Talk:Renku

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  From the old [[Talk:Renku]] page 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Basho and Haikai" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'll take that as a tacit go-ahead then. We can always revert if necessary.--Yumegusa (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move "Haikai no renga" to "Renku" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed restore of earlier version of [[Haikai]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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, although haikai-renga 俳諧連歌 does too. 連句 is indeed the post-Meiji term for the same. 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)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: 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, waiting two months(!), and then deleting them because no one has cited a source yet, we should actually search for sources. As far as I can see, no argument was provided , 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)
thread_title:  Reinstating Saohime line 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Outside Japan" 

message: 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:  on Google Books;  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)
thread_title:  ''Haikai-renga'' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Origin of ''renku''?