Talk:Tanka prose

Untitled

May I refer you to our prior discussion here? On Sept. 14, in reference to the original Tanka prose article, you wrote: I have no problem whatsoever with you making an article at Tanka prose . . . The only reason I attacked the sources you cited was because they were being used to back up bizarre claims about ancient Japanese literature. If they are exclusively used as sources of information on the English literature that they were written to discuss, there is no problem. The emphasis upon the word “exclusively” is your own. On Sept. 16, I commented that this seemed like “a fair resolution,” to which you responded, on the same day, I'm happy to know that we can put this dispute behind us and move on with one article on modern English "tanka prose" and one article on "uta monogatari”.

I’d hoped not to revisit our prior disagreement but before I could post the revised article, you chose, on Sept. 18, to post the above review of the conflict in which you rehearse all of your old attacks, including those upon the cited sources (contrary to your comments of Sept. 14). From the first, your remarks on this article, whether on the Talk Page here or in your various edit summaries, have demonstrated little acquaintance with the English-language literature upon which it is based, just as the tenor of said remarks, far from showing objectivity, has registered your antipathy. That is an observation and not an ad hominem attack. Beyond that, I have little to say in answer to your rehash above, other than to state that the present article should be judged by the same standards applied to Haiku in English, Tanka in English or Haibun, to other articles, that is, that survey contemporary English-language writings that are derived from Japanese literature.

Tristan noir (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

My problem is that you have repeatedly tried to make bizarre claims about ancient Japanese literature in your edits on Wikipedia, despite you clearly being the ignorant one (re: your wabun comment). I posted the above comment in order to express my opinion that, despite what I may have given the impression of on the other talk page, this topic still does not merit an article on Wikipedia. I need to preserve my reputation on here, and I can't be seen to have promoted the creation of an article like this. So-called "tanka prose" apparently only exists in the minds of a very small group of writers, who consistently write poorly-researched, nonsense articles about the history of so-called "tanka prose" in Japan. It is based on faulty premises, bad scholarship (I have been kind up to now, but Woodward apparently knows almost nothing about classical Japanese literature, and his writings contain some rather offensive remarks that the Japanese, despite more than a thousand years of literary criticism behind them, are unable to interpret their own literature for themselves) and prejudiced readings of proper academic literature. One cannot read the Japanese literary sources you have cited and come to the conclusion that "tanka prose" deserves its own Wikipedia article, unless one has already read a modern English work that claims such. I have made no ad hominem attacks, apart from when I accidentally used the derogatory term "fancruft" earlier (I thought it was just a standard, objective term on Wikipedia for giving undue weight to a property one is a "fan" of, and didn't realize it was considered offensive). As to your statement about "Haiku in English, Tanka in English or Haibun", it needs to be pointed out that haibun (UNLIKE "tanka prose") is an established term that has been used for a long time to refer to works of classical Japanese literature, and the Wikipedia articles on "haiku in English" and "tanka in English" exist partly in order to keep information on modern English literature from cluttering up what should be articles on classical Japanese literature. You have consistently failed to provide valid references that justify your creation of an article on so-called "tanka prose", and now you try to hide behind weasel words and faulty attributions to credible authors. The article as you have rewritten it is worded in such a manner as to obviously be attempting to justify its own existence. Just because McCullough once wrote an article about classical Japanese literature that mixes poetry and prose, it does not automatically justify referring to works of classical Japanese literature by the name anachronistic name "tanka prose". The Man'youshuu is noted partly for its extensive inclusion of non-tanka poetry, and your previous claims that works such as the Kojiki are "tanka prose" because they contain some tanka (as well as chouka, etc.) demonstrate a basic lack of knowledge of Japanese literature. Why couldn't you take my advice and just make this article about the modern English literature you claim is its focus? elvenscout742 (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I’ll refrain from a tit-for-tat response to your above tantrum. You write: I have made no ad hominem attacks, apart from when I accidentally used the derogatory term "fancruft" earlier and you immediately proceed, thereafter, to accuse a fellow editor of trying to hide behind weasel words and faulty attributions. Please do not impute bad faith without, as you admit you have not, consulting the citations. If a citation is demonstrably false (I quote your Edit Summary), then demonstrate that it is so by reference to the citation or to counter-sources. It is not sufficient merely to assert that a citation or source is “demonstrably false”; you must be ready and able to offer proof that it is so.

