Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:Lulu is a self-publishing resource. A book not physically existing until someone pays for it, and then the book getting printed and sent to them, is not the same as "digital publishing". What costs are incurred??? Why would Lulu continue to exist if it was a loss-making venture??? The "costs" of printing are incurred '''after''' the revenues are received. A book manufacturer has to make an investment '''before''' they make any revenues, so they have an incentive to check materials before printing them. That is the difference. ] (]) 03:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
:Lulu is a self-publishing resource. A book not physically existing until someone pays for it, and then the book getting printed and sent to them, is not the same as "digital publishing". What costs are incurred??? Why would Lulu continue to exist if it was a loss-making venture??? The "costs" of printing are incurred '''after''' the revenues are received. A book manufacturer has to make an investment '''before''' they make any revenues, so they have an incentive to check materials before printing them. That is the difference. ] (]) 03:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
::A '''book publisher''' ''has to make an investment before they make any revenues'' and therefore a publisher has ''an incentive to check materials''; a '''book manufacturer''', on the other hand, is a job-printer and is paid either up-front or in installments for the physical manufacture of the book. That is the difference. A POD, as over-and-against a job printer, makes his profit based upon a percentage of the per item sale; he receives nothing up-front.] (]) 03:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
::And, again, the definition of "self-publishing", as well as TN's regular personal attacks, are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Let's say I never used the phrase "self-published": the statement still would have no place in an encyclopedia article, unless it is verifiable in reliable secondary sources. The word "noteworthy" is somewhere between a ] and a ], and unless a reliable source can be found to verify the statement, arguments over self-publishing and the like are completely unimportant. ] (]) 03:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
::And, again, the definition of "self-publishing", as well as TN's regular personal attacks, are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Let's say I never used the phrase "self-published": the statement still would have no place in an encyclopedia article, unless it is verifiable in reliable secondary sources. The word "noteworthy" is somewhere between a ] and a ], and unless a reliable source can be found to verify the statement, arguments over self-publishing and the like are completely unimportant. ] (]) 03:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 22:48, January 7, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry
It seems that a lot of the information in this article comes from material that is self-published on Lulu. I have tagged these citations as dubious for this reason. While I don't doubt that tanka in English exists and merits its own article, there must be less dubious sources out there. MET Press has a history of putting out some rather questionable material (see User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique). elvenscout742 (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
User Elvenscout742’s POV regarding “the amount to be merged” carries no particular weight. His opinion, as cited by the IP above, is not supported by the AFD recommendation nor does it accurately reflect the results of the RFD discussion.Tristan noir (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Material on English Misplaced Pages must be (1) true, and (2) verifiable. The rules for notability regarding inclusion of material within a larger article are different from those regarding stand-alone articles, but my past arguments still stand. It is not my "POV" that Jeffrey Woodward unilaterally invented the concept of "tanka prose" in 2008 (possibly 2007), or that you are trying to promote Jeffrey Woodward's works on Misplaced Pages, or that so-called "tanka prose" has never seen coverage except in minor, non-notable publications. Please refrain from adding misleading or offensive material to Misplaced Pages. Also, please stop making personal attacks against me on talk pages. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
"Self-published" journals - an oxymoron
In this edit user Elvenscut742 has removed mention of four periodicals from the 'History' section with the summary: Removing reference to non-notable, self-published (via Lulu) "journals". This user has repeatedly asserted that certain periodicals are "self-published" and has been challenged on more than one occasion to explain the difference between a 'self-published' periodical and any other one, but has on every occasion failed to do so. It has also been repeatedly explained to this editor that all periodicals are in effect 'self-published' but he seems entirely unable to grasp this simple fact. Which printer a publisher selects to print their publication is of absolutely zero relevance. The editor, in addition to repeatedly displaying the depths of his ignorance of publishing, has now shown that he has no knowledge at all of the Japanese and Australian journals, reference to which he has removed from the article. The edit summary clearly indicates that the edit was based on ignorance rather than fact and should be reverted. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. User Elvenscout742 has unilaterally removed similar references to periodicals from the body of various articles and removed ELs to various articles based upon the same flawed (or tendentious) arguments about "self-published" and/or "non-notable" sources. I would cite, apart from the current article, his recent removals of similar materials at Renku, Haiga, Index of literary terms and Haibun. In each instance, he has demonstrated his broad miscomprehension of modern publishing and his apparent ignorance of the contents of the specific journals that he has removed. His campaign, across a number of articles, has become disruptive and counter-productive.Tristan noir (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Materials published via Lulu Press are self-published. As far as the publisher, Lulu, is concerned, "Modern English Tanka Press" is the name of an author who self-publishes through Lulu. The fact that this author does not pay the publisher is irrelevant, because the publisher is not contractually obliged to actually print the materials unless an order is placed. If you are going to include reference to such self-published works and claim they are "noteworthy", you need to be able to back up their noteworthiness with reference to reliable secondary sources. In fact, use of the peacock word "noteworthy" is not favoured on Misplaced Pages: if they have won awards or have high sales figures, cite those specifically. Tristan noir, why do you persist in making personal attacks against me? The above list of other pages I have edited, in accordance with consensus, is ridiculous. I removed ONE external link from the Haiga article, and provided a valid reason for it to which you have yet to respond directly. I did not remove ANY external links or references to "noteworthy publications" from the Index of literary terms (which, if consensus stands, will sooner or later be moved to Glossary of literary terms). In the latter I merely made a tiny logical removal in favour of a guideline that Bagworm, and much later you, attempted to unilaterally overrule, as well as broadly-establishedconsensus that the page should not be an indiscriminate list of words. