Talk:Chinese poetry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject China (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Poetry (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


is this a poem or a type of poem?

"Shi" is just the simple Chinese translation for the wor "poem." It is inapproprate to use this for a article title. This article is about Chinese poetry / Poetry of China and should be renamed as such. --Jiang 23:33 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Why is it okay when Japanese terms like Sake, Haiku are accepted into the English language but Chinese terms like Jiu and Shi had to be translated to Chinese wine and Chinese poem. Basically Sake is just Japanese Jiu and Haiku is just Japanese Shi. Is this a culture bias? Can someone explain this phenominon? Kowloonese 08:05 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Haiku is a specific type of poem. Sake is a specific type of wine. "Shi" is just a general term. Sake and Haiku are specific things that were invented by the Japanese and therfore have Japanese names. Jiu and Shi already have English names "wine" and "poem" and are not exclusive to the Chinese nor invented by them. (Note that "Haiku" has not replaced the English word for poem because it is not just any poem--a poem that conforms to a specific style.) --Jiang 08:15 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The article says it itself: "Chinese poems came in many forms. Ancient poem (古詩) and Modern Chinese poems (新詩 vers libre) usually did not follow any prescribed pattern." I vote to move this to Chinese poetry. --Jiang 23:35 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
This example I used was not very good. But there is a different trend in how Japanese is accepted in English and Chinese is not. For example the Issei Japanese American, Nisei Japanese American, Sansei Japanese American articles are no better than labelling Chinese poetry as Shi or Chinese wine as Jiu. If you search all the Japanese articles in wikipedia, you can find 99% of the articles could be moved to "Japanese this" and "Japanese that" with no loss of meaning. But instead many of these terms become part of the English language, such as Tsunami, Sushi, Karake, Karaoke, Kanji etc. You don't see the same pattern in Chinese terms except perhaps the martial arts related terminology.
In my opinion, it is a matter of cultural pride. The Japanese would insist their rice wine to be called Sake, not Japanese wine. On the contrary, the Chinese (like -Jiang, though NOT me) would rather call their rice wine Chinese wine instead of insisting on forcing a Chinese term into the English language. If the Japanese term "Issei" can be added to the English language to mean "First Generation", so can Jiu and Shi be added into the English language if enough Chinese take pride in their own heritage. I am really interested to see some linguists or social scientists to comment on this behavior. Kowloonese 10:24 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I have nothing against using Chinese names, provided people know what they are. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), we have to place the article where people can actually expect to find it. Only people fluent in Chinese know that Shi=poem. If you put it at shi, few people will find it. I searched "jiu" in a search engine and all I got was "jiu jitsu", and nothing about Chinese wine.
I think most of the "problem" here lies with exposure, and not specifically with cultural inferiority. English speaking people were/are exposed much more to Japan than China, because of Japan's economic position.
The bottom line is, that in adherance to our naming conventions, the article should be placed under the most common name. How do you expect people to discover that Shi=poem if they don't find the article in the first place? It's good that they learn in the article, but it's more important that they locate the article first.
--Jiang 21:27 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Old debate, but to clear something up: Although Chinese "jiu" and Japanese "sake" are written with the same character, they do NOT have the same meaning, especially when borrowed into English. "Jiu" in Chinese means any type of wine, but when people say "sake" they generally mean one specific type of wine. Also how many words in Chinese are pronounced jiu and shi, and how many in Japanese are pronounced sake? 13:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Moved. The original article Shi is turned into a disambiguation page.
In view of the above discussion, I think that Chinese poetry is the correct main article; however, it seems obvious that the term shi is notable enough to require an article (see discussion page of Shi (poetry). Dcattell (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


I've expanded the content significantly, to cover the forms in more detail and adding forms not already covered. The structure at the moment is based on the forms used in each period (early, classical, modern), which I think (hope) works OK.

Markalexander100 07:22, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This article needs an intro/abstract — Sverdrup (talk) 17:11, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Now it's quite a good article, thanks to Mark, and also to Jiang who made the fluid final layout. (Sorry for not contributing - I'm interested but doesn't know a lot! :-) Gj, all. — Sverdrup 00:07, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Links needed[edit]

We need something that we can link to to explain the different forms when we mention them in other articles. I think that means either spinning off each of the forms to its own page (like ci-poetry), or section headings for each form. Comments? Markalexander100 07:01, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Definitely spin-off new articles. They are literary forms with tremendous amount of works. --Menchi 11:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Underway. ;) Markalexander100 05:16, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Come on Chinese poetry, you can do better than that! Check out the page on Japanese poetry -- and Japan doesn't have nearly as rich a tradition as the Chinese!

