exists only in the minds of a few non-notable poets. You are the one who continues to insist on posting a link to a "tanka prose" publication in this haibun article. That "tanka prose" as a genre existed in ancient Japan is a ridiculous or "crack-pot" idea, and it is attested several times in the writings of Haibun Today: A Haibun & Tanka Prose Journals general editor and on the website itself. My referring to this ridiculous idea as such is not a violation of Wikipedia policy -- your insulting me by insinuating that my educated views of Japanese literary history are "crack-pot" is offensive. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I offered no opinion above on your “views of Japanese literary history.” I simply pointed out your ignorance of modern publishing and of English haibun; you frequently demonstrate the former and have cavalierly professed the latter. I also pointed to your tendency to mislead and to distort fact while lobbying for your POV. Further evidence of the same is available at the Wiktionary:RFV here where, behind the anonymity of unsigned comments, you repeat your feeble attacks on “self-published” books and journals, claims that are demonstrable falsehoods, claims that you continue to circulate despite these errors having been pointed out to you by more than one editor. You also wilfully misrepresent there the results of the AfD by resurrecting your tendentious “advertising” claim yet again (nowhere supported in the AfD closer’s statement) while simultaneously extending your personal attacks against this editor. Now, what might have motivated you to launch this RFV anonymously and quietly, immediately after your disappointment at the AfD and RfD mentioned above? More forum shopping.Tristan noir (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a ridiculous personal attack. Please refrain from bringing in arguments from previous unrelated Wikipedia disputes and those from other Wikimedia projects. I am not a regular Wiktionary editor, and so I do not have an account. I was not making any attempt to "hide behind anonymity", as you accuse me, since I blatantly pointed out that I am the same user who argued for the Wikipedia article's deletion. My comments were not "unsigned", either. PLEASE FOCUS ON THE TOPIC AT HAND AND REFRAIN FROM MAKING PERSONAL ATTACKS. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

|}

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Minor consensus against inclusion, without prejudice against a new RFC due to lack of participants.

These two els have been removed repeatedly from the External links section, by a single editor against consensus:

Extensive discussion has taken place on the article Talk page, but the situation remains unresolved. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I tried to remove them three times. You have blankly reverted me more than that. The fact is this article is and should be about the early-modern Japanese genre, but you and one other user (who has a close personal link to the self-publisher responsible for the two links) insist on giving precedence in the external links section to unrelated modern English publications, which are both non-notable and contain misinformation about Japanese literature. Please consider that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. If Wikipedia was a paper encyclopedia the only way those references would be included would be if one of the contributors or editors was linked with Mr. Woodward and wanted to include them as promotion. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of the relevant discussion appears in the section above. This RfC is a request for comment from other editors, not a request for you to repeat your position yet again. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. For the record, I posted a link to this discussion on WikiProject Japan. This page is also covered under that project, and the opinions of those editors are just as important. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. I don't see how they aid the article or come anywhere near WP:ELYES. I also don't see a consensus that was acted "against." Moreover, the argument above went on way too long. Remember to WP:STAYCOOL, all. czar · · 01:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • elvenscout, reviewing the above discussions, I see you making repeated references to Jeffrey Woodward, who is the general editor of Haibun Today but doesn't appear to have a connection to Contemporary Haibun Online. You also insinuate that other editors here have a connection to him that constitutes a conflict of interest. Could you elaborate on these claims? At first glance, it appears you have a very broad definition of "self-published." Elaboration on your thought process could be enlightening. --BDD (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BDD, I think you were a little late to the party on this one. ;)
Anyway, I attempted to compromise with Bagworm and TN that, of the two links included in the article, contemporary haibun online could remain as an example. My arguments about Woodward were all specifically related to the other link. I removed the Woodward link and wanted the dispute to end there, and since I initially faced only token opposition from the WP:SPA Tristan noir, whose activities on Wikipedia have been apparently devoted solely to either promoting Jeffrey Woodward, or undermining my edits, the dispute seemed to be over. (As an aside, TN's WP:COI/personal link to Woodward was established based his citing Woodward sources that had not yet been published[7], and using Wikipedia to outright reprint a Woodward article that was available online[8].) However, Bagworm and TN's arguments that cho meets the specifications of WP:ELYES never had a leg to stand on, and I only agreed to the compromise because it was not personally offensive to me. TN in particular has continued to attack me elsewhere, and bring up this particular dispute repeatedly. I have thus decided that "compromising" in order not to draw out a dispute, even though Wikipedia's rules are clear, is not the right answer in this case. My argument for the removal of cho is below. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the record, my misguided comment above that Woodward is "the self-publisher responsible for the two links" was previously withdrawn. I don't know why I said it, but it might have just been a misprint. I demonstrated three weeks ago (here and here) that I understood the two were different. However, BOTH of the ELs that were under dispute clearly did not meet WP:ELYES for the above reasons. As for WP:ELMAYBE, both obviously fail criteria 1, 2, 3 and 5; 4 (Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.) may be worth considering only for cho. (Woodward is not a knowledgeable source -- he is a ridiculous, non-academic, offensive and arrogant writer, and other writers who can only get their works published through him and the self-publishing resource Lulu probably aren't either.) However, since any information contained on the website that is worth including in the article can probably just be blankly included in the article, with either cho or another source cited, I would argue it falls down on 4 as well. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this RfC was to secure the opinion of other editors on the question of two disputed ELs and not to function as a soapbox for Elvenscout to repeat, with three long consecutive posts, the same tired arguments and personal attacks that he has offered repeatedly above on this talk page.Tristan noir (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making personal attacks. One of the other editors specifically addressed a question to me and I replied. I also posted an extended summary of my edit to the article, which essentially enforced the recommendation of the only external editor to make a comment -- Delete. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My third comment, which was not a response, has been moved to the section below for the reason stated there. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of contemporary haibun online