Tristan noir (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"Weasel words" is not a personal attack. It is an objective description used on Wikipedia for the kind of wording the 2nd-4th paragraphs of the article as you have re-written it. "[T]he ubiquity ... is widely attested", "[m]odern Japanese scholarship" (which does not refer to the Genji as diary literature, btw), "[c]ertain of these writings" are all basically weasel words. You on the other hand have called me "laughable" because I have not been able to track down your "sources" within one day. The fact is that you cite only two independent sources on Japanese literature, one of which is so old that it is out of print in its native country. I live in Japan, so it's difficult to track down the book for that reason (today I visited the Kinokuniya Shoten in Shinjuku, one of the largest bookshops in Japan, and they only had ONE book by Mr. Konishi with 日本文学 - "Japanese literature" in Japanese - in the title in stock). However, I am certain that it does not use the phrase "tanka prose" to discuss ancient Japanese literature. You have cunningly written your paragraphs in such a way that while the sources you cite do not support your claims that "tanka prose" existed in ancient Japan, the article clearly gives that impression. I am also reluctant to call your citations "sources", since you clearly came up with the information in the article first (several years ago, in fact) and found sources that appear to back up your claims much later. (The fact is that you refused to provide sources for these claims for over a year, and when the claims were removed less than two weeks ago you reverted the removal, still refusing to cite sources.)

Although I have not read your sources specifically, I have read dozens of other (more recent, well-known) books on the same topic. NONE of them use the phrase "tanka prose". I have admitted before that ancient Japanese literature often combined poetry and prose; you need to cite sources that justify using the term "tanka prose" in reference to this literature. The fact is that the works you refer to contain poetry that was not (and in the case of Kojiki and Man'youshuu could not be) called "tanka". I have no problem with an article discussing ancient Japanese prosimetra, but the title "tanka prose" is inappropriate.

Lastly, and most importantly, your rewrite of the article has violated our previous agreement. You promised twice to base the article on modern English literature and not claim that tanka prose existed in ancient Japan. I have no problem with the opening of the new article, or the latter half. But the middle portion clearly violates our previous compromise. You previously agreed not to write this material in the new article, and I am deleting it accordingly.

I hope this will be the end of this dispute.

elvenscout742 (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Elevenscout, you're making the persistant error of failing to acknowledge the independence of tanka literature in English. You keep wanting to interpret tanka literature in English by ancient Japanese standards. That's simply wrong. Tanka prose is an English-language genre that exists independently from ancient Japanese literature. The roots of the ENGLISH literature go back to ancient Japan, but it is in no way a 'Japanese' literature and is not dependent on Japanese authorities. By comparison, the United States of America has its roots in the Native American cultures that predate it and have some influence on it, but American literature is not 'Native American literature,' and attempts to define, criticize, and interpret American literature based solely on Native American aesthetics and literature would be ludicrous and wrongheaded. The modern English-language literature of tanka prose exists, and it has a body of scholarship. This scholarship does not appear in the journals dedicated to Japanese literature for the good and simple reason that it is not Japanese literature -- it is an English language literature. You might as well complain that Romanian tanka isn't for real because it isn't published in Japanese-oriented journals, either. Why would it be? It's Romanian, not Japanese.

If you challenge the facts given in the article, you need to cite counter examples to disprove them. You can't simply impugn the integrity of authors you don't agree with; that's a personal attack. Your attack on Jeffrey Woodward contains no rebuttal, merely unsubstantiated assertions. Your remarks are biased, unsupported, and perjorative. You claim to be a college graduate, but you're conducting an argument at the high school level. Wikipedia requires better. If you have evidence that contradicts the article, then by all means include it. Please elevate your discussion to the collegiate level.

