Talk:Renku

From the old Talk:Renku page

Curious on why Renku redirects to Renga, rather than to Haikai no renga. Renku is a modern Japanese (and now English) synonym for haikai no renga, which itself is a sub-genre of renga--Yumegusa (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, the interrelationship of Renku, Renga and Haikai no renga is in need of reconsideration. Currently, Renku redirects to Renga. In fact, renga is the parent, and inclusive (super-)genre, while Renku is the more common term for Haikai no renga. The practice and study of renku, as opposed to classical (i.e. pre-renku) renga, are dominant both in Japan and the west/anglophonia.

Proposal: (1)Renga be written up as a largely historic article; (2)Renku be written up as a full how-to and examples piece; (3)Haikai no renga redirect to renku.--Yumegusa (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As an interim measure I'm changing the renku->renga redirect to renku->haikai no renga, since the latter two are synonymous--Yumegusa (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Haikai or Haiku?

I've heard of Haiku but not Haikai. Are they the same?--Dennis Fernkes 00:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Basho and Haikai" section

Much of the contents of this section looks rather POV, and seems to have been written by a non-native English speaker. While this article would not be complete without mentioning the importance of Matsuo Bashō in the Haikai movement, I believe much of the content currently to be found in this section might be more appropriately placed in the Bashō article.

Would anyone object if I completely rewrote the "Basho and Haikai" section? Thanks
--Yumegusa (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to move "Haikai no renga" to "Renku"

In the same way that what used to be known as 'hokku' has been called 'haiku' for over a hundred years now, 'haikai no renga' has been known as 'renku' since the time of Shiki. Also in the same way that the term 'haiku' is applied retrospectively, to all standalone hokku, all haikai no renga are now referred to as 'renku'. Accordingly, just as the WP article Hokku redirects to Haiku (and not the other way around), I wish to propose reversing the current relationship whereby Renku redirects to Haikai no renga, so that the older name redirects to the current one, i.e. to move "Haikai no renga" to "Renku". Before making this move, I wonder are there any opposing POV's need to be considered? Thanks
--Yumegusa (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as a tacit go-ahead then. We can always revert if necessary.
--Yumegusa (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed restore of earlier version of Haikai

Editors watching this article may be interested in my proposed restore of an earlier version of the Haikai article. See Talk:Haikai for details and eventual comment. --candyworm (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Journal of Renga & Renku

[The conversation below was initiated on the talk pages of the two editors in question, but I've moved it here as it is of relevance to the article. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)]

Hi Elvenscout. I'm curious as to your thinking regarding this edit to the Renku article. I was inclined to do a partial revert, but thought it might be useful (and more civil) to pick your brains first. I agree with your removal of Lisheanu; and Simply Haiku, though it continues at another url, no longer publishes renku. But why did you remove the Journal of Renga and Renku? It's a substantial print periodical, including heavyweights such as Horton, Drake and so on, and is the only journal in the west devoted to the genre. Several of the items you left in are trivial by comparison. In your summary, you mentioned, "Darlington Richards is expecting to publish a THIRD issue sometime NEXT YEAR". It's an annual publication, so I don't really grasp the relevance of this comment. Thanks for any explanation. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't consider the publications' mutual relative importance, or who writes for them. I noted that the section was titled "Periodicals regularly publishing renku in English". Like the other two defunct journals I removed, this description didn't seem to fit the Journal of Renga & Renku. It is apparently still in print, but while it was started in 2010 it has since had only two issues, with a third due for publication sometime next year. This doesn't seem regular to me, but if you want to change the name of the section and reinstate the link I wouldn't mind. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a difference in interpretation of the section title: "Periodicals regularly publishing renku in English". I understood this to mean, "Periodicals which regularly (i.e. in every issue) include renku"; not "Periodicals which are published regularly, and also include renku". If the latter really is the intent, then the current section title seems a very obtuse way of expressing it. A more normal way of expressing this would be something like, "Regularly published journals which include renku."

