# Talk:Matsuo Bashō

The history at Basho Matsuo says

04:59, 2003 Jan 25 . . Nanshu (moved to "Matsuo_Basho")
suggesting that the following was already redundant when the following msg was placed. --Jerzy 20:07, 2004 Jan 20 (UTC)
Why has this been moved to here [bolded after the fact by Jerzy] from Matsuo Basho? I'm pretty sure that "Matsuo Basho" is the more common order of his names when he's referred to in English, and a basic principle of naming articles here is to put things under the most common English-language name. I'll move it back unless there's a reason not to. --Camembert

Per history of Talk:Matsuo Basho this msg was placed
13:01, 2003 Jan 25 . . Camembert (about page move from switching order of names)
--Jerzy 20:07, 2004 Jan 20 (UTC)
(Since moved back after I forgot all about it - thanks) --Camembert
Per history of Talk:Matsuo Basho this msg was added
M 12:12, 2003 Jun 28 . . Camembert (correct my old braino)
--Jerzy 20:07, 2004 Jan 20 (UTC)
The history is apparently lost that said that someone, probably User:TakuyaMurata, moved a page (Matsuo_Basho would not have been explicitly mentioned there) to "Basho_Matsuo", presumably bcz the reversal of that move was done (reasonably IMO) as a simple move rather than an exchange-2-pages move: the new link Matsuo Basho created by the move of Matsuo Basho to Basho Matsuo would have had that entry, but must have been deleted to make room for the move back.
(The name TakuyaMurata is provided, and the account reinforced, by the history of Basho (always a link).)
So the un-named "here" i bolded above is now there, an example of the desirablility of clarifying "here" and "the article", especially when discussing moves. --Jerzy 20:07, 2004 Jan 20 (UTC)
You're quite right of course - I normally clarify these things when I write on talk pages about them. I guess I forgot on this occasion. --Camembert

I was interested in this murky history bcz of the reference to Mastuo Munefusa with the surname spelled differing from "Matsuo" by a two-letter transposition.  I intended to leave a note here asking for help in being sure it's a typo, but i now think that even if it were intended, the author's failure to note Basho's trick in choosing a slightly different surname, and the effort i've made re the history, would entitle me to risk that error immediately. [smile] --Jerzy 20:07, 2004 Jan 20 (UTC)

Yes, it's just a typo. --Camembert
Tnx! --Jerzy 20:33, 2004 Jan 20 (UTC)

In another matter, i'm leaving it thus:

He took the name Basho ... in the 1680s when he ... became a recluse. ... He gained a reputation as a great poet and critic after the move to Edo.
Note this is agnostic abt the time relation between becoming a recluse and gaining the rep.  At least the second is usually an extended process, so anything more precise might be unjustified, but i'm ignorant. Perhaps someone knows at least whether reclusion (a word?) fell during his rise. --Jerzy 20:33, 2004 Jan 20 (UTC)

Regarding "He is widely thought of as one of the greatest writers of the Tokugawa Shogunate" I suggest "He is widely thought of as one of the greatest writers of the Edo period"; any comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.1.54.253 (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

User:Fg2 has posed an interesting question—do we need to talk about the change from haikai to haiku in the Matsuo Basho article? I think that since for both Japanese and non-Japanese Basho is known almost exclusively as a haiku poet, that something must be said in the article, and probably in the intro, about the fact that in his lifetime he was known as a haikai no renga poet, but today he is known as a haiku poet. BlankVerse ∅  01:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