As for notability; the biggest online journals that publish tanka prose have readerships of up to eighty thousand per issue. Readerships of five thousand per issue are common for online journals that publish tanka literature, including tanka prose. When you put the circulations together, the readership is tens of thousands. According, your allegation that only a tiny club reads this stuff is wrong. Wikipedia doesn't require any specific number of readers to decide if something is notable, but something that is being tens of thousands of people on a regular basis is not a mere 'club.' ~K~ (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Kujakupoet, please do not post arbitrary remarks. This is the talk page for a Wikipedia article, not a general discussion forum on the merits of tanka prose in English. Your comment gives the impression that you have not actually read the article in question and do not understand my complaints, as you and I are clearly in agreement. I have said plenty of times that my only problem is that this article claims to be about ancient Japanese literature. The previous one made blatant and obvious, unsourced claims to ancient Japanese origin, and this one, while worded more vaguely, is clearly intended to give the same (inaccurate) impression. It should be easy to understand how I came to the conclusion that the previous article was supposed to be about uta monogatari, since the article openly claimed to be about ancient Japanese literature and uta monogatari (translateable, in theory, as tanka prose-fiction) is the closest thing to a Japanese term for "tanka prose". I have no problem whatsoever with an article about modern English literature that proclaims that it is "a genre of prose literature that incorporates tanka, which is a genre of short poem originating in ancient Japan", but that is not what this article states. elvenscout742 (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

(By the way, I was not aware of the distribution figures of those journals. Shows what I know. But I must specify again my specialty is Japanese literature.) elvenscout742 (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed what seems to be a misprint in your comment, K. Did you mean to say "the biggest online journals that publish tanka prose have readerships of up to eight thousand per issue". Because otherwise your statement just below that the readership adds up to tens of thousands is a little underwhelming by comparison. Also, sales figures do not equal notability. Individual Pokemon are widely-known by a fan-base that is MUCH larger than the numbers you cite for so-called "tanka prose", and they don't get their own Wikipedia articles. The "scholarship" you claim is based around modern English tanka prose is, as I have explained above, not published in reliable SECONDARY sources, and therefore does not belong on Wikipedia. If you put an article on Wikipedia based on your readings of one or another author's work, that does not appear in reliable secondary sources, that is in violation of WP:NOR. And again, my principle problem with this article was that it focused almost exclusively on making ridiculous assertions about ancient Japan. If you want the article to include reference to this material, while at the same time focusing on modern English literature, it needs to be along the lines of Some writers (Woodward, Kei, etc.) have claimed that "tanka prose" originated in classical Japanese literature. This view, however, has not achieved mainstream acceptance in the academic community, and is contradicted by various reputable sources on classical Japanese literature, such as Donald Keene Jin'ichi Konishi. elvenscout742 (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm posting this here so it doesn't interfere with the current dispute at Talk:Haibun where TN has continued to promote his friend Woodward's works. I need to get this on the record, but I'd rather not have it interfere with a dispute I'd rather resolve diplomatically than by presenting mathematical evidence and embarrassing my opponent. Additionally, User:Kujakupoet stated above that the biggest online journals that publish tanka prose have readerships of up to eighty thousand per issue. Given that this user's Wikipedia username is the same as the Twitter and Blogspot handles of the editor of one of said "journals", M.Kei, I would be inclined to bow to his authority on this issue. However, searching Compete.com for M.Kei's own Atlas Poetica brought up less than 5,000 unique visitors over a 6-month period; it is published 3 times a year, which indicates less than 3,500 readers per issue. Woodward's Haibun Today: A Haibun & Tanka Prose Journal indicated roughly 3,000 for a similar period; it is a quarterly, which means each issue during this period was accessed roughly 1,500 times. A search for "MET Press", the publisher of most of these sources, brought up less than 4,000 over a 9-month period. Santa Fey Poetry brought up roughly 3,000 for a 7-month period. These results are US-only, but given that all of the publishers/publications, and almost all of the authors, associated with this "movement" are based in the United States, it is safe to assume that their global traffic is not forty times that of their domestic traffic. I would therefor be interested in seeing where Kujakupoet gets his figures. Putting the numbers together also doesn't seem logical, since at least some of the readership is common to all or most of them, and probably it would be fair to say most of it is. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This article still needs to be cleaned up

