Talk:Iroha

message: The edits of the poem's translation yesterday were basically uncalled for. "My translation" of the poem counts as one's original work and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Now another person has come along and re-edited the poem according to his or her own personal tastes. Please stop it. I am reverting back to the original version for the time being. --DannyWilde 00:43, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
:I guess I'm down… I just really hate having "literally, blah" in parenthesis. Can we take out the "inevitably" and "no one could"? --Carl 05:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of parentheses and the insertion of the literal meaning was meant to indicate the construction of the original Japanese, considering that translations are imperfect, in keeping with the aim to provide as much information as possible. As for my original edit of the translation, it was intended to improve the adherence to the original Japanese text. --Denihilonihil 11:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the guiding principles here should be first of all that this article's goal should be to explain what "iroha" is, and second, no original research. It's not really a good idea to put original translations of poems into Wikipedia unless nothing more standard exists. Also, re-editing them for artistic merit is a fairly bad idea - there is no end to that sort of discussion. --DannyWilde 14:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry I don't know what the best method is, but I was concerned about a poem war breaking out. Anyway I've added your link to the page anyway. Hope this is useful. --DannyWilde 05:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was thinking about this page earlier today, for some reason. Perhaps it would be more approporiate to link to a page in the WikiSource project. Does anyone else know more about that project? I just know that it's a sister to Wikipedia. --Carl 11:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I have not noticed the translation by Ryuichi Abe. If the word selection of "scatter" is based on this script, "away" should not be removed. I do not still agree at the usage of "we". Poetry itself is essentially personal. However, Abe regard the poetry as a declaration of determination (or preach) of Buddhists, since he is a Buddhist and thinks the writer of the poet is Buddhist leader Kukai. (Actually, there are different opinions about the writer, as stated in the preface of the article.) This is why he uses "we" in his translational script.--Prosopagnosias (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Thanks for pinging me. It seems you're talking about this edit of mine. As I wrote in the summary, the translation was not mine, but from the article Hiragana. For your convenience, here's the version of the time. ◅ Sebastian 05:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Poem wars

message: Hi Adam, you've readded "perfect pangram". I'd cut this partly to avoid repetition, but also because it sounds weird to say "perfect pangram except not, because of -n". What would you say to just "pangram" (no perfection required!) in that para? Cheers, JackyR 01:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All sounds good :-) JackyR 15:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-phrasing 

message: No, strictly transliterated "ha" is still "ha" because it is *archaic* Japanese, not modern Japanese. Back then there was only one pronunciation of は which was something like "hwa". This later split into "ha" in the beginning of words and "wa" elsewhere. In 1946 everything except the particle was respelled わ (for example 川(かは)) 67.177.166.232 (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  strictly transliterated 

message: Whole three paragraphs about Japanese weaponry in the usage section presents a bit unbalanced coverage to me. Just as an opinion, I'd like that to be reduced to a single paragraph of 4-5 sentences. --ulidtko (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, this is unbalanced. I suggest we give a further three weeks to see if anyone comes up with a reason for that, then we can do the editing.MT Editor (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering of guns 

message: Shouldn't the modern version write yoi as 酔い? I know that 酔ひ would be the historical usage but the modern version should use the modern orthography. 2602:30A:2CDB:490:E137:EDD6:CBA5:BC23 (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  酔ひ as yoi in modern version