How would you feel about this: "Matsuo Bashō (松尾芭蕉 Matsuo Bashō, 1644 – November 28, 1694) was the haigo (haiku pen name) of a Japanese poet of the Edo period. He is widely credited with raising the form that would later be known as haiku to its highest level, although in his lifetime, Basho was renowned as a poet of haikai no renga (semi-comic linked verse usually created with a group of poets)." Fg2 01:17, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
That sounds okay, but the Works section should be rewritten to give more detail on him as a renga poet and diary author, with a note at the end on how he became known as a haiku poet. BlankVerse ∅  07:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I only wish I had the knowledge to do that! Fg2 07:34, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
I have to knowledge (or at least the books with the right information), but I just need more time. First I want to finish work on the kigo article where I have one more section planned. After I add it, I want to take the Kigo article through Wikipedia:Peer review with the idea that I will nominate the article for Featured article status. Then I will probably move on to the rather meager Kobayashi Issa article before I tackle what is need for this article.
After some thought, I think your ending should be changed to: "Basho was renowned as a poet of haikai no renga (a collaborative linked-verse form)."  BlankVerse ∅  09:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
The suggestion makes a lot of sense, but as you said, it should be coupled with the information about haiku somewhere in the article. Meanwhile, I really like the kigo article! If you're interested in including a photo of autumn, I've got one here. Fg2 09:42, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've fiddled with the use of italics. I haven't been thorough, and I'm not fully happy with what I've done, but here's the reasoning.
Putting Japanese aside, there is indeed an English custom by which the title of any poem (in English) of any length is given in italics. But this is not common. If we want to be persnickety about parentheses, then The Narrow Road to the Deep North (Oku no Hosomichi) implies that there's one, bilingual title, and thus is wrong. The Narrow Road to the Deep North (Oku no Hosomichi) [note vertical parentheses!] is OK, but it's slightly harder for me to scan than is "The Narrow Road to the Deep North" (Oku no Hosomichi); I therefore recommend that italics are reserved for book titles, as well of course as unassimilated foreign words. (Of course if a published book titled The Narrow Road to the Deep North is cited, it should be cited in italics.) -- Hoary 07:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We read: ". . . which is dominated by the concept of wabi-sabi: the identification of man with nature." While I'm no expert in this kind of thing, I'm surprised by the idea that there is a single concept of wabi-sabi (I'd thought that they were two words, each expressing a concept or cluster of concepts) and that this amalgam means "the identification of man with nature". Did something get garbled here? -- Hoary 07:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer review suggested that the level of prose needed major improvement more than anything else, so I just rewrote the entire article. Apparently I used the same sources as the previous version, because not much changed by way of facts. Ashibaka tock 23:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The kanji for Bashō are provided, as they should be; but those for his other names are not, which seems a pity. -- Hoary 08:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the distinction between "Bibliography" and "References"?
Three of the items in the short bibliography are translations of Oku no hosomiti. Are these the best three translations? Or are they the translations that have the best additional editorial comments about Bashō's work in general or his life? Also, I'm a bit surprised not to see within the "Bibliography" a reference to some separate, scholarly study (perhaps in an academic journal) of Bashō's work as a whole, of some particular aspect of Bashō's work, or of Bashō's biography. There must be scads of the stuff in Japanese, but I'd expect also a certain amount in English. (Maybe what's written in "References" is relevant here.)
NB I'm definitely not angling for "bibliography-stuffing": the mindless addition of impressive-sounding references. No: in the past I've seen lucid, approachable, informative articles (as opposed to "deconstructionist" and similar drivel created merely to impress other academics) about writers in such journals as Monumenta Nipponica, and I guessed that there would be good stuff about Bashō too. 
We read that Bashō was at one time (ambiguously) interested in homosexuality; presumably this is somehow relevant to Louis Crompton's Homosexuality and Civilization. But I'd be surprised if such a grandly titled book by somebody with a non-Japanese name would be a good source on Bashō. (I don't know it; apologies to Crompton if I mischaracterize it.) Does Crompton cite any research on Bashō? If so, it might be better to cite that directly. 
In general, then, I'd be inclined to add a short annotation to each entry in the bibliography and references -- and also of course to indicate which slightly (or more than slightly) controversial claim within the article came from which source. -- Hoary 08:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a copyedit very badly. Too many words and expressions are used to describe even the little things. There are too many assumptions in the article. Which means that if sources agree then say so and source the information given. Lincher 16:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you give some specific examples? Ashibaka tock 17:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I second Ashibaka's question. Actually I don't even fully understand Lincher's objection: even if the criticisms in the first three sentences are justified (and without examples I don't know), then how does this mean "that if sources agree then say so", etc.? -- Hoary 04:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Examples of it:

He was even conflicted over whether to become a full-time poet; by his own account, "the alternatives battled in my mind and made my life restless.", could this be rephrased.
In Edo, Bashō's poetry was quickly recognized for its simple and natural style., what is natural styled-poetry.
And these are assumptions that need to be addressed by both views or some words need to be changed to confer a less point-of-vue orientation unless they are inline cited.