I removed one statement that was demonstrably wrong, but the rest of the material that I am almost certain is inaccurate is unfortunately worded extremely vaguely, and while the sources cited may or may not say what the article claims they say, they were probably taken out of context to justify the propagation of non-standard terminology. Remember that the author of this article thought not long ago that "tanka prose" was a translation of the Japanese term wabun ([1]) and that the article's existence and claims to being rooted in ancient Japanese literature were justified based on this. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Your performance in the paragraph above would be laughable, if it were not so sorry. You insist that you are almost certain of the inaccuracy of the material in question and you suggest that the sources offered were probably taken out of context. You do this while tacitly admitting that you have yet to consult the sources. As for the clumsiness of my misunderstanding in re “wabun,” which I freely admit, why refer your readers, in your newest personal attack, to an abridged version of our exchange? Why not refer them to the full exchange here, where they might easily confirm who does or does not practice the fine art of quoting out-of-context? On that page, the reader might also read your three consecutive posts of 13 Sept (1300 plus words) in which you offer numerous sweeping pronouncements about J. literature and then they might read my answer, on 14 Sept., a rebuttal that you found it convenient to ignore.Tristan noir (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Earlier today (at 12:16, 24 Sept 2012), you, Elvenscout, wrote: I have no problem with the opening of the new article, or the latter half. But the middle portion clearly violates our previous compromise. You then proceeded, while unilaterally deleting the “middle portion” of the article, to alter “the opening . . . and latter half.” I’ve reintroduced the original text at those points, with slight modification, as there was nothing controversial or problematic therein. And certainly nothing objectionable as regards Japanese literature. I retained your shifting of the sentence about tanka but cut your reference to mora/morae as it is a needless complication that is not applicable in English composition. I avoided inserting "syllable" as I can anticipate your objection to that usage. I also added to the reference to Tosa nikki in the opening a parallel reference to Genji monogatari.

Please do not attempt to construe this action as signifying that I agree with your interpretation of our earlier compromise or that I’ve acquiesced in the matter of your unilateral deletion of the “middle portion.” I consider that matter (the deleted text) still open for discussion. I would have added that I consider compromise still open for discussion, but you have demonstrated repeatedly that you have no real interest in compromise.Tristan noir (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for making edits you found contentious to the opening paragraph and the second half of this article. I did not mean to alter the meaning -- I just thought some of the sentences were a bit long and difficult to read, and other parts needed to be re-worded. Regarding the "mora" question -- I have no problem with you writing it as "5-7-5-7-7 syllables". The reason I added "morae" was that "5-7-5-7-7" alone might confuse readers (as in Five and seven? Of what?), and needed further explanation within this article. Semantics about whether "syllable" is more accurate than "mora" doesn't belong here, anyway.

With regard to the compromise, I thought this was made clear when I initially proposed it, but when I said Since the phrase "tanka prose" has no basis in Japanese literary scholarship, it is in theory acceptable to create a Wikipedia article of that title that discusses the matter purely in relation to works that have been described as tanka prose in works written by specialists. I have no problem whatsoever with you making an article at Tanka prose that mentions briefly that "tanka" originate in Japan. I don't even mind if such an article cites works that belittle or otherwise misrepresent classical Japanese literature, as long as no material that is factually inaccurate is placed on Wikipedia ([2]), and you replied This seems like a fair resolution of the matter [...] That portion of the original text that referred to the modern English phenomenon of "tanka prose," including its bibliography, will be retained as the basis for the revised article ([3]), I assumed we were both on the same page. Since the phrase tanka prose has no basis in classical Japanese literary studies, it is inappropriate to include a lengthy discussion of classical Japanese prosimetra in an article under that name. However, a brief reference to modern English tanka prose being partly inspired by classical Japanese prosimetra such as the Tosa nikki and Ise monogatari is appropriate. That is why I don't have a problem with the introduction as it is currently worded. I also don't mind the citing of articles that are not reliable as sources on Japanese literature, as long as this is a Wikipedia article about modern English literature.

My idea of a compromise when I proposed it was that I stop moaning about how Jeffrey Woodward is not a reliable source on Japanese literature and should never be cited in a Wikipedia article, and you stop implying that "tanka prose" existed in ancient Japan in the Wikipedia mainspace. This way we are both giving something up, but we both ultimately get what we want (an article on modern English tanka prose is what you wanted, right?).

