Talk:Fu (poetry)

Re.: Superlatives
Regarding Wikipedia protocol, use of superlatives should be considered with caution. I'm not sure why the guidelines seem to consider passive voice a greater problem. An example is the statement "Sima Xiangru is the most famous fu writer of Chinese history." Is he? Certainly sources suggest that Sima is particularly associated with the fu form of literature, and no one more so. And, who would argue his importance in the development of the fu form of literature? However, is Sima Xiangru a more famous fu writer than Li Bo, who also wrote well-known fu? And, how important is it to have a "first" or a "most famous", in a general article? Sure, sources are full of such claims; for example, "Du Fu is the most famous poet in Chinese history". But, is this superlative approach the best way to write an encyclopedia? Just saying, Dcattell (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well put! The superlative works best when used in moderation, when it quotes or reports scholarly reputation or fame in China ("Prof Foo says..."); or when it is quantifiable ("the largest anthology"). I'd be glad to see you comb out weak superlatives or anchor them in a reliable source. Almost always there's a way to do it, though maybe you are offering a general observation not a Call to Action? Is there a guideline which we could invoke? Maybe just WP:PEACOCK? ch (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think most reasonable editors would agree that the superlative is unwarranted when it is demonstrably false, and warranted (within stylistic reason) when it is demonstrably true. Before offering haphazard criticism of the use of a superlative on a certain point, an editor should take the time to examine its occurrences in the sources the article cites.  Case in point – in this instance, User:Dcattell has questioned the assertion that Sima Xiangru is the greatest of all the fu poets, which I find bizarre: it's like questioning whether reliable sources agree that William Shakespeare is the greatest English playwright, or that Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time.  All of the sources cited in this article that mention Sima Xiangru, including Idema and Haft, Gong Kechang, Kenneth Ho, and Martin Kern, mention either that Sima was the greatest fu writer, perfected the genre, or established the genre of his own accord.  It may indeed be wise to tone this reference down in the prose, and I will take you two at your word that this is a problem on Wikipedia (I haven't noticed it), but let's be careful of changing wording drawn directly from the major sources in the field, particularly when an editor is very well-versed in said field.  If one of you wishes to suggest an alternative phrasing, now, I'd be happy to hear it.  Should it be specified that it refers to the "grand fu" era itself?  Or do you wish to change it to a simple reference to him establishing the fu as an independent, respectable genre in and of itself?    White Whirlwind  咨   00:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The reference to Sima is sound: "Unquestionably the most famous fu poet is Sima..." (Idema & Haft p.98), but the greatest player in the history of basketball is Bill Russell. ch (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a prime example of one of the most common errors I see among Wikipedia editors (User:CWH's page even discusses it in great detail): editors just make blanket statements – "the greatest player in the history of basketball is Bill Russell" – that are based on personal opinion and are not supported by the reliable sources. At best it's a form of WP:Original Research, and at worst it's, well, I don't know, but something worse.  Now, as to this particular answer, the only recent work I know of that addresses this particular example in an analytic way is Simmons (2012 [2010]), and I've never heard any expert question his placement of Russell and Jordan.   White Whirlwind  咨   22:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sima Xiangru was a famous poet who wrote fu. Li Tai Bo was a famous poet who wrote fu. Li Tai Bo is more famous a poet than Sima Xiangru. Therefore, Li Tai Bo is a more famous poet who wrote fu than Sima Xiangru. If Li Tai Bo is the most famous poet (as some sources suggest), then Li Tai Bo is the most famous poet who wrote fu. I'd just say "stet", but I like  White Whirlwind  咨   's suggestions. Dcattell (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Wasn't there a time when The Great Hunt fu was Tai Bo's most famous "poem"?


 * So, really you're not concerned with the superlative itself, but more semantics of the sentence: you wish to be clear that Sima wasn't the most famous poet who wrote fu, since Li Baak is probably the most famous Chinese poet and has some surviving works that are descended from classical fu. I don't think many readers would make that misunderstanding unless they were very basic learners of English, but in any case a simple rewording can solve the problem.   White Whirlwind  咨   22:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)