| Revision as of 15:55, 23 September 2012 editHijiri88 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,390 edits →Untitled← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:39, 23 September 2012 edit undoTristan noir (talk | contribs)973 edits →UntitledNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ::My problem is that you have '''repeatedly''' tried to make bizarre claims about ancient Japanese literature in your edits on Misplaced Pages, despite you clearly being the ignorant one (). I posted the above comment in order to express my opinion that, despite what I may have given the impression of on the other talk page, this topic still does not merit an article on Misplaced Pages. I need to preserve my reputation on here, and I can't be seen to have promoted the creation of an article like this. So-called "tanka prose" apparently only exists in the minds of a very small group of writers, who consistently write poorly-researched, nonsense articles about the history of so-called "tanka prose" in Japan. It is based on faulty premises, ''bad'' scholarship (I have been kind up to now, but Woodward apparently knows '''almost nothing''' about classical Japanese literature, and his writings contain some rather offensive remarks that the Japanese, despite more than a thousand years of literary criticism behind them, are unable to interpret their own literature for themselves) and prejudiced readings of proper academic literature. One cannot read the Japanese literary sources you have cited and come to the conclusion that "tanka prose" deserves its own Misplaced Pages article, unless one has already read a modern English work that claims such. I have made no ''ad hominem'' attacks, apart from when I accidentally used the derogatory term "fancruft" earlier (I thought it was just a standard, objective term on Misplaced Pages for giving undue weight to a property one is a "fan" of, and didn't realize it was considered offensive). As to your statement about "], ] or ]", it needs to be pointed out that ''haibun'' (UNLIKE "tanka prose") is an established term that has been used for a long time to refer to works of classical Japanese literature, and the Misplaced Pages articles on "haiku in English" and "tanka in English" exist partly in order to keep information on modern English literature from cluttering up what should be articles on classical Japanese literature. You have '''''consistently''''' failed to provide valid references that justify your creation of an article on so-called "tanka prose", and now you try to hide behind weasel words and faulty attributions to credible authors. The article as you have rewritten it is worded in such a manner as to ''obviously'' be attempting to justify its own existence. Just because McCullough once wrote an article about classical Japanese literature that mixes poetry and prose, it does not automatically justify referring to works of classical Japanese literature by the name anachronistic name "tanka prose". The ''Man'youshuu'' is noted partly for its extensive inclusion of '''non'''-tanka poetry, and your previous claims that works such as the ''Kojiki'' are "tanka prose" because they contain ''some'' tanka (as well as chouka, etc.) demonstrate a basic lack of knowledge of Japanese literature. Why couldn't you take my advice and ''just'' make this article about the modern English literature you claim is its focus? ] (]) 15:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | ::My problem is that you have '''repeatedly''' tried to make bizarre claims about ancient Japanese literature in your edits on Misplaced Pages, despite you clearly being the ignorant one (). I posted the above comment in order to express my opinion that, despite what I may have given the impression of on the other talk page, this topic still does not merit an article on Misplaced Pages. I need to preserve my reputation on here, and I can't be seen to have promoted the creation of an article like this. So-called "tanka prose" apparently only exists in the minds of a very small group of writers, who consistently write poorly-researched, nonsense articles about the history of so-called "tanka prose" in Japan. It is based on faulty premises, ''bad'' scholarship (I have been kind up to now, but Woodward apparently knows '''almost nothing''' about classical Japanese literature, and his writings contain some rather offensive remarks that the Japanese, despite more than a thousand years of literary criticism behind them, are unable to interpret their own literature for themselves) and prejudiced readings of proper academic literature. One cannot read the Japanese literary sources you have cited and come to the conclusion that "tanka prose" deserves its own Misplaced Pages article, unless one has already read a modern English work that claims such. I have made no ''ad hominem'' attacks, apart from when I accidentally used the derogatory term "fancruft" earlier (I thought it was just a standard, objective term on Misplaced Pages for giving undue weight to a property one is a "fan" of, and didn't realize it was considered offensive). As to your statement about "], ] or ]", it needs to be pointed out that ''haibun'' (UNLIKE "tanka prose") is an established term that has been used for a long time to refer to works of classical Japanese literature, and the Misplaced Pages articles on "haiku in English" and "tanka in English" exist partly in order to keep information on modern English literature from cluttering up what should be articles on classical Japanese literature. You have '''''consistently''''' failed to provide valid references that justify your creation of an article on so-called "tanka prose", and now you try to hide behind weasel words and faulty attributions to credible authors. The article as you have rewritten it is worded in such a manner as to ''obviously'' be attempting to justify its own existence. Just because McCullough once wrote an article about classical Japanese literature that mixes poetry and prose, it does not automatically justify referring to works of classical Japanese literature