Bashō was born Matsuo Kinsaku in roughly 1644, somewhere near Ueno in Iga Province.
His father may have been a low-ranking samurai, which would have promised Bashō a career in the military but not much chance of a notable life.
No records of this time remain, but it is believed that Bashō gave up the possibility of samurai status and left his home.
Biographers have proposed various reasons and destinations, including the fanciful possibility of an affair between Bashō and a Shinto miko named Jutei.
In any case, his poems continued to be published in anthologies in 1667, 1669, and 1671, and he published his own compilation of various authors, Seashell Game (貝おほひ Kai Ōi?), in 1672.
In roughly the spring of that year he moved to Edo to further his study of poetry.
And there are many other instances throughout the text that I didn't point out. Lincher 11:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand a few of these. For example, "His father may have been a low-ranking samurai" might prompt an explanation of the evidence, and the tenuousness of the evidence, for this claim. In others, I'm lost. For example, are you saying that for example "In roughly the spring of that year" is more POVish or has a greater need for sourcing than does "In the spring of that year"? -- Hoary 13:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It is better to use less words so In the spring of that yearref ... I want to know where is somewhere near? I want to have more information or insight into the opinionated words used like but it is believed or the fanciful possibility (that is clear POV).
I have also noticed that you say He returned to Edo in the summer of 1685, taking time to write more hokku and comment on his own life: and later When Bashō returned to Edo he happily resumed his job as a teacher of poetry at his Bashō Hut which mentions two times that he returned to Edo could we have a date for the second date or if it is the same Edo trip could one instance be removed.
The text Apparently this poem became instantly famous is really POV by the fact that we do not know who stated that the poem became famous. What does instantly famous mean back 400 years ago, the same as famous in our days ... like after the release or the year after. .... contributed by Lincher
You make some good points, but some seem bizarre to me. Of course the return to Edo mentioned above is a single return to Edo: to say it once before a relevant quotation and to repeat it immediately thereafter (as a minor nudge to the reader) seems excellent prose style to me. (This is not self-congratulation: the prose isn't mine.) In addition, this was hardly an "Edo trip": he lived in Edo (if rather restlessly). Secondly, I see nothing "opinionated" about "it is believed". It's a straightforwardly factual statement that this is what is commonly believed. (One might of course have other objections concerning lack of clarity: believed by every Bashō scholar? By most? By a bare majority? Believed on what grounds? Etc.) -- Hoary 16:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
'could this be rephrased.' -- I don't know what confuses you about it.
"the fact that we do not know who stated that the poem became famous" -- I give the evidence in the clause immediately following it; there weren't newspapers around to archive but we do have a record of that contest. It has been a famous poem ever since.
"Bashō was born Matsuo Kinsaku in roughly 1644" -- I don't understand how this is POV. They didn't have birth certificates at that time in Japan; historians can only estimate.
"His father may have been a low-ranking samurai" -- This isn't POV either, it is inferred by Japanese historians because he hung out with nobles and was given a samurai name. I could include this in the article, but this is an encyclopedia, not a term paper. I don't think there is any use of watering it down with something like "Historians believe," it's not like anyone besides historians cares to disagree.
"including the fanciful possibility of an affair between Bashō and a Shinto miko named Jutei." -- We know Jutei was alive and living in Iga-ken at the time, and much later she is recorded as visiting Basho in Edo. So, daydreaming Japanese historians think this might have happened. Summary: it's a fanciful possibility.
"No records of this time remain, but it is believed that Bashō gave up the possibility of samurai status and left his home." -- because the next thing you know he was living in Edo, publishing books quite unbecoming of a samurai. There are concievably other possibilities too. Maybe he was abducted by aliens.
"In any case" -- this is called a conjunction. Conjunctions connect independent statements. If you are unsure how conjunctions work Wikipedia has an article explaining them. Generally, conjunctions are unbiased and make articles better and easier to read. (notable exception: "George Bush is president, but the world keeps turning.")
"In roughly the spring of that year" -- I don't know how to explain this to you without being even more condescending so I will stop here.
Ashibaka tock 03:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You have made your point loud and clear. Thanks for demystifying these few passages for me as I now am able to clearly interpret the text (sorry for my arrogance at times or my ignorance at others). As these clarifications asked are now seen in a new light, bring back the article to GA, as the comments given by me are now rendered senseless giving the article the criteria it needed for the GA. Lincher 03:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Woah, edit conflicted, I was about Bowlderize some of my bile and sarcasm :) Thank you for taking it well. Ashibaka tock 03:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
GA promoted. Lincher 16:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There have been various attempts to link to a site offering Oku no hosomichi in Spanish and Japanese. These have been reverted as "spam", which seems an undeservedly harsh term. I don't see why this article needs a link to a Spanish translation, but right now it doesn't have a link to a Japanese version. On the other (third?) hand, I'd be inclined to think that there's a scholarly Japanese site with a Japanese version -- but characteristically, I'm too lazy to investigate this thoroughly. Comments from one or two people who (unlike me) are well informed about Oku no hosomichi would be welcome. -- Hoary 10:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