Are we clear now? I hope this is the end of this silly dispute. I'll drop the dispute resolution request if you can accept this compromise now. :-)

elvenscout742 (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see where the misunderstanding came in now! When I said "if you accept this compromise now", the word now meant now that I have clarified the meaning of "compromise". I did NOT mean you have to accept the compromise right now. But I need to specify again, I have already given you well over a week. elvenscout742 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated matter, a word of advice: when citing specific edits made in the past, it is a good idea to use "diffs". Giving the time and date of an edit I made is of no use in an argument, since users operate in different time zones (I am guessing you and I are two such users). elvenscout742 (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm at work presently and cannot properly assess your long note above and the terms (or perhaps "new terms"?) of the compromise you offer. I will review your note this evening and reply at that time. Meanwhile, thanks for your assistance in the matter immediately above of employing "diffs" as well as offering your remarks, in your edits I believe, as regards the WikiJapan style manual. I'm still finding my way around Wikipedia and, of course, this is information that is helpful and that I should know.Tristan noir (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

They are not new terms. This is not a new compromise. It is exactly the same compromise, presented in the same words as last time (as a quotation from me, and a following one from you, complete with diffs).

Also, it seems from your recent rather aggressive, ad hominem statement elsewhere (in which you do not cite a single specific instance of me misrepresenting facts or being uncivil), that you may no longer want to accept the compromise as you earlier did? If so, and if you are going to drag the dispute resolution request to its conclusion, I need to point a few things out here first:

--Less than 24 hours ago, you reverted (again) my attempt to include in the article a reference to how "tanka prose" is a modern English movement, and did not exist in ancient Japan.

--You have clearly attempted to word this article so as to imply that "tanka prose", despite the phrase not existing in Japanese, and not being used once in reliable secondary sources on Japanese literature, originated in ancient Japan.

--I have been far too polite in this dispute so far, in dealing with your ad hominem attacks and your attempts to force POV views onto various Wikipedia articles.

--But frankly, it is clear that the sources you based in the previous version of your article are completely ignorant of Japanese literature, and the new version as you would have it worded makes the exact same claims.

--The new version contained an extensive (over half the article, in terms of actual original content, and not just lists of book titles) description of "early Japanese prosimetra".

--The new version also claimed "McCullough" and "Konishi" as the sources of these claims, despite your unwillingness to cite them for over a year beforehand.

--Your present refusal to provide specific quotations to demonstrate to those of us who don't have access to these incredibly obscure sources how they validate your claims of "tanka prose" existing in ancient Japan is evidence enough that you have taken them out of context.

--You have only referred to them after the fact in order to back up your prejudiced assertions. This shows that they are not true "sources" for these claims.

--Konishi, while in theory a valid source, is sorely out-of-date -- his book, as far as I can gather, is in the same spirit as the first two volumes of Keene ("Seeds in the Heart" & "A World Within Walls").

--Keene is an English source, and is therefore preferable to a translated version of Konishi. Even if you provided quotations, it would be unclear if the terminology used in the English version was standard, or the invention of Miner, or of Konishi himself.

--Keene is also a much more recent source　(40 years, approximately)

--Keene, despite writing in English for an English-speaking audience, is widely available and read in Japan, in Japanese translation, and his books are also widely read in Western university courses on Japanese literature.

--Konishi on the other hand, is extremely difficult to access, even in his native Japan.

--Keene does not use the phrase "tanka prose" once, and I have seen no evidence that McCullough, Miner or Konishi differ from him on that.

--Wikipedia is not a place for original research on works of fiction that have not been discussed in reliable, secondary sources.

--Wikipedia requires exceptional sources for exceptional claims like the ones you have made repeatedly.

--Wikipedia is not a democracy -- just because you and one other user seem to agree, and I am alone in my disagreement, it doesn't mean you "win" or I "lose". You need to provide reliable secondary sources, and not demonstrate you know next to nothing about Japanese language and literature.