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM MAKING PERSONAL ATTACKS. My "campaign", as you call it, makes up a small part of my editing activities on Misplaced Pages. I am not trying to be "disruptive" or "counter-productive" -- I am merely trying to enforce Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, which you have consistently flouted. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Why do you persist, Elvenscout, in interpreting every criticism of your position as a personal attack (and to do so, habitually, in BOLD UPPERCASE)? I made some observations which I believe are justified. Your understanding of publishing is hopelessly flawed, as your remarks above indicate, and it is your innocence of the same subject (I will assume good faith) that leads you repeatedly to issue patently absurd statements about who or what is a publisher, an editor, an author and what is or is not self-published. The same innocence has led you to offer the various objectionable edits mentioned above and to seek to justify them with some imagined consensus.Tristan noir (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Your above comment is almost entirely void of content, other than general criticisms of my "behaviour" and "tone". Throughout all of our disputes, you have continued to rely on ad hominem arguments and generally failed to specifically cite Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines and reliable sources. This, in Misplaced Pages terms, is a personal attack. There is a reason I have to keep using the word "irrelevant" in reference to your comments. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
For the record, for me the distinction between "self-published" periodicals and any other ones, is thus: Materials that have gone through a reliable publishing process, been peer-reviewed or reviewed by an editor, and been published in the sense that hard copies actually exist and can be found, or at some point in the past have existed, in libraries and bookshops, are not self-published. Materials that Lulu prints on demand for a cut of revenue, and therefore do not actually exist until a customer offers to buy a copy, are considered self-published. The fact that Lulu's slogan on their website is "Self Publishing, Book Printing, and Publishing Online" (I can't link directly because the self-publishing resource Lulu is blacklisted on Misplaced Pages) is proof enough that this process is "self-publishing". elvenscout742 (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
For the record, you are entitled to your own opinion, Elvenscout, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Publication can be hard copy or digital (this is the 21st century). Lulu’s slogan (or that of any other POD contractor) is irrelevant and proves nothing, though it is consistent that you would fix upon that part of their slogan that speaks of “Self Publishing” while ignoring the “Book Printing” that immediately follows. Your remark about the POD supplier Lulu getting a “cut of revenue” is likewise of no import. Whether a book or periodical publisher contracts with a POD like Lulu or with a standard book manufacturer/printer, there are still costs incurred; not all is profit. A book manufacturer also receives his cut. The economy is the same, whether the publication is The New Yorker or The Tanka Journal.Tristan noir (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Lulu is a self-publishing resource. A book not physically existing until someone pays for it, and then the book getting printed and sent to them, is not the same as "digital publishing". What costs are incurred??? Why would Lulu continue to exist if it was a loss-making venture??? The "costs" of printing are incurred after the revenues are received. A book manufacturer has to make an investment before they make any revenues, so they have an incentive to check materials before printing them. That is the difference. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
A book publisherhas to make an investment before they make any revenues and therefore a publisher has an incentive to check materials; a book manufacturer, on the other hand, is a job-printer and is paid either up-front or in installments for the physical manufacture of the book. That is the difference. A POD, as over-and-against a job printer, makes his profit based upon a percentage of the per item sale; he receives nothing up-front.Tristan noir (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
And, again, the definition of "self-publishing", as well as TN's regular personal attacks, are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Let's say I never used the phrase "self-published": the statement still would have no place in an encyclopedia article, unless it is verifiable in reliable secondary sources. The word "noteworthy" is somewhere between a weasel word and a peacock word, and unless a reliable source can be found to verify the statement, arguments over self-publishing and the like are completely unimportant. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
You write, Let's say I never used the phrase "self-published." The fact, however, is that you have used the expression – not once, not twice but repeatedly – and you have deliberately inserted it (despite your denial above of its relevance) into the discussions of many talk pages, into edit summaries, into AfDs and RfDs. Your intent in doing so has been clear throughout: to discredit whatever source, be it an author or publication, that you sought to apply the term to. The inaccuracy of your use of the term has been pointed out to you frequently and not by this editor alone. As for your railing above about the word noteworthy, I’m non-plussed. I’ve searched this talk page and cannot find an instance where I’ve used it.Tristan noir (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
