Talk:Fujiwara no Teika

No actual discussion? Who can think of such a thing...

Well I have aligned the cutesy boxes to center as per request. :) --Cat out 08:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody wishes to discuss it with me... :( What is the sound of one person discussing on talk page? --maru (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A monologue. :P

I'd love to discuss, but this really is out of my field. I suck at poems even in my native language.

--Cat out 13:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

GA Review "On Hold"

I've been looking this article over, and while I think it can meet GA status, I've got a few things I'd like to address before that happens. The biggest issue regards the references section, and the second issue regards jargon.

The references section is huge. This is a good thing, but large references sections need to be carefully managed. As it stands, the section is almost unusably large. There is no way to glance at it and see what the primary references are, and the frequent use of endnotes (comments) makes it hard to identify sources.

• Remove duplicate sources. By using the name attribute of the ref tag, you can re-use a reference over and over. When you define a reference like this, <ref name="blah">Author, book, blah</ref>, then you can reuse it by simply using this tag, <ref name="blah"/>. An example would be 72 and 73, which both reference the same work. With the above method, both notes would direct to 72.
• Consider separating endnotes (comments) from primary sources (references). When they are mixed together in such great number, they can dilute the actual references. There are several ways to handle this, but I'd recommend using Harvard citations for actual cited works, and the footnote (<ref></ref>) system for Notes and comments. That way users can quickly see the difference between a note and a reference, as well as allowing you to use the same source over and over. To use the handy Harvard reference template, you'd do the following (actual example paragraph):

Example paragraph

Minamoto Ienaga was apparently detached from being Go-Toba's personal secretary to instead serve as the secretary for the compilation committee; his and Teika's diaries have survived, affording a unprecedently good view of the inner workings of how an imperial anthology was created) were chosen to compile the Shin Kokinshū in the eleventh month of 1201 (Brower 1972, p. 18).

As if the honor of helping to compile the Shin Kokinshū and of having a remarkable 46 of his poems (including three from the Shoji hyakushu) included were not enough, Teika would later be appointed in 1232 by the Retired Emperor Go-Horikawa to compile - by himself - the ninth Imperial Anthology, the Shin chokusenshu (c. 1235; "New Imperial Collection") (Brower 1972, p. 46). Teika was the first person to have ever been a compiler of two Imperial anthologies.

References

• Brower, Robert H. (1972), "'Ex-Emperor Go-Toba's Secret Teachings': Go-Toba no in Gokuden", Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 32: 5–70 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |Issue= (help)

The disadvantage of Harvard style is that it adds more stuff in the text. However, it allows people to quickly see what info came from Brower as opposed to any other source. When one source is used over and over, it is easier to remember a name, than it is to remember a number.

I know it seems like it would be a complex change, but I'd give you a hand with it if thats a direction you want to go.

The other issue with the article is a combination of jargon, and tone. In the example paragraph above, we see, "As if the honor of helping ... wasn't enough." The article takes a sort of 'proud' stance. It sounds like a professor talking (which is good in many ways, but adds 'figures of speech' that aren't necessary when you aren't addressing students). I'd rewrite that paragraph like this:

In addition to receiving the honor of compiling the Shin Kokinshū and of having a remarkable 46 of his poems (including three from the Shoji hyakushu) included, Teika would later be appointed in 1232 by the Retired Emperor Go-Horikawa to compile the ninth Imperial Anthology, the Shin chokusenshu (c. 1235; "New Imperial Collection"). Teika was the first person to have been a compiler of two Imperial anthologies.

In general, only slight changes in tone would be necessary. Also, look for unneeded words and phrases. The exercises here might help: User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

If you are willing to put some effort into these things, I'd be happy to help out. This is an impressive big of work, and I'd like to see it meet the GA qualifications. Let me know if you need clarification. Phidauex 18:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Harvard references

I went ahead and added a separate References section with just a list of the references, for easy viewing. They are in the Harvard template format so that transitioning to a Harvard-style referencing will be easier, should it be deemed necessary. Phidauex 20:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Phidauex, I'm not sure what the point of your suggestions is. I'm referencing this article with quotes, and the works are simply there so the quotes can be looked up and verified. Why would Harvard referencing help there? --maru (talk) contribs 00:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

GA failed

The article spent a week on hold (where IMO it shouldn't have been anyway) and the required improvements have not been made (the "Notes" section is grotesquely massive), and so it is automatically failed. Moreschi 12:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. You know, back when GA was just starting, I warned them that they'd have to watch out or else GA would become a rigid and crappy informal version of FAC. Personally, I'm convinced I was right about that; I mean, Matsuo Bashō is a GA but this isn't? --maru (talk) contribs 00:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, sorry that I took the time to review the article and give suggestions. How crappy of me. Please don't take this personally, there is no article ownership. If you think another article shouldn't be a GA, then list it on the GA disputes page. And btw, if it shouldn't be a GA, you need reasons beyond, "My article isn't, and its way better than this one." Phidauex 00:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My point was twofold:

1. I couldn't see the benefit of your Harvard referencing, and as far as I could make out, it would entail throwing out my painstakingly gathered quotes. Which would be a Bad Thing.
2. Grading systems can be judged by whether they are even consistent and whether they are accurate. If A is better than B and a given system ends up saying the opposite, then that's not a good system; I think it is obvious that this article is a lot better than Basho. So yes, that was a valid criticism of GA, and one that needs to be made since people apparently are taking GA seriously. --maru (talk) contribs 18:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue with the referencing isn't that it isn't Harvard, that was just a suggestion on a way to manage the references. The issue, fundementally, is that the reference notes list is convoluted, and difficult to use, because it is so long. Primary sources are not easily identified, because they are mixed together with endnotes, and you can't tell if any one source is more used than any other. Harvard referencing means that you have one reference for the book, and then each individual citation notes the page number, instead of having the same book referenced 15 times. There is more than one way to solve that problem, Harvard references being one of them, but the fact remains that it is a problem. If you don't believe me, try to get through another FAC with it. I'm not suggesting you get rid of any quotes or references, just change how it is managed, to make it more usable. Phidauex 19:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So... the Harvard referencing {{Harv|Brower|1972|p=46}} stuff would be put inside/after the actual <ref></ref>s, and the bibliographic information remvoed from the refs? --maru (talk) contribs 01:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Another way to handle the references, if you don't like full Harvard, and I don't, would be to add