[edit]

The following comment was originally posted in the section above. At the time I wrote it, I was not aware that anyone had commented here for over two weeks, and I assumed the RfC was effectively over. Therefore, I did not intend for the comment to appear as though I meant to disrupt an ongoing RfC, but merely to state that I was implementing the only suggestion of the RfC. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the only impartial editor to get involved for a very long time favouring straight deletion, and recent events that have convinced me that compromising Wikipedia rules is the more troublesome of two options, I have had a change of heart. Since both of the ELs in question clearly do not meet WP:ELYES, I have removed contemporary haibun online. (1) The EL in question is not the "official website" of haibun, nor is this article an article on contemporary haibun online. If the latter meets WP:N and WP:V, a case can be made for creating an article at Contemporary haibun online, this article containing an internal wikilink to that article (the appropriate place in the article already exists), and that article linking to the official website of contemporary haibun online. (2) This article is not specifically about any of the individual works published on that website, so this is irrelevant. (3) The site does not appear to contain a significant body of "neutral and accurate material" that "cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article". If it does contain such information, we can include that in the article and cite it as a source, but a lone EL is pointless.elvenscout742 (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A comment in defense of this article's "low-importance" status

[edit]

When I first came across this article, I was struck by this. How could the genre of Oku no Hosomichi be of low-importance in WikiProject Japan. However, in the course of research for the above very lengthy debate, I discovered that while Oku no Hosomichi and some other lesser Bashō works are called haibun, the word itself is not generally used to denote an independent genre of fiction that is widely studied in Japanese literary circles. Instead, haibun occurs most frequently as an abbreviation of the phrase for "haikai literature" (俳諧文学 or 俳文学), a term which also encompasses individual haiku themselves, as well as haikai no renga, etc. Therefore, as an article discussing Japanese literature on English Wikipedia, haibun is of low-importance. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of haibun

[edit]

The sentence "James Merrill's "Prose of Departure", from The Inner Room (1988), is a later example" strikes me as supremely unbalanced. Sure, it's an example, but there are hundreds of examples that predate and postdate this. I recommend removal of this statement. It's a bit of a red herring, unless it were among a longer list of early examples (and this one is actually not that early). 2601:600:9080:8CF0:C581:C5D1:C2D2:D920 (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haibun&oldid=1201250006"