Bathrobe 22 August 2005

[Confused by a redirection]Thomashauk 23:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In regards to links, I think the "See also" section, now organized into subsections, will help. As to "spinning off" new articles, I think that it would be most help that when doing so that 1) a link to it be included in the "See also" section, or other appropriate and prominent location, and 2) that a summary of the "spun off" material be retained in the main article, and in such a way as to preserve its overall cohesive structure and flow. Dcattell (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


This article and the shi article show some misconceptions of Chinese poetry. Terminology is a problem. I've tried to correct them. But there are still too many things to do.--K.C. Tang 04:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There're still a long way to go. This article lacks an in-depth analysis of Chinese shi, as well as the historical development of the art of poetry in general. I believe some examples of poems would make it better. 尖尖的鹿角 (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think examples are an excellent idea; however, there are obvious potential copyright issues, especially with English translations and with Modern Chinese poetry. Dcattell (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup tag[edit]

I'm not finding this article very useful for getting a good overview of the history of Chinese literature, and I've had classes on the subject, so I'm somewhat familiar. But it seems that each section is too short to provide a good introduction to both the formal characteristics of each period and the key movements/poets. How can we better organize the individual sections? Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the Early Poetry section, so that should be taken care of, unless someone wants to expand it. Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I've now cleaned up the Classical Poetry section, but this could really use an expert's help! Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Me again--I'm looking through the revision history, and it appears that a lot of really useful information has been removed from the article over time. If anyone has the time and energy to work through the previous revisions, we might be able to restore some of the best material from past versions. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a brief survey of the history. I think part of the problem is that parts of the article have been "spun off" without being replaced with either an adequate summary or clear linkage. I think much of the material exists in various other articles: part of the problem is/has been to find them and then incorporate them appropriately into the main article. Similarly, there are many related articles which should be integrated, for instance some of the articles developed by the guqin people or the linguists or the modern English poetry fans (not to mention the military historians and biographers -- this is a particular problem since almost anyone of any notability for much of Chinese history seems to have been a poet). One approach to making this a better article is to 1) find relevant individual articles and add them to appropriate categories (as far as these exist, I find them somewhat problematic, and the same with the portals, such as Poetry and China), 2) to make prominent and stable links to the relevant material that is in these articles (apparently material has been moved to a separate subarticle, leaving behind an in-line link, which has later been carelessly edited over, changed, or moved --or the article linked to was renamed, etc.-- contributing to a disruption of article's the overall structural integrity), and 3) to integrate the material from these articles into the main "Chinese poetry" article as organized summaries. In the course of trying to make a start to this I have also noted the presence of plural articles on the same person/subject or overlapping and unlinked material within the articles, much of this due to the historical Chinese practice of one individual having various names: given names, style names, and so on, and in the case of the emperors (often poets) temple names and posthumous names. Combined with the high degree of homophony characteristic of Chinese, together with dialectical variants, and huge inconsistencies when it comes to transliteration into English. But now that I have complained longer than anyone else here, I'll end on a careless comma, Dcattell (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


The section on influence doesn't have any sources and only randomly cites the beat movement with a link psychedelic music. The section should either be expanded or deleted in my opinion.

Modern Poetry[edit]

The last section on modern poetry was full of grammatical errors and it was entirely unreferenced. I didn't disagree with everything in it, so I left it and just tried to clean it up, but it requires some research to be satisfactory. I will try to get back to this after I read up on the topic some more. —Zujine|talk 03:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ming, Ming-Qing Transition, and Qing poetry[edit]

The final sentence "Other notable poetry was written during the Ming Dynasty, the Ming-Qing Transition, and during the Qing Dynasty." seems unacceptably vague. Is there any reason not to delete it? It could also be rephrased to refer to "many minor developments", but why bring them up without description? Philipmerrill (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason that this section is poorly developed is that no one has gotten around to making the improvements which it probably deserves. Ideally, I think it should be expanded into two or three subsections within the Chinese poetry article and with linked main articles. Dcattell (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


The four notes that are presently there all are referred from the beginning paragraph of the main body on Classical Chinese poetry and only supply the characters to go with four major poetic styles (shi, ci, qu, and fu). Once the article gets going two paragraphs later, characters are inserted into the text enclosed by parentheses, so there is a certain inconsistency between that practice and the notes. I can see the desirability of having a notes section but I suggest that this is a poor use of it, and the characters should be inserted in parentheses where the present footnote references are. Philipmerrill (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, the Notes section would at least (or primarily) contain citations from the reference sources listed in the Reference section. Some of these actual references may be found in the linked Main articles. The question of how or to what extent Chinese text should be included in English Wikipedia articles is still fairly open. Dcattell (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Done (did it), thanks Dcattell. Philipmerrill (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Poetry sung to Pusaman melody[edit]

Guderyean (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Guderyean (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)