Donald Keene, Travelers of a Hundred Ages: The Japanese as Revealed Through 1,000 Years of Diaries, 1st edition. Published by Henry Holt and Company, 1989, ISBN 0-8050-1655-4

to the reference list, and make the present footnote 7 simply <ref>Keene, p.410</ref>; at this point you would discover that footnotes 7 and 8 are the same footnote. There is a way to unite them in WP:FOOT, if you want. This means listing bibliographic details once. JCScaliger 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad scheme, but how does it handle multiple works by the same author? ex. I use at least two of Keen's works, Seeds in the Heart and Travelers of a Hundred Ages. --maru (talk) contribs 01:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So I see; I came here from Recent changes. The usual way would be Keene 1989 and Keene 1999; but you could use Keene, Seeds and Keene, Travelers. If Travelers of a Hundred Ages is actually an anthology, you could even use Keene and Travelers of a Hundred Ages; anything, as long as your tags are short, clear, and unambiguous. JCScaliger 01:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If you go by date, and have two works by the same author in the same year, call them Keene 1999a and Keene 1999b; just make sure your bibliography says which is which. JCScaliger 01:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright then. I think I'll go with that system once I get the time. --maru (talk) contribs 02:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

When you are interested in GA again, let me know; and I'll proof this. JCScaliger 02:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Jakuren

The dates given are 1139-1202. Is this correct? It makes for an odd family to have a foster-brother 33 years older than yourself; and a man who lived to 63 does not have his career cut tragically short unless some non-fatal total disaster happened to him. If so, what? JCScaliger 16:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

1139 to 1202 is right, exactly what Brower says in his study of the Gokuden; as for the timing, "He was adopted by Fujiwara no Shunzei when Shunzei's younger brother "retired from the world".", as Jakuren says. And it's not too surprising that he might have begun his career as a poet late since he was kind of busy with the aristocrat and monk things; remember also you had to be fairly old to be at all respectable. --maru (talk) contribs 19:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Senior male

Did Teika's eldest brother die young? If so, when? JCScaliger 16:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't know. He's never mentioned, except very much in passing. --maru (talk) contribs 19:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Political intrigue

I don't understand this paragraph;

Minamoto no Michichika (d. 1202) had insinuated himself into Imperial circles through Go-Toba's former nursemaid; with this leverage, Michichika's adopted daughter (the then Shogun's daughter, who had decided to marry his daughter off to the Emperor, using Michichika as a go-between - contrary to the Shogun's usual policy if favoring Kujo no Kanezane. The Shogun's lack of confidence allowed Michichika to push Go-Toba into firing Kanezane as kampaku in 1196[16]) became Go-Toba's concubine (making Michichika the Retired Emperor Go-Toba's father in law), and she bore him his first heir in 1195; the shame of this usurpation led Go-Toba's first wife, Ninshi, to retire from the court. As Ninshi was the daughter of the Kujō's leader Kujo no Kanezane, the Kujō's influence in court diminished considerably, even to the extent of Kanezane and Yoshitsune (d. 1206; once the regent and prime minister) [17]being driven from the court in 1196;[18]with the diminution of their influence, so dimmed Teika's prospects. Teika expressed his disappointment through poetry, such as this example, written when he was "passed over for promotion in the spring list" in 1187 (he would eventually be promoted in 1190, but as his good and encouraging friend Saigyo died that year, it was cold comfort):

Please explain; what happened? who intrigued and with whom? JCScaliger 17:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Dispute over

Article has been relisted by a two to four vote, (I counted the two people up above who said it should be failed) archived results here: Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 5 Homestarmy 13:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! JCScaliger 23:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Automatic addition of "class=GA"

A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, _BOT Giggabot (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Fujiwara no Teika/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Start GA reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • References are to print sources, assume good faith

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Sources appear reliable.

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • correctly licensed and tagged

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • captioned

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • A well written and researched article. I removed one deadlink in the EL section *Hyakunin isshu-(Public domain translation online) Jezhotwells (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Just looking at this page for other reasons (see my last edit) and saw this. While in this case it probably wasn't "wrong", "References are to print sources, assume good faith" is a terrible interpretation of the policy. AGF is for user behaviour -- it does not mean we assume all sources are reliable, representative of up-to-date scholarship, and accurately represented. I very much worry about the precedent set by "reassessments" (and "assessments") like the above... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fujiwara no Teika. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303193542/https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/182368464/japanese-literature/1972-brower-exemperorgotobassecretteachings.pdf to https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/182368464/japanese-literature/1972-brower-exemperorgotobassecretteachings.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/jisei/ogura.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303193701/http://homepage3.nifty.com/silver-moon/teika/teika-e.htm to http://homepage3.nifty.com/silver-moon/teika/teika-e.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fujiwara no Teika. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303185234/https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/182368464/japanese-literature/1985-brower-fujiwarateikasmaigetsusho.pdf to https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/182368464/japanese-literature/1985-brower-fujiwarateikasmaigetsusho.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Fujiwara no Teika

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Numerous uncited sections. I also think the amount and length of block quotes should be reduced. Z1720 (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.