| Revision as of 01:00, 14 November 2012 editHijiri88 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,390 edits →"Self-published" journals - an oxymoron← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:23, 14 November 2012 edit undoHijiri88 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,390 edits →"Self-published" journals - an oxymoronNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| ::Materials published via ] 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 ] 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 '']'' (which, if consensus stands, will sooner or later be moved to '']''). In the latter I merely made a ''tiny'' logical removal in favour of a ] that Bagworm, and much later you, attempted to unilaterally overrule, as well as ] ] 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. ] (]) 01:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC) | ::Materials published via ] 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 ] 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 '']'' (which, if consensus stands, will sooner or later be moved to '']''). In the latter I merely made a ''tiny'' logical removal in favour of a ] that Bagworm, and much later you, attempted to unilaterally overrule, as well as ] ] 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. ] (]) 01:00, 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". ] (]) 01:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:23, 14 November 2012
 | Japan Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
 | Poetry Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
MET Press as a source
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)
13 October 2012 AFD recommendation
See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tanka prose, where it was recommeded by the closing administrator that Tanka prose Tanka prose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) be merged into Tanka in English. The redirect Tanka prose has been proposed for deletion as not needing to be merged at Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_13#Tanka_prose, so the amount to be merged, according to user:elvenscout742 may be small to none. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:56, 15 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-established consensus 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)
- 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)