My problem with the link is its spam nature (the advertising on the site) and that it's foreign language. -- JHunterJ 11:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The matter of foreign language aside for the moment, what advertising? I don't see any advertising whatever, and I hadn't realized that my browser's junk-cutting settings were that good.
What I wonder about are:
As there is already an article on Oku no hosomichi, why does this article too need a link to any site specifically about the work?
Where does the Spanish version come from, and can we be assured that there's no copyright violation?
Where does the Japanese version come from, and can we be assured that there's no copyright violation?
(For the last of these, cf Shakespeare. Yes of course his works are (in principle) in the public domain, but most people use editions that are most certainly not in the public domain. You can't simply scan and upload the New Arden edition of this or that.) -- Hoary 14:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You may need to disable your popup blocker(s) and return to the site to see the (popup) ad -- which probably comes from geocities broadly and not this page in particular. (I agree with the rest of your points.) -- JHunterJ 14:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The summary for this recent edit, part of which I am about to revert, is footnotes are in Harvard format.
This is bizarre, in that there are no footnotes.
Let's take "footnotes" to be a sleepy mistake for "references" or "citations". It's still bizarre, as a grand total of one assertion is referenced: "He had a great many visitors, and a male disciple by the name of Tsuboi Tokoku (坪井 杜国) who may have become his lover, although there does not seem to have been any contemporary interest in their relationship. (Crompton 2003)" 
Even this looks pretty feeble, as "Crompton 2003" is an entire book that's purportedly about "homosexuality and civilization" in general and thus is unlikely to devote many words to Bashō. Why no page number(s)? Moreover, my suspicions about the value of Crompton's work, expressed above months ago, seem simply to have been ignored. (And finally, I'm puzzled by what seems to be a bit of an obsession in WP articles about unconfirmed rumors of bisexuality, which often [as here] aren't shown to have any significance even if true.)
Let's return to the article. It's bristling with assertions. Where do they come from, or where may one check to see that they also appear in a reliable source? My guess is that they come from Ueda's books Matsuo Bashō and Bashō and His Interpreters, but this is not made clear. Neither is the relationship between "References" and "Bibliography".
The {{citations missing}} flag, which I am about to add, should removed when useful citations are added, and not before. -- Hoary 02:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That single sentence was added into the article by someone else than me; you can remove it if Compton is a questionable source. Everything else was written entirely by me and comes from those books. If you think my MLA-style references aren't good enough, you're going to be waiting a long time for me to take the books out of the library again and footnote each little page, because I sure as fuck am not going to do that for you. So basically, you're going to add a pastel box that doesn't improve the article at all. Ashibaka tock 14:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I reluctantly consult a copy of the 4th edition (a recent one, though not the latest) of the boring MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. In §4.2 "MLA style" (pp 104-5), it tells us that MLA style is to use inline citations such as "(Marcuse 197)", adding a bibliography in which the reader may see that "Marcuse" is Sibyl Marcuse's book A Survey of Musical Instruments and necessary publication info. But look, I've no more wish to dwell on what this or that particular MoS says than you do, and I'll stick that book back on its shelf where it may deservedly gather more dust. I've never thought nor intentionally suggested that the article should specify the precise location of the authority for each of its assertions. Saying that the entire content of the article (now that I've deleted the speculative gay trivia) comes from one or other of those two books would be a big start. In fact I'll do it right now. Then the pastel box can be deleted, though I suppose the article should eventually give the precise location of each quotation. -- Hoary 02:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. It just annoyed me that the only contributions made to my article have been vandalism and an uninformative pastel box. Ideally, I would have more than 2 sources and footnotes would be both helpful and necessary, but Mr. Ueda was the only author I could find in the Boston Public Library. Ashibaka tock 23:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I seemed to suggest that there should be more than two named sources. That was very definitely not my point, which was that as it stood, the article-plus-three-references combo could have been taken to mean: "The speculative gay trivia comes from Compton, some editor who added something (he/she didn't note what, and now nobody knows) used one book by Ueda, another editor who added something else (he/she didn't note what, and now nobody knows) used another book by Ueda, and the rest is the predictable mishmash of stuff recycled from dodgy websites, hazily remembered from long-ago readings of subsequently mislaid paperbacks, etc. (And if you don't like that, remember that this is the 'encyclopedia' anyone is free to edit!)" Aarghhh. Despite having perpetrated dozens of footnotes in my time, I don't much like them and certainly don't like obsessiveness in referencing. But there has to be some "middle way" or whatever. ¶ :Don't get me started on userboxes..... Hoary 00:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Several of his students compiled quotations from him about his own poetry

