Talk:Haiku

Article about Haiku
Not sure if it fits, but I found, from Look Japan], https://web.archive.org/web/20020322194307/http://www.lookjapan.com/LBsc/99JulCul.html WhisperToMe (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * a Greek comment about the indescribable experiencing some haiku generate:
 * http://archive.fo/KxQGH

What is the purpose of this article?
I'm here because over the decades I've been stunned and amazed by haiku, the depth in so few words, and I thought, I'd like to try making a few or something. After reading this; no longer. Here's why, a quote from above:

"This article is for ENGLISH readers, and for a general public at that, and editors should keep that in the forefronts of their minds when they write or edit. It is recommended Wikipedia policy to present a general summary of the article in the opening sentences. Too often, writers take this to mean that all the minutiae of the theme has to telegraphed there, and that any small concession to general usage must be avoided at all cost. As a result, the reader is discouraged from perusing what remains. "

Bingo! Technical articles like this are Wikipedia's worst problem; experts 1) think a list of truisms is an explanation, and 2) fearing making a technically untrue statement 3) use such abstract (and vague) language and 4) since the meaning is so obvious to them, don't understand they are also describing 100 other possible things. It seems they also 5) think being an expert somehow makes them a good teacher, and hence 6) don't spend the required VERY HARD WORK needed for good teaching AND communication. Any child can talk, it's easy, right?

Do the editors seriously think the general public comes here to see long strings of Japanese characters and a lesson in Japanese history? ...in the lede section!??? I saw the term "self gratification" above and had to chuckle. "Lack of empathy," or failure to "target the audience" are more polite, —but "self absorbed" is not out of the question. For example; everybody here seems to agree 1) "cutting" is a key concept and 2) is a poor/useless term/description, 3) yet the term remains, unexplained/untranslated. Here's a suggestion.  Forget using a single term, and do some hard work, aka good writing, give an explanation.  Examples or complexity might be needed.  But handle it.

Of the sample poems, (which I was looking forward to as the meat,) only Old Pond made sense to me. Why do other sample poems use unexplained proper Japanese nouns and reference (other?) meaningless Japanese folklore and cultural presumptions? Why do I need those and full, advanced understanding of extremely nuanced linguistic terms to grasp the general construction rules and structures, etc? That just looks uppity and insults poor ignorant undeserving me. Who is the target audience!!?? Again, what is the purpose of this article?  --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:6C37:E6B3:5E64:776E (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Just Saying
 * See Purpose. And Be bold. = paul2520 (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

A haiku is often a three line poem that consists of a phrase and a fragment where two of the lines comprise the phrase and the other line is the fragment. The fragment is either in the first or third lines.

Haiku are written in 17 syllables or less - preferably less according to the many online reputable sites. Haiku in English work the best around 10 to 12 syllables, otherwise they can become too wordy and  this can cloud the image.

These days a haiku captures one or two moments by using clear and vivid images...roses evoke spring, fallen leaves relate to autumn, etc). The poets  go outdoors and observe their surroundings; they write down images  to capture a succinct scene. A reader should be able to read the haiku and "see" the images from the words. It's challenging. Basically a haiku is an unfinished poem - the readers interpret what it means by putting the images together.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.250.85 (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations of Literary Study
— Assignment last updated by Marisamasanchan (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Italicizing Japanese Words
The article is not consistent in italicizing Japanese words: sometimes they are italicized, sometimes they are not. What rule do we follow -- italicize or not? LaivineOrodrim (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that the poetic terms are not italicized, because they are being used as English words that refer to Japanese poetic forms. The manual of style says to italicize foreign words. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, I'm the Wikipedian-in-residence at Brigham Young University. I'll be trying to improve parts of this page over the next month or so. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or concerns. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)