by the name anachronistic name "tanka prose". The ''Man'youshuu'' is noted partly for its extensive inclusion of '''non'''-tanka poetry, and your previous claims that works such as the ''Kojiki'' are "tanka prose" because they contain ''some'' tanka (as well as chouka, etc.) demonstrate a basic lack of knowledge of Japanese literature. Why couldn't you take my advice and ''just'' make this article about the modern English literature you claim is its focus? ] (]) 15:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::I’ll refrain from a tit-for-tat response to your above tantrum. You write: '''I have made no ''ad hominem'' attacks, apart from when I accidentally used the derogatory term "fancruft" earlier''' and you immediately proceed, thereafter, to accuse a fellow editor of trying '''to hide behind weasel words and faulty attributions.''' Please do not impute bad faith without, as you admit you have not, consulting the citations. If a citation is '''demonstrably false''' (I quote your Edit Summary), then demonstrate that it is so by reference to the citation or to counter-sources. It is not sufficient merely to assert that a citation or source is “demonstrably false”; you must be ready and able to offer proof that it is so. | |||
| :::] (]) 18:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == This article still needs to be cleaned up == | == This article still needs to be cleaned up == | ||
Revision as of 18:39, 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)
- My problem is that you have repeatedly tried to make bizarre claims about ancient Japanese literature in your edits on Misplaced Pages, despite you clearly being the ignorant one (re: your wabun comment). I posted the above comment in order to express my opinion that, despite what I may have given the impression of on the other talk page, this topic still does not merit an article on Misplaced Pages. I need to preserve my reputation on here, and I can't be seen to have promoted the creation of an article like this. So-called "tanka prose" apparently only exists in the minds of a very small group of writers, who consistently write poorly-researched, nonsense articles about the history of so-called "tanka prose" in Japan. It is based on faulty premises, bad scholarship (I have been kind up to now, but Woodward apparently knows almost nothing about classical Japanese literature, and his writings contain some rather offensive remarks that the Japanese, despite more than a thousand years of literary criticism behind them, are unable to interpret their own literature for themselves) and prejudiced readings of proper academic literature. One cannot read the Japanese literary sources you have cited and come to the conclusion that "tanka prose" deserves its own Misplaced Pages article, unless one has already read a modern English work that claims such. I have made no ad hominem attacks, apart from when I accidentally used the derogatory term "fancruft" earlier (I thought it was just a standard, objective term on Misplaced Pages for giving undue weight to a property one is a "fan" of, and didn't realize it was considered offensive). As to your statement about "Haiku in English, Tanka in English or Haibun", it needs to be pointed out that haibun (UNLIKE "tanka prose") is an established term that has been used for a long time to refer to works of classical Japanese literature, and the Misplaced Pages articles on "haiku in English" and "tanka in English" exist partly in order to keep information on modern English literature from cluttering up what should be articles on classical Japanese literature. You have consistently failed to provide valid references that justify your creation of an article on so-called "tanka prose", and now you try to hide behind weasel words and faulty attributions to credible authors. The article as you have rewritten it is worded in such a manner as to obviously be attempting to justify its own existence. Just because McCullough once wrote an article about classical Japanese literature that mixes poetry and prose, it does not automatically justify referring to works of classical Japanese literature by the name anachronistic name "tanka prose". The Man'youshuu is noted partly for its extensive inclusion of non-tanka poetry, and your previous claims that works such as the Kojiki are "tanka prose" because they contain some tanka (as well as chouka, etc.) demonstrate a basic lack of knowledge of Japanese literature. Why couldn't you take my advice and just make this article about the modern English literature you claim is its focus? elvenscout742 (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- I’ll refrain from a tit-for-tat response to your above tantrum. You write: I have made no ad hominem attacks, apart from when I accidentally used the derogatory term "fancruft" earlier and you immediately proceed, thereafter, to accuse a fellow editor of trying to hide behind weasel words and faulty attributions. Please do not impute bad faith without, as you admit you have not, consulting the citations. If a citation is demonstrably false (I quote your Edit Summary), then demonstrate that it is so by reference to the citation or to counter-sources. It is not sufficient merely to assert that a citation or source is “demonstrably false”; you must be ready and able to offer proof that it is so.
- Tristan noir (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
This article still needs to be cleaned up
I removed one statement that was demonstrably wrong, but the rest of the material that I am almost certain is inaccurate is unfortunately worded extremely vaguely, and while the sources cited may or may not say what the article claims they say, they were probably taken out of context to justify the propagation of non-standard terminology. Remember that the author of this article thought not long ago that "tanka prose" was a translation of the Japanese term wabun () and that the article's existence and claims to being rooted in ancient Japanese literature were justified based on this. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)