It might be useful to give some of these quotations, as it is otherwise almost impossible to judge their nature. Shinobu 03:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that this article appears to have some references and a bibliography. That's good. But it would be better if facts in the article were cited inline using <ref>. Shinobu 05:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User Shii's rudely worded removal of text today in violation of WP:OWN has been undone-you'll have to come up with something better than "my article" for a reason. This is nobody's article, and everyone's. Chris 21:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Last year I submitted this entire article, complete and in the form you currently see, under the GFDL for people like you to improve. The only thing that has changed about it in the past year is someone added a flippant quote from Caddyshack and a poem someone's rich uncle wrote who is not Basho, and you reverted me when I excised this worthless trivia and called me names because I was upset about the degradation of my article. So, let's break this down: I kneaded the bread, I baked the bread, I gave the bread to you for free, and you shat on the bread. Fuck you. Shii (tock) 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I read:

1960s musician Robbie Basho, who released many albums on John Fahey's famed Takoma record label, was brought up Daniel R. Robinson by his adopted parents. Upon discovering the poetry of Matsuo Bashō he decided to change his name to Robbie Basho. The current German guitar player Steffen Basho-Junghans incorporated the Basho into his name after becoming interested in the poetry of Matsuo Bashō through the music of Robbie Basho.
Even if these assertions are true (and no evidence is presented), none of this tells me anything about Basho except that he's at least moderately well known (which is obvious from other phenomena such as the number of editions of his works). It struck me as trivia, and I therefore removed it. -- Hoary 06:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have studied Basho. I have studied Japanese history, literature, and a whole bunch of other crap. I have lived in Japan. I have seen references to Basho's having been a ninja numerous times in numerous places, both as a part of my studies as well as directly from relatively learned Japanese people. I put in a nice section on this, which, as I noted is also included on wikipedia entries on Basho in other languages, as well as supplying a reference, only to have it ripped out unceremoniously as "tosh". 204.15.3.5 17:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That Bashō was a ninja would be a remarkable claim, so it would need to be backed up by particularly solid source. That people speculate that he may have been a ninja is a far less interesting claim, but it might be worth mentioning if those speculating were scholars in relevant areas (and not merely denizens of the blogosphere or febrile contributors to message forums). So let's have the sources. When I cut the section (and yes, called it "tosh"), I did so because the only citation was a chatty paragraph or so from the writer of a guidebook, who claimed that unspecified people were talking about ninja. This kind of stuff makes a pleasing aside to (or blurb for) a guidebook, but it's nowhere near good enough for an encyclopedia. For an editor (you, me, anyone else) to say that he has heard such and such directly, even from a named and learned source (let alone from unspecified "relatively learned Japanese people") just doesn't cut it: please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Hoary 23:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
PS I now notice this edit, whose summary reads: this time with ref -- I could supply a dozen more -- even Wikipedia articles in other languages see fit to include the ninja lore: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsuo_Bash%C5%8D. In the state in which I'm reading it now, the it:WP article on Bashō says no more, I think, than: Il suo rapido incedere faceva pensare alcuni che Basho [sic] potesse essere stato un ninja. No elaboration, no naming (and shaming?), no source for the generalization. While my ability to read Italian is extremely limited, I get the distinct impression that the Italian article is poor as a whole, and that this is a particularly shoddy part of it. Wikipedia articles are not acceptable as sources for other Wikipedia articles, and this it:WP article is rather obviously unacceptable. -- Hoary 23:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've done a quick literature search. JSTOR turns up nothing relevant. No Google hits turn out, except a few about Ueno, and a few which were no more solid than reporting hearsay, although one has the amusing quote:
"Because they were well disguised, some have even suggested Matsuo Bashō, a traveling poet, was actually a ninja employed by the shōgun to keep a watch over daimyō, and that haiku he published were really secret codes telling other ninja some unknown secrets. This is a view dismissed by almost all historians."[1]
Another good one:
"The bus to Kisakata, the following day, took us through emerald glens. Someone said Basho allegedly embarked on his Oku no Hosomichi odyssey because he was really a ninja and was on an intelligence-gathering mission for the Tokugawa shogunate. I laughed at the thought of a ninja weeping, as the sentimental poet often described himself doing."[2]
And finally, if we aren't convinced yet:
"Some people, though, have tried to read even more into Basho’s life and work. In recent times, a bizarre theory has spread. It claims that Basho was actually a ninja spy for the shogunate, sent to Tohoku to report on any unrest that might be fermenting in the provinces; accordingly, his haikus are supposed to be coded missives. There’s no real evidence for this, but some of the arguments are intriguing. The conspiracy theorists point to the fact that Basho covered 2500km on foot in 150 days (sometimes 50km a day) at the ripe old age of 46; only certain ninja, they say, were able to accomplish this, using methods of running and walking that used minute amounts of energy. He was also able to gain access to high-level feudal territory, apparently impossible for ordinary people. Adding fuel to the rumours is the undeniable fact of the poet’s early employment history (many ninja were also samurai), as well as the nature of his birthplace, in the Iga province – home of the famous Iga Ninja school."[3]
Yeah, so I think those clinch it. Just to double-check, I even went through my Donald Keene books and drew a blank.
So anon, you may well have all the experience and knowledge you claim, but you wouldn't be the first expert to believe in a crazy theory and you won't be the last. I just don't see why it should be included. --Gwern (contribs) 01:36 31 October 2007 (GMT)
To do the IP justice, I don't think he has suggested that he subscribes to the notion that Bashō was a ninja. He does, however, believe that other people do subscribe to this notion; moreover, that these people are sufficiently numerous or well-read for the belief to be notable. (Compare the popular Japanese belief in a blood-type "theory" of personality: Complete bollocks, of course, but the fact that people believe it is itself of some note; it even gets its own article here. And of course the simple souls who earnestly compile en:WP articles on aidoru tarento etc dutifully add this "information" to them.) Further, the IP did adduce the Sellars quote.