As far as this particular journal is concerned, its first issue was December 2010 and its second 14 months later. According to the website, the third will appear in "early 2013", so its publication does not appear to be "irregular" in the normal sense of the term. In any case, you seem to agree that regularity is of less importance than its content, but that your problem was that you felt it didn't fit with the section title. I propose to change the title to "Periodicals focusing on renku" and remove all of the others except for Lynx. The latter started life as a renku-only print magazine in the 1980s, but while it has for some years been online and included other genres, it maintains a substantial focus on linked verse. In contrast, none of the other periodicals focuses on the genre, though they do include some. What are your feelings about this proposal? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

One week has passed without response to your inquiry, Bagworm. Your solution above (viz., to change the section heading to “Periodicals focusing on renku” and to include in that section the two publications Journal of Renga and Renku and Lynx) is fair and sound. No one has lodged an objection to your proposal; I see no reason for further delay.Tristan noir (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I was on a business trip with no internet in my hotel. I actually have no problem with the link itself (although I would personally wait until they at least get a third issue out), but I think the section title needs to be changed. I personally find it difficult to interpret the title the way User:Bagworm does. I also would prefer "Periodicals that publish renku" or "Periodicals prominently featuring renku" or some variant, as they sound a little bit more formal. elvenscout742 (talk) 10:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

On reflection, what's needed are not links to "Periodicals that publish renku" as you suggest, but to those containing translations, articles and reviews about the genre. And that actually only leaves JRR. Lynx neither focuses entirely on renku nor does it stretch beyond publishing modern English poetry. JRR, by contrast, includes scholarly articles and translations as well as renku in English. I think the section title "Renku journals" sums it up quite succinctly. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. \^_^/♪ elvenscout742 (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have retracted my above statements in accordance with an improved understanding of the guidelines at WP:EL in the intervening time. The link to JRR's homepage definitely does not deserve it's own unique section in this article, and it probably doesn't belong in the External links section either. If it is noteworthy, it should have its own article, and that article can link to its website; if it meets WP:RS and has something to say about renku that we should include in the article, then it can be cited as a source; otherwise, including a no-context mention of it in this article with a link to its homepage looks like WP:SPAM. I am therefore removing it for the time being. I am open to discussion as to why it meets WP:ELYES and does not meet WP:ELNO, but otherwise if there is no consensus then it should probably stay out. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dubious

The Japanese phrase haikai no renga given as the "former name" for renku has bothered me for a while. It seems like a modern coinage, and even if it is classical, I would prefer to have specific dates. But more problematic is what came up when I tried to check the source just now via Google Books. (I don't own a copy, and since it doesn't deal specifically with Japanese literature I'm not interested in buying it.) The inline citation in this article gives a page number, but no quotation. It also lists the editors of the overall book, but not the author of the piece that p228 falls under. Since it is unlikely that Finch and Varnes are specialists in classical Japanese literature I would feel more comfortable with the author of the source being mentioned. And if possible, could I see the quotation? The Google Books preview does not include any part of the relevant essay, and doesn't even include the second page of the table of contents, so I can't even see the name of the author. (>_<) elvenscout742 (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A couple of Google/dictionary searches later and I found that haikai no renga 俳諧の連歌 as a term does in fact exist,[1][2][3] although haikai-renga 俳諧連歌 does too.[4][5][6] 連句 is indeed the post-Meiji term for the same.[7] But the reference still needs to be fixed in light of its citing the editors rather than the author(s). Not giving a reference at all for a simple dictionary etymology is probably better than misattributing a statement to the wrong people. elvenscout742 (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Reinstating Saohime line

I have reinstated the statement Never before in Japanese culture had anyone dared to talk of the goddess of spring in such a manner. that was removed four years ago without justification. It lacking a source doesn't mean it's wrong, and simply checking the first chapter of Keene verified it. Maybe instead of tagging statements we don't like[8], waiting two months(!), and then deleting them because no one has cited a source yet[9], we should actually search for sources. As far as I can see, no argument was provided <!-- as a comment -->, on this talk page, or in the edit summary as to what was questionable about the statement. I appreciate that unverifiable statements don't belong on Wikipedia, but when the definitive English-language history of Japanese literature gives almost the exact same quote in the first chapter of its volume dealing with haikai, the article presently lacking a source is not really a justification for removal. The amount of time elapsed since a statement was tagged is meaningless, since it was never directly stated what was wrong with the statement. I had just started my 4-year Wikibreak at the time this happened, and no one other than Bagworm made any significant edits to the article throughout 2008-2009, so the removal basically said "I don't like this sentence (although I don't want to explain why) and so I am removing it because I don't want to check if it is backed up by reliable sources."

