| Revision as of 22:50, 22 September 2012 editBagworm (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers8,097 edits rm redirect now that it has gone from article page← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:20, 23 September 2012 edit undoTristan noir (talk | contribs)973 edits →UntitledNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| <Although for the record, even though I encourage you to make an article on "tanka prose" now, I still haven't seen any evidence that it is notable or belongs on Misplaced Pages. You do still need to provide reliable, secondary sources, and I still don't recognize the articles and books you have cited as valid references for Misplaced Pages. They have so many errors. I haven't read the McCullough piece you cited, but I highly doubt it makes a claim that virtually of classical Japanese literature belongs to a "genus" called "tanka prose". And also the ''Kojiki'' does not contain short prose passages to explain background of poems. It is not a poetic anthology. It is a prose work. (And not all the poems in either it or the ''Man'youshuu'' are tanka anyway, so the name "tanka prose" is silly.) ] (]) 13:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC) > | <Although for the record, even though I encourage you to make an article on "tanka prose" now, I still haven't seen any evidence that it is notable or belongs on Misplaced Pages. You do still need to provide reliable, secondary sources, and I still don't recognize the articles and books you have cited as valid references for Misplaced Pages. They have so many errors. I haven't read the McCullough piece you cited, but I highly doubt it makes a claim that virtually of classical Japanese literature belongs to a "genus" called "tanka prose". And also the ''Kojiki'' does not contain short prose passages to explain background of poems. It is not a poetic anthology. It is a prose work. (And not all the poems in either it or the ''Man'youshuu'' are tanka anyway, so the name "tanka prose" is silly.) ] (]) 13:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC) > | ||
| <Also, please note: if you intend to create a new article under this title, that "nclusion on Misplaced Pages for the most part means meeting the ], which in a summary, requires there to be multiple ] ''independent of the subject'' that provide more than just a mere trivial mention" (]). Just because there are external online sources that attest to the '''existence''' of "tanka prose", this does not mean that they are independent of the subject. As far as I could see, all of the sources cited in the previous article were from publications aimed at producing and distributing the material discussed within the article. Please find more objective sources or I will request any article produced in the future to be deleted.] (]) 08:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)> | <Also, please note: if you intend to create a new article under this title, that "nclusion on Misplaced Pages for the most part means meeting the ], which in a summary, requires there to be multiple ] ''independent of the subject'' that provide more than just a mere trivial mention" (]). Just because there are external online sources that attest to the '''existence''' of "tanka prose", this does not mean that they are independent of the subject. As far as I could see, all of the sources cited in the previous article were from publications aimed at producing and distributing the material discussed within the article. Please find more objective sources or I will request any article produced in the future to be deleted.] (]) 08:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)> | ||
| :May I refer you to our prior discussion ]? On Sept. 14, in reference to the original Tanka prose article, you wrote: '''I have ''no problem whatsoever'' with you making an article at Tanka prose . . . The only reason I attacked the sources you cited was because they were being used to back up bizarre claims about ancient Japanese literature. If they are ''exclusively'' used as sources of information on the English literature that they were written to discuss, there is no problem.''' The emphasis upon the word “exclusively” is your own. On Sept. 16, I commented that this seemed like “a fair resolution,” to which you responded, on the same day, '''I'm happy to know that we can put this dispute behind us and move on with one article on modern English "tanka prose" and one article on "uta monogatari”.''' | |||
| :I’d hoped not to revisit our prior disagreement but before I could post the revised article, you chose, on Sept. 18, to post the above review of the conflict in which you rehearse all of your old attacks, including those upon the cited sources (contrary to your comments of Sept. 14). From the first, your remarks on this article, whether on the Talk Page ] or in your various edit summaries, have demonstrated little acquaintance with the English-language literature upon which it is based, just as the tenor of said remarks, far from showing objectivity, has registered your antipathy. That is an observation and not an ''ad hominem'' attack. Beyond that, I have little to say in answer to your rehash above, other than to state that the present article should be judged by the same standards applied to ], ] or ], to other articles, that is, that survey contemporary English-language writings that are derived from Japanese literature. | |||
| :] (]) 15:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:20, 23 September 2012
Untitled
<Although for the record, even though I encourage you to make an article on "tanka prose" now, I still haven't seen any evidence that it is notable or belongs on Misplaced Pages. You do still need to provide reliable, secondary sources, and I still don't recognize the articles and books you have cited as valid references for Misplaced Pages. They have so many errors. I haven't read the McCullough piece you cited, but I highly doubt it makes a claim that virtually of classical Japanese literature belongs to a "genus" called "tanka prose". And also the Kojiki does not contain short prose passages to explain background of poems. It is not a poetic anthology. It is a prose work. (And not all the poems in either it or the Man'youshuu are tanka anyway, so the name "tanka prose" is silly.) elvenscout742 (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC) > <Also, please note: if you intend to create a new article under this title, that "nclusion on Misplaced Pages for the most part means meeting the general notability guideline, which in a summary, requires there to be multiple reliable sources independent of the subject that provide more than just a mere trivial mention" (WP:ENN). Just because there are external online sources that attest to the existence of "tanka prose", this does not mean that they are independent of the subject. As far as I could see, all of the sources cited in the previous article were from publications aimed at producing and distributing the material discussed within the article. Please find more objective sources or I will request any article produced in the future to be deleted.elvenscout742 (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)>
- May I refer you to our prior discussion here? On Sept. 14, in reference to the original Tanka prose article, you wrote: I have no problem whatsoever with you making an article at Tanka prose . . . The only reason I attacked the sources you cited was because they were being used to back up bizarre claims about ancient Japanese literature. If they are exclusively used as sources of information on the English literature that they were written to discuss, there is no problem. The emphasis upon the word “exclusively” is your own. On Sept. 16, I commented that this seemed like “a fair resolution,” to which you responded, on the same day, I'm happy to know that we can put this dispute behind us and move on with one article on modern English "tanka prose" and one article on "uta monogatari”.
- I’d hoped not to revisit our prior disagreement but before I could post the revised article, you chose, on Sept. 18, to post the above review of the conflict in which you rehearse all of your old attacks, including those upon the cited sources (contrary to your comments of Sept. 14). From the first, your remarks on this article, whether on the Talk Page here or in your various edit summaries, have demonstrated little acquaintance with the English-language literature upon which it is based, just as the tenor of said remarks, far from showing objectivity, has registered your antipathy. That is an observation and not an ad hominem attack. Beyond that, I have little to say in answer to your rehash above, other than to state that the present article should be judged by the same standards applied to Haiku in English, Tanka in English or Haibun, to other articles, that is, that survey contemporary English-language writings that are derived from Japanese literature.
- Tristan noir (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)