So what do we have? Three informal web pages that each claim that some people (unnamed) subscribe to this notion. That's it (so far). The notion itself is highly dubious and the belief in it seems non-notable. -- Hoary 02:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I can and will supply more refs, but part of my point is that even though (and I'll concede this point) most historians do not find merit in the idea, it's still worth noting that there is this idea.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.174.92.164 (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
To further elaborate, I want to make it clear that in no way do I think that Basho was a ninja, my point is that at a certain point it becomes worthy of note simply because that idea exists. Homeric Question is one such example -- debate did swirl around this issue at one point, but the poems origins in oral tradition are widely accepted by scholarly opinion. (sorry for not signing last time, I'll also admit to being a newb.) 75.211.149.131 16:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope, came up empty after going through all the relevant books in my library. It's been something like 15 years, but I was fairly certain I'd be able to turn something up. I relent.67.161.53.9 22:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow! I must say picturing our dear Bashō as a kick-ass ninja is almost funnier than all those Pirates versus Ninjas jokes!• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ {KLAT} • 20:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I think there is a place for a short sentence or two mentioning the theory. Yes it may not be well respected among scholars but that is the case for the 'Shakespeare was Marlowe/Earl of Oxford/Elizabeth I's son, etc' conspiracy theories too and that merits a mention on the Shakespeare wiki page. (For the record I don't believe in any of these Shakespeare authorship theories but I certainly don't think any mention of the fact that the theory exists ought to be suppressed.) As the User above says, it's not a question of whether one agrees with it or not, more that it is a popular and famous enough theory that it ought to be included. See for example this book, which is solely about the theory. Entitled 'Was Basho a ninja?' in Japanese.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.224.42 (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am delisting this article as a GA because on the fact that there are inline citations, failing 2b, "factually accurate and verifiable" under the good article criteria (WP:WIAGA). Wizardman 21:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This article is just as accurate and verifiable as it has always been. Restoring GA. Shii (tock) 05:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of Ueda's translations of Bashō hokku here looks like a straightforward copyvio. Is there some reason to believe this isn't the case?--Yumegusa (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use FTW. Let's see, less than 500 words, less than a third of the article, they are used in context, they are attributed, used for scholarly nonprofit purpose, do not replace the original book... Looks like a pretty solid example of fair use to me. --Gwern  (contribs) 16:43 3 June 2008 (GMT)
Thanks Gwern. Though I've come across positions conflicting with your interpretation elsewhere in WP (no, I don't remember where), I'm happily assured now.--Yumegusa (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My recent edit to make Bashō appear in categories (such as Japanese poets) under B (rather than M for Matsuo)(viz. {{DEFAULTSORT:Basho, Matsuo}}) has been undone. This seems absurd since the poet is universally known by his pseudonym Bashō (or Basho) rather than his family name Matsuo. MOS:JP does not appear to address the issue directly, but I have raised the question on its associated Talk page. I'd be grateful for any clarification/explanation of policy or further discussion, there. Thanks --Yumegusa (talk) 13:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at Talk:Basho regarding that dab page and whether 'Basho' should link to it or should redirect to this article. All interested editors are invited to participate.--Yumegusa (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder about the recent addition of "The Essential Haiku" to the list in the Translations section. Upto this point, it has been limited to translations of Bashō only, rather than collections which include his work among others. The list could get extremely long and unwieldy if it was to include everything that happens to include him. Thoughts, anyone? --Yumegusa (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as agreement that the section should be limited to translations either exclusively or primarily of Bashō, and remove Hass's Bashō, Buson, & Issa. --Yumegusa (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In the article section Oku no Hosomichi, we read, "The first edition was published posthumously in 1702" for which I have requested a cite, while under "List of works" we are told that it was published in 1694, with a ref to the 1948 Japanese-language Kokusai Bunka Shinkōkai (国際文化振興会). Puzzlingly, there is no mention of publication date in the main article Oku no Hosomichi. Any clarification would be welcome. --Yumegusa (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Google Books yields ample results for both hosomichi 1694 and hosomichi 1702, and I have added a cite for the latter publication date. However, we are now in the situation where we have two contradictory referenced pieces of information presented as fact, which is not satisfactory. Perhaps some more experienced editor can suggest a solution? --Yumegusa (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I checked my Keene books, but little dice. Keene does say that Basho finished writing The Narrow Road in 1694, but omits any publication date. Possibly copies began circulating on completion in 1694 but formal publication only in 1702? --Gwern (contribs) 21:17 19 May 2009 (GMT)
Thanks Gwern. Yes possibly. But what is the best solution for the article? Current position seems untenable, but it can't be the first time two referenced pieces of contradictory info have surfaced. What does one do? --Yumegusa (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Mention them both with sourcing, if no better references turn up. --Gwern  (contribs) 21:45 20 May 2009 (GMT)
Minor detail, but the section on Oku no Hosomichi seems to say that Basho's journey  began May 1689, lasted 151 days, and ended in late 1691. One of those three figures must be incorrect, or perhaps the paragraph is confusing and could use some revision.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.10.115.129 (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a translated works but I am struggling to find the ISBN. Any suggestions? TheTallSarge (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the same book as Ueda, Makoto (1982). The Master Haiku Poet, Matsuo Bashō. Tokyo: Kodansha International. ISBN 0-87011-553-7.--Yumegusa (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Should his poems be uploaded to wikicommons. They are after all hundreds of years old and well past copyright laws.Ink Falls (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course Basho's poems in their original Japanese are out of copyright, but that doesn't apply to most modern translations. --Yumegusa (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I see huge problems with the way Bashō's name is handled in this article:

