Talk:Japanese poetry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Japan / Culture (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 10:22, November 5, 2015 (JST, Heisei 27) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Culture task force.
WikiProject Poetry (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Part of the problem with the Japanese poetry article is that Waka means Japanese poetry not written in Chinese, so it is the Waka article that covers most of the history of Japanese poetry and that is the article that has had the most work done on it. It would be tempting to just use a redirect that sends Japanese Poetry to the Waka article, but that's not quite true either. There is also Kanshi (poetry written in Chinese -- article not written yet), Renga (linked verse), Haiku and Senryu. So I guess what is needed is something that explains all the basics of the different poetry forms, and then points to the different articles on Japanese poetry forms for more detail. gK 21:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disagreed. As for the times till the Premodern, I agree with you almost. Waka it the biggest part in Japanese poetry. But besides Kanshi, we have other minor poetry forms what you skipped, like Dodoitsu (7-5/7-5/7-5/7-5. It appeared in the premodern). As for the modern time Japanese poetry made an expansion and there are many Western influenced poetry so-called liberal metrics. They need their own description. As for the differentiation between Waka and Japanese poetry, we can write here intergenre influence more closely, I suppose. --Aphaea 02:08, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I had completely forgotten about Western-influenced poetry. :-( In my reference books, it's usually referred to as shintaishi (poetry of the new style), or jiyūshi (free-style poetry), or sometimes as just shi. Donald Keene has 100 pages on it in his "Dawn to the West", and the last 50 pages of "The Penguin Book of Japanese Verse" is devoted to 'Modern-style' poems. Also, in Makoto Ueda's "Modern Japanese Poets", among the eight poets he profiles he includes the free-style poets Hariwara Sakutarō, Kenji Miyazawa, Takamura Kōtarō, and Takahashi Shinkichi.
I also missed imayō (modern-style songs) in my list and there is probably more. That's the problem when I start writing off the top of my head, and don't dig into my reference books first.
I also completely missed the various mixings of verse and poetry, such as haiga and the poetic diaries. Now that I start thinking about things, aren't some of the different drama forms also in poetry? That's something I know nothing about.
Hmmmm, you remind many things on me :) Yes, I wondered if it is appropriate to refer drama which is closely relatd to poetry, like Noh... --Aphaea 02:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As for intergenre influences, it almost needs its own genealogical chart. ;-) gK 03:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Indeed! First we start with a sketchy list of significant authors, events, form and finally have a fine chart in a cool style?

Forgetting modesty for a while, can I suggest looking at Irish poetry, English poetry and American poetry as possible models? Filiocht 09:04, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Good subbestion. A chronological discription might have a sence mostly. As for modesty, don't forget the motto Boldly edit :) --Aphaea 23:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I spell-checked this article using the SpellBound extension to the Firefox browser. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 09:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Italics for non-English words[edit]

Shouldn't all of the non-English words in this piece in italics? Mwanner 15:03, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

H-shi sho or Mr. H Award[edit]

ja:H氏賞 is a Japanese award for contemporary poetry, perhaps one of most authorized and best known award related to Japanese contemporary poetry. I refered it in Ishigaki Rin who was awarded with it in 1969, but faced a problem. I couldn't find its fixed translation name in English. If you know it, please correct my edit of Ishigaki Rin. Cheers. --Aphaea 14:29, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A friend of mine on ja said Mr. H Award is that. --Aphaea 14:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The section on the Kokinshu claimed that "Ise" was one of the poets. This seems to derive from confusion with Ise monogatari (tales of Ise), whose authors are, I think, unknown. So I cut the link. But maybe "Ise" is code for "the Ise poet", in which case it would be better to write [[Ise monogatari|the ''Ise'' poet]]. Gdr 12:36, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

I know this is not really the place for idle questions, but it is something that has been omited in the article: What writing system is poetry in these periods written in? Is modern poetry written in kanji or hiragana or katakana? 14:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

maekuzuke and senryū[edit]

I was under the impression that the "senryū evolved from maekuzuke" theory had been deprecated. Has anyone a reliable citation for the claims in this respect, in the "Pre-modern" section?
--Yumegusa (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to opening sentence[edit]

By changing
"When Japanese poets first encountered Chinese poetry, it was at its peak in the Tang Dynasty." to
"Japanese poets first encountered Chinese poetry at its peak in the Tang Dynasty."
you (User:Kintetsubuffalo) have introduced an undesirable ambiguity, which I have no doubt was unintentional. But please consider that your revised sentence can now be interpreted to mean that Japanese poets may have encountered Chinese poetry earlier when it was not at its peak. Can you explain why you felt the need to edit the perfectly unambiguous earlier version? In your edit summary you said, "the sentence was clunky". It's unclear what you base this opinion on, but in any case it is no justification for introducing such an ambiguity right in the opening sentence. I have no interest in edit wars and have no doubt we share the same aim, so please consider re-editing in light of the above. Thanks for your attention.--Yumegusa (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but it can't be interpreted thus-when you say "first", there is no ambiguity, there is no room for the idea that it was done earlier, it's just like there is nothing better than "best". I felt the need to edit it because a) this is the Wikipedia and anyone can edit, b) the words I removed were extraneous, c) it read like an essay, not an encyclopedia entry. It still doesn't, but my edits got it closer. I base my "opinion" on the fact that I am an English teacher and a native speaker. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are incorrect in claiming there is no ambiguity: in the earlier version there was no room for misinterpretation, but your revision introduces the possibility of reading thus:
"Japanese poets first encountered Chinese poetry at its peak in the Tang Dynasty (but first encountered it at less than its peak in the Sui Dynasty)."
Enclosing the word "opinion" in quotes doesn't make it any more than that. Please re-edit to remove the ambiguity you have introduced, lest another editor inadvertently reintroduce 'clunk'.--Yumegusa (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, no. Looks like we're going to be at cross purposes on this one. Yours is a poor opening paragraph and conforms neither to WP:MoS nor to basic encyclopedic writing. Your version as written does not belong in the opening paragraph. If you want, we can put in for a third opinion. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
You appear to have misunderstood. I am not defending the previous version (it's not 'mine') and make no claims for it with regard to WP:MOS. I am merely pointing out that in your revision of that sentence you have introduced an undesirable ambiguity. You have failed to address this issue, and if you don't deal with it, someone else will be obliged to. I feel sure you will agree that clarity of meaning is more important than style or clunk-level. --Yumegusa (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Right, I'll edit now to remove the ambiguity which its author seems unable to recognize. Feel free to edit again to remove any clunk I inadvertently add, but please do not simply revert, thereby reintroducing the problematic ambiguity.--Yumegusa (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Modern Poets - suggested additions to list[edit]

I would suggest these two additions to the list of 'Important poets (modern)'

1. Ryuichi Tamura 2. Kazuko Shiraishi

Both poets were among the first post-war Japanese poets to tackle the difficult job of coming to terms with atomic bombing and the post-war trauma. I believe Ryuichi is accorded such reputation that many Japanese believe he should have received a Nobel Prize for his work.

I will defer to the principle editors of this article to decide if the additions are appropriate, and to make them if they think warranted -- Red Slider. (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


History is great and all, but this page is the default Japanese poetry article. It needs a section with a straight list of styles absent the need to scroll through their historical context, practitioners, and development. Thanks. — LlywelynII 15:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


At this point, I think that "Japanese poetry" article would most benefit by better and more clearly related reference citations, in support, and an examination of what is already there, in these terms. Dcattell (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)