Talk:Haiku

message: Not sure if it fits, but I found, from Look Japan], https://web.archive.org/web/20020322194307/http://www.lookjapan.com/LBsc/99JulCul.html
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article about Haiku 

message: I'm here because over the decades I've been stunned and amazed by haiku, the depth in so few words, and I thought, I'd like to try making a few or something.  After reading this; no longer.  Here's why, a quote from above:
"This article is for ENGLISH readers, and for a general public at that, and editors should keep that in the forefronts of their minds when they write or edit. It is recommended Wikipedia policy to present a general summary of the article in the opening sentences. Too often, writers take this to mean that all the minutiae of the theme has to telegraphed there, and that any small concession to general usage must be avoided at all cost. As a result, the reader is discouraged from perusing what remains. "
Bingo! Technical articles like this are Wikipedia's worst problem; experts 1) think a list of truisms is an explanation, and 2) fearing making a technically untrue statement 3) use such abstract (and vague) language and 4) since the meaning is so obvious to them, don't understand they are also describing 100 other possible things.  It seems they also 5) think being an expert somehow makes them a good teacher, and hence 6) don't spend the required VERY HARD WORK needed for good teaching AND communication.  Any child can talk, it's easy, right?
Do the editors seriously think the general public comes here to see long strings of Japanese characters and a lesson in Japanese history?  ...in the lede section!???  I saw the term "self gratification" above and had to chuckle.  "Lack of empathy," or failure to "target the audience" are more polite, —but "self absorbed" is not out of the question.  For example; everybody here seems to agree 1) "cutting" is a key concept and 2) is a poor/useless term/description, 3) yet the term remains, unexplained/untranslated.  Here's a suggestion.  Forget using a single term, and do some hard work, aka good writing, give an explanation.  Examples or complexity might be needed.  But handle it.
Of the sample poems, (which I was looking forward to as the meat,) only Old Pond made sense to me.  Why do other sample poems use unexplained proper Japanese nouns  and reference (other?) meaningless Japanese folklore and cultural presumptions?  Why do I need those and full, advanced understanding of extremely nuanced linguistic terms to grasp the general construction rules and structures, etc?  That just looks uppity and insults poor ignorant undeserving me.  Who is the target audience!!?? Again, what is the purpose of this article?   <BR> --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:6C37:E6B3:5E64:776E (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Purpose. And Wikipedia:Be bold. = paul2520 (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the purpose of this article? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Marisamasanchan (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Foundations of Literary Study

message: The article is not consistent in italicizing Japanese words:  sometimes they are italicized, sometimes they are not.  What rule do we follow -- italicize or not? LaivineOrodrim (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italicizing Japanese Words