I know it's a bit silly to bring up something that happened four years ago like this, but User:Bagworm has recently shown a misunderstanding of WP:V on several other articles where he repeatedly insisted that having sources that appear to say one thing justifies adding questionable material to Wikipedia. Please remember that WP:IAR is a policy as well. Not all reliable sources are right 100% of the time. If one seemingly reliable source is being used to back up a questionable/inaccurate statement on Wikipedia, and another accurate/easily verifiable statement does not currently cite a source, then it is in the best interests of Wikipedia to delete the sourced-but-wrong statement, and find a source for the unsourced one.

elvenscout742 (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

"Outside Japan"

This section seems to rely exclusively on primary sources. I requested a source for the statement that "During the last decades, the practice of renku has spread beyond Japan." My tag was reverted with the statement that "the subsequent 8 citations are more than sufficient". This does not seem appropriate. Of the few of these sources that I can see, they all seem to be individual examples of "renku" composed by non-Japanese in languages other than Japanese. WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS are pretty clear on this: if a topic is not covered in reliable secondary sources, then we are not allowed to discuss it on Wikipedia. User:Bagworm's "sources" in this case are not reliable secondary sources that state "Renku have spread outside Japan", but are links to individual compositions that themselves indicate nothing of the notability of their subject-matter. They are therefore not valid sources for an encyclopedia article. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Haikai-renga

I don't have time to locate a reliable source and incorporate it seamlessly into the new opening paragraph, but we should probably include reference somewhere to haikai-renga being used interchangeably with haikai no renga in Japanese sources: [10][11] on Google Books; [12][13] on Google Scholar. My self-imposed exile from poetry articles for the time being will probably begin too soon for me to effectively implement this myself, but it is something for others to consider. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Formats used in renku

Regarding this series of edits done within a period of minutes by User Elvenscuot, let's examine them one by one.

• This edit removes mention of the triparshva, with the summary "Sorry, but I checked the source. The "creator" of the form, Mr. Darlington, was one of the poets involved. We need independent sources." The editor evidently didn't check very carefully, since the text in question is penned by the journal editors, George Swede and Anita Krumins. Revert.
• This edit removes mention of the yotsumono. I will revert and add additional references by independent sources.
• This edit removes the supporting citation by Eiko Yachimoto with the summary "Can we get a source that was written by an academic and not published in an online periodical edited by someone who appears to have equally few academic credentials?" If the editor had bothered to research he could, without too much hard work, have discovered that Yachimoto is a founder member of the Association for International Renku, headed up jointly with Nobuyuki Yuasa, as well as a past judge of the Haiku Society of America's Lionel Einbond Renku Contest, and a past judge of the Journal of Renga and Renku Contest, and internationally recognized as an expert in the field. Revert. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If you had read my summary more carefully, you would have noticed that I was not impugning Ms. Yachimoto's credentials as a poet, but requesting a more reputable source than Simply Haiku. In case you haven't noticed, Simply Haiku is not an academic journal known for their publication of exceptional works of scholarship.[14] ("Visitation by the medium of the dream – the lovers' tryst in the dream – is a motif that readers of Narihara or Ono no Komachi will be familiar with. [...] The character Semimaru is an actual poet of the Heian period about whom contradictory legends survive. He was the son of a prince who lived as a hermit in a hut, he was a blind master of the biwa, he was a common beggar of humble birth, and so on. One of his tanka won a place in Fujiwara no Teika's seminal Ogura Hyakunin Isshu (100 Poems by 100 Poets) and was copied, from there, into other influential anthologies such as the Kokin Wakashu. [...] This is as true, for example, of Bashō in his haibun as it is of the anonymous 13th century author in the tanka prose work Journey Along the Seacoast Road.")

The credentials of Yachimoto herself are entirely irrelevant to my concerns about the source. The core of my concern is that hardly anything in this article on classical Japanese literature is sourced to reputable books and journals on Japanese literature. If Yachimoto has written about rokku in some more reliable medium than these online poetry journals then I would be all too happy to welcome a reference to her writings there.

By the way, you still have not answered my above query as to why you removed an easily verifiable statement about early modern renku from the article here.

elvenscout742 (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Origin of renku?

The article currently implies that Kyoshi coined the term in 1904, but this page says that he coined the term renku (聯句) and used it in place of haikai during his teacher Masaoka Shiki's lifetime (i.e., before 1902), and then after Shiki's death he changed the orthography of renku from 聯句 to 連句 in his "連句擁護論", which popularized the term. This source says that he was using the word renku (聯句) in published writings as early as 1899. While there isn't an Aristotelian contradiction between the statement that Kyoshi gave the term currency in 1904 (assuming that was the year of "連句擁護論"'s publication) and the statement that he coined the term 1899 and later popularized it in the early 20th century, the opening's current implication is somewhat troublesome.

Can I get the relevant quotation from p.7 of the Drake source to check this? I know English sources are preferred to Japanese ones, but if Drake is directly contradicting the historical facts as found in other sources, we probably can't use him in this instance. (Also, I'll check what Keene has to say about this tonight.)

elvenscout742 (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)