Additionally, since I have gone too long without laying out my complete list of grievances with your use of Woodward as a source, I invite you, and anyone else who might be reading, to examine the material I present here. The wording on the page I have just linked to is far less polite than anything I have used on these talk pages, but it cannot be construed as a personal attack, as it is all rooted plainly in the writings and sayings of Woodward on comparison with legitimate Japanese scholarship.

elvenscout742 (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

With WP:NPA#WHATIS in mind, and particularly as regards the language therein that touches upon “speculating on the real-life identity,” you may wish to revisit your personal page here and promptly remove, from your Conclusion, that parenthetical aside that begins “assuming they are not the same person.” You are an experienced Wikipedia editor, as you’ve previously informed me; I’m confident that you will understand the seriousness of this matter.Tristan noir (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood the policy. Threats to OUT another user (when one knows their real world identity) is a serious offense. Speculating, when it relates to a clear conflict of interest, is acceptable. The serious offense is outing, which I have not done either way. Speculating when it is pointing out a potential conflict of interest that you yourself may be involved with one or more of the authors you cite (you seem to be exceptionally concerned with their copyright, for instance, and Kujakupoet wrote of "us" -- apparently you and him -- we're poets, not historical re-enactors, dismissing the vast majority of legitimate historical scholarship, BTW). Also, again, your response focuses exclusively on my behaviour on my personal user page. You are dismissing every single point I make about content, which constitutes an ad hominem attack. Note that I have assumed good faith throughout, which was actually how this whole problem started ([4]). Since I specify on the page in question that I am assuming [you] are not the same person, this is not a personal attack, or an outing. Please check here. I have not included any personal information about you (OR Woodward) on my page without your consent. I didn't even mention you by name (i.e., Tristan noir) or link to your talk page. The opening and concluding sections of that page were only included in the context of you violating and refusing to allow to remain in place the compromise I proposed over two weeks ago. If and when you re-accept the compromise I will, in good faith, remove the material in that page that is not an objective criticism. Otherwise, against the background of this dispute (in which you obviously are too attached to "your" article and refuse to cite sources that are not primary sources written by Woodward, Kei, Prime, etc.) makes it necessary to point out why I created the page for context. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Compromise?

Earlier today, in response to your offer to drop the dispute resolution request on the condition that I accept this compromise now, I notified you that I was unable to study your terms closely at that time but that I would get back to you once I had done so. I intended to provide a direct answer this evening. However, instead of allowing me an opportunity, in good faith, to review what you had written, you posted the note immediately above in which you continue to lobby, not for a compromise, but for an agreement on my part that while the article as you wrote it is in clear violation of those terms, it is not after my edits. Your goal, instead of compromise, appears to be to assign blame.

In a similar spirit, after posting your offer of compromise above (at 12:18, 25 September 2012), you located a reference to “tanka prose” at Tanka (poetry) (at 15:26, 25 September 2012) and chose to remove it. I have no complaint with you removing that reference from that article but it is noteworthy, in your Edit Summary here, that you wrote I have already *painstakingly* disproven this statement elsewhere. While it is true that various works of prose that incorporated *waka* existed, this term is gibberish. I’m not certain what you have proven (you make many assertions in many places but offer few references) but with your choice of the pejorative word gibberish, and this only a few hours after purportedly seeking an amicable agreement, you demonstrate again that your insistence upon being “right” outweighs any real desire for compromise. Again, I have no problem with the particular edit in question. I would ask only what might motivate someone truly interested in agreement to offer such a provocation. You might have made the edit quietly and no one would have objected.

I had hoped you might be patient, allow “cooler heads to prevail,” and wait for my response. But I see now that this is not so and, indeed, that you have now edited and added a great deal of new material to the briefer version of your above post even before I was able to post this reply! In such a climate, how can compromise be possible? If you want to agree with me that we both tone it down for a couple of days, allowing each of us to reflect, I’ll be willing to discuss the article with you. However, if you continue to make aggressive statements, biased edits and personal attacks, I’ll forego all further discussion, renew my own edits and allow matters to take their course where you have referred them with your dispute resolution request.Tristan noir (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I did not mean "accept this compromise NOW or I won't drop the dispute resolution request". I meant "if you accept this compromise, in your own time, I will drop the resolution request, as it would no longer be necessary".

I would also appreciate it if you would focus on the substance of the article in these discussions. More than 1/3 of the above comment basically says "I don't mind your edit itself, but the wording of your edit summary offended me". And the edit was to a completely separate article, so your comment is basically aimed solely at me. When I write those comments, I am not attacking you personally. I did not even intend for you to see that. I meant it for all the other editors who have not seen my comments here and elsewhere. It is generally frowned upon to delete material from articles without saying anything. (Also, I should point out, that while my rhetoric has at times been fiery, I have never called you -- as opposed to your edits -- "laughable".)