The initial {{Japanese name}} template correctly gives Matsuo to be the family name, but it's not specified that Bashō is the pen name (that is, not even a proper given name), not even in the lead section. This might greatly confuse the occasional reader.
Speaking of pen names: only Sōbō is listed as a pen name in the Infobox. Shouldn't Bashō (and others we know of—with clear references, thank you) be there as well?
The "English translations" subsection and "References" section both display "Matsuo, Bashō" as if we would regularly say Bashō Matsuo rather than Matsuo Bashō. This is totally unacceptable, given that all books—the English ones at least, to my knowledge—use Bashō as if it were the last name. There's even the little "<!--Matsuo is the family name-->" reminder to encourage editors to continue this incorrect practice (in my opinion). If a book displays "Matsuo Bashō" on its cover and inside, then it's not the place to be a purist: you write what you see, not what you want to see. The most this practice can do is mess up people's mind. We editors might understand the whole thing, but think about those who know squat about this weird, ancient, exotic stuff that is Japanese poetry from more than 300 years ago.
In sum, the whole thing is confusing, because Japanese and English norms and standards are being used at the same time and not explained sufficiently well. Might someone please address this issue as soon as possible? I just thought I'd speak my mind and ask nicely before personally dealing with (at least) the third point.• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ {KLAT} • 21:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to thank our fellow editor Oda Mari for graciously and constructively taking care of points 1 (partially) and 2 (completely).  Thank you• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ {KLAT} • 10:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but is there a reason the haiku are formatted like this?

toshi kurenu / kasa kite waraji / hakinagara
another year is gone / a traveler's shade on my head, / straw sandals at my feet [1685]
Instead of something like this?

