|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below.
I've tried to clarify the terminology, pls tell me if there are still any confusions.--K.C. Tang 09:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm still confused. I tried to use this page to help edit the Chinese poetry page and found it only marginally helpful. I'm still unclear as to the use of shi to define a specific genre of poetry, as opposed to fu, ci, etc., and not just as a term for poetry in general. Is the "Origins" section referring to the form, or to all poetry? And notice that you don't ever define what the shi form is, prior to the distinction between gushi and jintishi. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Why is this here?
Since shi is indeed synonymous with poetry in Chinese (but not synonymous with Chinese poetry), it does seem that it is unnecessary to have both this page and the Chinese poetry page. Shi means poetry in general (even Shakespearean sonnets, French villanelles, etc.), and thus is not on the same level as the subgenres ci, qu, jueju, etc. The main use I see for this page would be to deal specifically with Classical Chinese poetry (since that's what it seems to be about -- no mention of modern free verse, for example). However, the title is still a bit of a misnomer. Probably the best thing to do is to create a page "Classical Chinese poetry", move everything from here to there, and then delete this page.Dcattell (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I've looked around some more at some of the other discussion pages, etc. Looking at the history of this page and the sort of concerns expressed, and the general familiarity people have with the term shi and the Chinese/Japanese character(s) for it, I think it is probably useful to have this page both as an encyclopedic reference, and to avoid repetitions of its creation and the ensuing confusions of starting from scratch. So I have partly rewritten the page to this effect; however, I think that detailed discussion of Classical Chinese and other poetry forms and history should be elsewhere. Dcattell (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I'm sure you're already aware of this, but I'll go ahead and say it: that is a lousy reason to have a page (WP:REDUNDANTFORK & WP:POVFORK). We can just keep deleting it if there's really no content here that doesn't belong at Chinese or classical Chinese poetry. We do not need a definition page for the Chinese word for all poetry: that's handled by the zh link on our poetry page and by Wiktionary.
- Now, that said, I think there is some salvageable content on the (mostly obnoxious but still WP:RELevant) use of the word as a Western term of art for a specific genre of Chinese poetry not recognized by the Chinese themselves. (Assuming it's a separate idea from gushi... if it's not, then we should probably merge to the gushi (poetry) article and change this into a redirect to Chinese poetry - presumably what most people are looking for.) — LlywelynII 14:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Poetry and Chinese poetry
Beyond a one sentence gloss, this is not the place for a generic discussion of Chinese poetry (that would be Chinese poetry) or western misconceptions about it. I've accordingly removed a large chunk from this edit of the page. It's not bad material, though it has tone issues and could use sourcing. Interested parties may wish to add it to the appropriate pages. — LlywelynII 14:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Definition of Gushi
- Gushi in this latter sense are defined essentially by what they are not: i.e., they are not jintishi (regulated verse)
is nonsensical, given that gushi does not include free verse, but it may have some validity if it were stated less baldly. Feel free to restore the basic idea with whatever caveats (...during the period from X to Y...meeting Z criteria...etc...) make it sensible. — LlywelynII 14:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Does jintishi really belong here?
Given that this page only exists to deal with treatment of shi as a specific genre of poetry... isn't it fully covered by the gushi section? or do the Western critics include it in their use of shi? If so (and please source that), why? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with their definition given in the lede.
If not, the material is on the wrong page and what's left might be best handled by a merger with classical Chinese poetry or gushi (poetry), which seems to be a legitimate term of Chinese literary criticism unlike the current page. — LlywelynII 14:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)