You can have as much time as you like to consider my compromise proposal. I have already given you over a week, though, as there is no difference whatsoever between what I proposed then and what I continue to request now.

However, I am getting very tired of trying to convince you using through logical debate of something you are clearly not willing to accept, so if you continue to try to insert bizarre claims about classical Japanese literature into this or other articles I will have to take this to dispute resolution or elsewhere. Please note, given that I have the overwhelmingly amount of evidence and scholarship behind me, I would be justified in using the word "ridiculous" and other, much more colourful, phrases to describe the material in this article, but for civility I have constantly limited myself to the word "bizarre". (The few exceptions to this are, by and large, in my private userspace.)

And in case any doubt remained that I have the bulk of scholarship behind me, here follows a brief list of reliable sources on classical Japanese literature that do not use the phrase "tanka prose" or any comparable phrase (except uta monogatari, since uta is basically the native Japanese word for tanka, and a monogatari is an extended prose narrative):

Inoue Muneo & Mukawa Chūichi 2005 (4th edition). Shin-pen: Waka no Kaishaku to Kanshō Jiten ("A New Dictionary of the Appreciation and Interpretation of Waka"). Tokyo: Kasamashoin.

Keene, Donald 1999 (paperback edition). Seeds in the Heart: A History of Japanese Literature, Volume 1. New York: Columbia University Press.

Konishi Jin'ichi 2012 (27th edition). Nihon-Bungaku-shi ("A History of Japanese Literature"). Tokyo: Kodansha.

McCullough, Helen 1985. Kokin Wakashu: The First Imperial Anthology of Japanese Poetry. Palo Alto: Stanton University Press.

Murasaki Shikibu 2003. The Tale of Genji (translated by Royall Tyler). London: Penguin.

Porter, William N. 1981. The Tosa Diary by Ki no Tsurayuki (Bilingual Edition). Tokyo: Tuttle Publishing.

Sei Shōnagon 2006. The Pillow Book (translated by Meredith McKenney). London: Penguin.

Readers will notice that I have cited better-known and more widely available books written (or translated with introduction and notes) by both Konishi and McCullough, and no one has demonstrated that either of these authors have ever used the phrase "tanka prose" in their writings. Any more questions?

elvenscout742 (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Must you insist, in every exchange, upon having the last word? And must you again, as you have done above, stoke the fire?Tristan noir (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

When did I say I wanted the last word? You are still making ad hominem arguments and completely ignoring the substance of my arguments. Please learn to focus on the subject of the article. I have been working to reach a compromise for two weeks now, and you have just ignored every point I make in order to advance a POV agenda. And also ignored when I try to help you use Wikipedia properly, as you continually refuse to use DIFFs. elvenscout742 (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I object to your proposed deletion of this article and direct your attention to WP:ATD: "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first. . ." I have accordingly removed your tag requesting deletion as allowed per WP:DEL-PROCESSES.

Your dispute is obviously one over page content as you, in previously referring our protracted disagreement for Dispute Resolution, cited a serious dispute over content as your reason for doing so. Before taking that initiative, you offered this editor a compromise which would retain the very page (in its current version) that you now seek to delete. That request for resolution has subsequently been removed from the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, whether by your request or by the action of another party.

It has not been possible to achieve a meaningful compromise to this date, because you have repeatedly offered a compromise with your left hand while simultaneously pressing your old attacks with your right. Such dissimulation raises serious questions regarding your good faith.Tristan noir (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

13 October 2012 AFD recommendation

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanka prose, where it was recommended by the closing administrator that Tanka prose Tanka prose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) be merged into Tanka in English. The redirect Tanka prose has been proposed for deletion as not needing to be merged at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_13#Tanka_prose, so the amount to be merged, according to user:elvenscout742 may be small to none. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe I didn't notice this before!

This article in its original form was a word-for-word copy of Woodward's A Brief Note Concerning Tanka Prose (published 2 weeks earlier). Right down to their both containing a pre-publication reference to Woodward's book! This was either plagiarism, or a very clear link between the creator of the term "tanka prose" and the SPA trying to promote the term via Wikipedia. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)