Would anybody else prefer a different format?AerobicFox (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that, when it comes to Wikipedia, both styles are acceptable. The first (linear) option has the slight advantage of taking up less space; also, it kinda matches the way the haiku are usually written in Japanese: one straight line without break. The second (verse) option is, I guess, more Occidental-friendly as it nicely divides the poem the way we are used to writing and reading poetry, with the line-by-line translation neatly facing it.
Now, both styles—the first with minor differences—are featured in the "Haiku" article, so I conclude that nobody has determined the way it should be presented. For further inquiry or to appeal to those who might take an interest in the matter (other than us...), you might wanna take it to the WikiProject Japan and check out the MoS page for Japan-related articles. To sum it up, I believe both are actually fine, but the second one, in my humble opinion, looks and reads better.• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ {KLAT} • 22:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... the Japanese don't really write Haiku as one line, but typically 3 vertical lines. If I'm mistaken or if there are circumstances where they do this then please let me know, but I'm almost completely certain that Haiku is never written as one straight line.
Typically when writing about poetry the first style is used for giving inline quotations of poetry such as:
Emily Dickinson wrote "Because I could not stop for Death— / He kindly stopped for me— " These opening lines demonstrate the alternating lines of iambic tetrameter and iambic trimeter used throughout the poem.
Versus a block quotation such as:
In "Because I could not stop for Death" Dickinson begins with:
Because I could not stop for Death-
He kindly stopped for me—
The Carriage held but just Ourselves—
And Immortality.
This opening passage demonstrates the alternating lines of iambic tetrameter and iambic trimeter used throughout the poem.
I'll go ahead and take it up at the Japan MOS and see if we can get some guidance and possibly include a future guideline, and I'll see what we are doing about poetry in the current MOS for English.AerobicFox (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
In Edo period, it was customary to write haiku in one line, as the photo of this page [4] shows.  Three-line format is of modern origin.--116.80.246.192 (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I edited this Because  in Japanese language is written following.
When he was 13 years old his father died and his elder brother took the house. From little age he was sdudied that Life is Painful.Basho (not his real name)was a servant at the samurai family Yoshitada, taking care of senior of Yoshitada Kitamura Gin who was two years older him. His boss was lover of cicada singing and poetry. After his death in 1666 Basho moved to the another city doing construction job.
Haikago (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in the text you quote to support your edit. I have reinserted the information you deleted, and provided a supporting reference to Ueda.  --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I found this phrase confusing

Bashō traveled alone, off the beaten path, that is, on the Edo Five Routes, which in medieval Japan were regarded as immensely dangerous
Did he travel off the Edo Five Routes?  Or did he travel on them, but they were still dangerous?  If he traveled on them, then "off the beaten path" isn't the right phrase, even if they were dangerous.

I commented out the "Influences=" parameter to suppress the warning message informing reader that {{Infobox writer}} does not use this paramater (any longer). 

Influences=Imagism, Beat Generation; Robbie Basho, Steffen Basho-Junghans

--Kiyoweap (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

At the time of writing, there is a request for clarification on this sentence:
"In 1526, two of Bashō's hokku were printed in a compilation."
Have I misunderstood, or is this a typo? Bashō was not born until 1644. 165.142.249.81 (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

For the recently closed requested move, please see Talk:Basho (disambiguation)#Requested move 30 June 2020. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 21:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Letting us know 15 minutes after the discussion closes is a little late, don't you think? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
The original link to the discussion was Talk:Basho#Requested move 30 June 2020. One of the consequences of the move request was to redirect Basho to Matsuo Bashō, which of course means that Talk:Basho gets redirected to Talk:Matsuo Bashō. This post was meant only as a courtesy notification for editors who still linked to the original Talk:Basho link. That is all. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 02:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Here in Japan they are generally called haiku now in the 21st century, though as pointed out in the article haiku originate in the starting verse of linked verses (renga) or hokku. After this introduction however, when referencing Basho's poetry the word hokku continues to be used. This seems to me to be inappropriate. Timtak (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)