Talk:Pantun
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pantun in Indonesia
[edit]want to ask, isn't pantun also exist in Indonesia? Fanatic terrorist 11:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, esp. in West Sumatra. There's tradition of 'exchanging pantun' that is still performed during a wedding between the two families in Minangkabau. During the 'exchange' when the family of the groom cannot repel the pantun from bride's family, the groom's family should return home in vain. The wedding can be canceled and should be repeated again in the future until the bride's family satisfies. But this is rarely occasion that the wedding is canceled due to unsuccessful pantun exchange. Yes, I agree that the article needs a total rewrite. Indon (reply) — 15:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge
[edit]Support merge with Pantoum sats 15:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Why? The pantoum article is primarily focussed on the European offshoot of a specialised version of the pantun. This article deals with the much broader and more significant Malay poetic genre. Lumping them together would cause confusion. --Folantin (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose! Oppose! They're so different I could cry if you merged them! (okay, they're not THAT different, but they're different enough.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.217.131 (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Propose pantun retranslation
[edit]- I planted sweet-basil in mid-field => Sweet-basil planted mid-field = Tanam selasih di tengah padang,
- Grown, it swarmed with ants, => Once grown, it swarmed with ants, = Sudah bertangkai diurung semut,
- I loved but am not loved, => Hapless, my love is spurn & withheld = Kita kasih orang tak sayang,
- I am all confused and helpless. => (Like) Floating shell to and fro it went = Halai-balai tempurung hanyut.
Yosri (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Pantun
[edit]Dear @Orhanghazi, before making further disruptive edits on this page, make sure you already make a review regarding the information you stated in this article. Your good faith intention is required. Wikipedia isn't the place for you to make any vandalism and make disruptive edits. You can experiment on Sandbox if you feel like need to learn about how Wikipedia works.talk 03:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, it was you who made the disruptive edits, altering sentences to deviate the meaning from the original source as you please, and making false claims "not in source" when some lines clearly mentioned in the source. For example, the pembayang and maksud parts of pantun are clearly mentioned by Hirsch here, but you claimed it is not there, then you simply removed it without any explanation. Similarly, you claim that the citation about Peranakans, Chetti and Kristang people using pantun is "not in source", but the source clearly mentioned it here at page 6 (last para) and 7 (first para). This article deserves a better editor than you who cant even read properly.(Ø:G (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC))
- Before you point your finger at the other user, make sure you are not vandalist, and I always stated my explanation why some text should be removed. Your first vandalism and disruptive edits attempts appear on 17 January 2021 when you change the entire article to "what you think" as "what it should be". This is one of the examples of your bad faith vandalism and disruptive edits: edit. Thus unethical disruptive edits can't be accepted or compromised because the information stated is proven right during the review and verification process. Anyone can perform any kind of contribution, but everyone should follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. My intention was nothing but to keep the reliability on Wikipedia as the free-encyclopedia site. Before you make further edits, make sure you are not lying, that being said any statement should be proven reliable during the review process. Your "expanding" claims aren't following the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia to not create any hoaxes. But it also should be highlighted that some of your verified edits still preserved. And any kind of misleading information still need to be prevented. Thanks. (talk 00:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC))
- You still doesnt explain why some texts being removed despite being well-sourced as per my examples above. And why the word "the earliest literary text" being replaced with "one of the earliest"?, despite being clearly mentioned in the source as "the earliest", u have other earliest source?.(Ø:G (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC))
- I already explained that some text removed because it simply can't be verified, however any verifiable information still preserved, you should follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. And stop your disruptive edits before you read all the citation sources because your questions always appear as a rhetorical question (the answer is already in the citation sources). Before you make any further edits make sure you already read the warning above the edit box;
Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Any work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions. And you can learn better about how to add citation sources on Wikipedia. (talk 03:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC))
- I already explained that some text removed because it simply can't be verified, however any verifiable information still preserved, you should follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. And stop your disruptive edits before you read all the citation sources because your questions always appear as a rhetorical question (the answer is already in the citation sources). Before you make any further edits make sure you already read the warning above the edit box;
- You still doesnt explain why some texts being removed despite being well-sourced as per my examples above. And why the word "the earliest literary text" being replaced with "one of the earliest"?, despite being clearly mentioned in the source as "the earliest", u have other earliest source?.(Ø:G (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC))
- Before you point your finger at the other user, make sure you are not vandalist, and I always stated my explanation why some text should be removed. Your first vandalism and disruptive edits attempts appear on 17 January 2021 when you change the entire article to "what you think" as "what it should be". This is one of the examples of your bad faith vandalism and disruptive edits: edit. Thus unethical disruptive edits can't be accepted or compromised because the information stated is proven right during the review and verification process. Anyone can perform any kind of contribution, but everyone should follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. My intention was nothing but to keep the reliability on Wikipedia as the free-encyclopedia site. Before you make further edits, make sure you are not lying, that being said any statement should be proven reliable during the review process. Your "expanding" claims aren't following the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia to not create any hoaxes. But it also should be highlighted that some of your verified edits still preserved. And any kind of misleading information still need to be prevented. Thanks. (talk 00:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC))
