Talk:Haiga

message: The definition of haiga is taken from my personal web site on the haiga art/haiku form. I grant Wikipedia permission to use it. ~ ray rasmussen, http://raysweb.net/haiga ray@raysweb.net--198.166.61.6 (talk) 16:57, 04:26, June 24, 2005 (UTC)
:Not good enough. Needs a reliable source. The present article has one.Boneyard90 (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: With this edit, User Elvenscout742 removed an EL to Reeds Contemporary Haiga, and offered this edit summary:  (Revert unnecessary EL. ELs should be used sparingly, and should generally only be to sites that contain accurate, relevant information that would not be in this article if it was FA-standard. This painting style is not equal to literary movement.)  
The EL in question is the online site of an annual anthology of haiga and winner, in 2006, of the Haiku Society of America’s Mildred Kanterman Memorial Merit Book Award. The site offers many interviews with and articles by contemporary haiga artists from the USA, Japan, Romania and elsewhere as well as a gallery of contemporary haiga. The site’s coverage of current haiga, if anything, is broader and more representative than that of some of the ELs that Elvenscout left standing in the article.
 
Please elaborate, Elvenscout, on why you believe this EL offers something other than “accurate, relevant information” as justification for your removal of this EL. Also, you argue that ELs should be employed “sparingly,” a word open to broad interpretation, particularly if one reviews other WP articles such as The Tale of Genji (19 ELs), Matsuo Bashō (9 ELs) or Haiku (9 ELs). The present article, with the addition of the EL you removed, would have only five. In light of the above, please also explain how you would define “sparingly.”Tristan noir (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to continue to misunderstand Wikipedia's policy on external links. Links to publications that distribute examples of or information relating to the topic of the article are inappropriate, unless they are being cited as sources for the information in the Wikipedia article. That link would be relevant to an article about the website in question, as would your tidbit about the website receiving an award. You are welcome to create such an article, if you believe that the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia and has been discussed in reliable secondary sources. However, inclusion of inaccurate or misleading information on Wikipedia is unwelcome, and given that you seem to be continuously trying to push your minority POV that haiga is a type of poetry (or something like that) both here and on the glossary of literary terms, I would be inclined to watch any such article to guard against such misleading information. elvenscout742 (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside (although I feel comparisons to other articles are irrelevant) -- I agree with WikiProject Japan's judgement of "The Tale of Genji" as a C-class article. The excessive list of external links that do not necessarily add anything to an encyclopedia article probably is one area that needs work. The "Bashō" links all seem to be relatively useful/relevant/good in their providing additional, relevant information that is not already in the article and probably can't be appropriately incorporated (an example being the Simply Haiku link, which if the exact text was incorporated into Wikipedia it would be a copyright violation and if a Wikipedia-only translation was produced it would violate WP:NOR). The links on the "Haiku" article are almost as problematic as the links in the Genji article, and if Wikipedia needed to be a perfect, final edition they would need to be removed immediately rather than left in. However, editorial integrity and WP:AGF prevent those links from being removed without extensive research into which ones are worthwhile and which aren't. However, in this case, which is the only relevant one, I was able to tell as soon as it was posted that the link in question was irrelevant to the article, and therefore removed it. elvenscout742 (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:EL and WP:ELYES admit addition of ELs that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. That describes the EL to Reeds Contemporary Haiga precisely, particularly where it touches upon “neutral and accurate material,” “encyclopedic understanding,” “amount of detail” and “interview transcripts.” Nor does the EL violate any of the restrictions offered by WP:ELNO or WP:ADV. The site in question has a particularly full offering of articles, interviews and representative modern haiga that are germane to the Haiga article; its coverage of the topic is broader and more representative, as I remarked above, than certain of the other ELs that you left in place. Your assertion that you were able to tell as soon as it was posted that the link in question was irrelevant to the article strongly suggests that your study of the Reeds EL (as well as of those ELs currently in place) was cursory at best and that your removal of the same borders upon the arbitrary.Tristan noir (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain to me why the information can't be incorporated into the article with Reeds cited as a source? elvenscout742 (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

text: To clarify, WP:ELNO states that "[a]ny [link to a] site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" (my emphasis) should be avoided. The interviews you refer to do not contain any relevant, accurate information that could not be summarized and cited in this article. I would also be concerned that a portion of the material on the website seems to support the minority view that haiga, which is a style of Japanese painting, includes photographs, etc. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

text: And, again, interview transcripts by people who are peripherally related to the subject of this article are irrelevant. That guideline is for articles about the person being interviewed. This link also contains much conjecture and misleading/inaccurate information in its apparent assumption that haiga is a type of poetry or the like. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of EL 

message: I have removed the link to "DailyHaiga". My reasoning is that the website promotes the minority POV that haiga is a type of poetry, or a combination of poetry and images. Their "About the Journal" page states that "DailyHaiga is an online journal presenting the best of English language haiga—an artistically meaningful digital or scanned image integrated with haiku or related poetic forms." The concept of "English language haiga" is self-contradictory, as a haiga is a painting, which does not have a language. Additionally, the phrase "digital or scanned image" implies that the website supports the minority POV that haiga is not a style of painting. Further, while it is not clear what they mean, the final "haiku or related poetic forms" is curious, since the type of poetry linked with haiga is haiku, not "other poetic forms". elvenscout742 (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Another removal

message: With this edit, User:Bagworm removed the dictionary source that directly stated in plain language what haiga means. A Japanese dictionary is a perfectly valid reference for the dictionary definition of a Japanese word, but Bagworm replaced it with a reference that, according to his/her following edit, appears to say something else. With a third edit Bagworm re-added a category that clearly doesn't apply to this topic (haiga is not a poetic "form" like the other articles in that category, as it is a type of painting). I have reverted these edits, as Bagworm has clearly misinterpreted the Shirane source: Shirane clearly states on page 260 that haiga is "a pictorial style that used minimal brushwork and light colors to create a visual effect analogous to the seventeen-syllable haiku in its economy and stress on the moment" (my emphasis). This does not contradict the dictionary definition that was already cited in the article. I do not actually have my hard copy of Shirane (part 2) on hand, but no doubt page 180 merely states that haiga often accompanied haiku, without specifically stating that that is what the word haiga means. We should not be using an obscure statement to interpret more direct statements, and we should not be removing valid dictionary definitions in favour of our own (mis)interpretations of texts. I have therefore reverted all three edits. A statement that haiga is already part of the definition as referenced, and using a different source solely in order to misrepresent what that source says is unacceptable. Hitomaro742 (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Haiga" is a type of painting...