Talk:Haiku in English

GFDL

How is GFDL attribution being preserved for this article? --Jeremyb (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Pls expand your question. In what sense does the question pertain to this article rather than all others?--UserUser:TalkTalk (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Consensus is determined through discussion; I removed Hackett because the section title was "Notable haiku poets" - notability on wikipedia a specific thing. Also, per WP:ALSO, the see also generally does not duplicate links already embedded in the body text, hence my removal of haiku, which is in the lead. Hokku was in the history subsection. The short descriptions are only needed if the relevance is not readily apparent, and Jewish haiku seems pretty self-explanatory. The implied criticism that I'm stupid in the edit summary isn't exactly thrilling to me either. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 23:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody called you 'stupid' or implied it, so please refrain from getting personal. If an editor is unaware of Hackett's notability (whether or not there is yet an article here about him), then that clearly does speak volumes about their level of informedness regarding this subject. That is not meant as a personal attack, merely an objective observation. Is it your position that, no matter how objectively notable, unless there is already such an article, a poet may not be so described? On the face of it, that position is counter-intuitive, so please justify it.

The term "Jewish haiku" is not self-explanatory, since haiku are not generally known for holding religious beliefs. In fact, the term relates not precisely to haiku at all, but to "poetic parodies with a Jewish flavor, in 5-7-5 form" as was made clear in the additional phrase you saw fit to delete. Why did you do this?

And why did you change the description of Scifaiku to claim that it is a form of haiku rather than pseudo-haiku? And why did you remove the relationship of renku to haiku by changing the wording to describe it as merely an 'antecedent'?

While I welcome many of your edits, particularly some of those which bring the article in line with WP guidelines, those I highlight above appear bizarre and seem to defy logic. There has been plenty of discussion covering the contents of this article in the one from which this recently split. Kindly justify the above.--Yumegusa (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In which case, be aware that I read it as implying that I'm stupid, and now too informed on this. But irrespective, the James William Hackett now exists and I've added it to the list. Notability is not objective, it's subjective, and I still think Hackett is of dubious notability based on what I found. But I won't bother justifying it, since it's now there. I've not read the haiku talk page, and was bold. I think the Jewish haiku is pretty self-explanatory (if of dubious notability if not an outright neologism). The renku, based on the lead, appears adequately summarized. Considering haiku is essentially nature poetry among its other attributes, I also think the summary of scifaiku is an adequate contrast. But I'm not an expert and don't really care - these are my opinions as both a wikipedian and a neophyte reader. I see no need for extra qualification of the see alsos beyond what's there. My actions seem quite logical to me, but I've reached the limits of my knowledge, expertise and wikification, so I'm leaving the page and unwatchlisting it. Do what you like. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 01:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think user WLU came to the right decision having left this page. His view that James William Hackett, arguably the best known contemporary haiku poet outside Japan, "is of dubious notability" says it all. Frankly, I found user WLU's edits hasty and not very helpful. I had to lose my time today restoring some info that was unjustifiably removed. The links that could (or maybe should) have been removed - references to scifaiku and Jewish haiku, which have nothing to do with real haiku - are still there. I suggest that we remove them altogether. Any other views? --Badvibes101 (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:SEEALSO the section may include links "only peripherally related" to the article subject, so I think the two you mentioned should stay. That other editor was correct inasmuch as it also says that articles already linked in the article body should not be included.--Yumegusa (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

But it does also say "whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense" and I think the five that are there now are about right.--Yumegusa (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's keep them; I have no objections. --Badvibes101 (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good article topic that could be a great article. It does, however, need more sources and a reference section to meet with article standards Mrathel (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "The links that could (or maybe should) have been removed - references to scifaiku and Jewish haiku, which have nothing to do with real haiku" Yumegusa I agree they should be REMOVED. It opens the door for other and every type of stylized haiku that may feel their group needs be represented as haiku rather than defining haiku in it true form. These are really referred to as "pseudohaiku" the examples are endless and the list on the Haiku Wiki page could get out of hand to include: Spamku (about cans of spam) Honku (cars) zombieku (zombies). These folks may be calling them haiku, but they are really variations in haiku form (mostly for comedic purposes), but NOT poems of the haiku genre. And, some of the parodies could be classified as senryu (which is still an art) or zappai, but most are not and remain really "pseudohaiku" NOT "haiku" So, "Danger Will Robinson" this is leaving an opening for a lot of these "pseudohaiku" to bombard the wiki page. To make everyone happy, there could be a link a "pseudohaiku" wiki page, that could keep references to scifaiku and Jewish haiku and all of these kind of poetry together, maybe?? Because there are a lot of these "pseudohaiku" books out there and they want to highlight their work, that what I see. 76.99.223.40 (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SEEALSO. Per WP guidelines, links to such peripherally related articles are appropriate within the See Also section. --Yumegusa (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Length and breath

Editor Saucermoon (Talk | contribs) has given us the following edited sentence: "The average length of the haiku appearing in the main English-language journals is about 10-12 syllables" supported by two refs. Of the two, Higginson & Harter 1985 p.102 makes no mention of English-language haiku journals, although the authors expound there on what they consider the most appropriate length. The other source, Wakan, is a book for children, which by definition is bound to simplify - hardly appropriate for our purposes here. I don't have the book to hand, so would ask the editor to provide the text in question. In any case, a book published 15 years ago can hardly be viewed as a reliable source for this information, given that the majority of English-language haiku have been published after 1993.

Similarly, Wakan is cited to support the claim that "current haiku poets (haijin) are more concerned with" their haiku being expressed in one breath. Did Wakan poll "current haiku poets" about their concerns? This appears highly dubious. Again, Saucermoon, please quote the text you are citing, and explain the rationale of using a children's book from 15 years ago to support sweeping statements regarding current haiku poets' concerns.--Yumegusa (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your suggestions. I will try to help with this article, as some of the discussions are about pseudo haiku vs. real haiku and the who's who of haiku. As English- language haiku is just making it's bid for inclusion into the poetry scene (trying to get recognized in mainstream poetic journals like the New Yorker and published by major book companies) major works are hard to site for these specific areas in question: one-breath, syllable length, and show don't tell. That whole statement might have to be revised using the newer books by Bruce Ross, Lee Gurga, Jane Reichhold, and Abigale Freedman on "how to haiku" all written in the 21st century. Haiku has been written and published in many forms, from one word (2 syllable 'tundra') to five or even six lines, and all over the page for concrete. For what's being published today, one might have to go directly to on-line sites (Simply Haiku, The Heron's Nest, Vancouver Cherry Blossom Festival, Red Moon Press and not pseudo haiku sites like www.poetry.com) and the wikipedia sites of haiku poets (William J. Higginson, Cor van den Heuvel, Lenard Moore, Jim Kacian, etc.). As soon as I acquire the other books, I'll make some citations. See the main haiku site for more names associated with the genre (John Stevenson, Peggy Lyles, Ferris Gilli, LeRoy Gorman, Christopher Herold just to mention a very few. Thanks again for making this a great site. Saucermoon (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Saucermoon, we're back here again. I think it's important to bear in mind that if it's not possible to cite for a particular statement, then it just doesn't belong in WP. That, despite you or I may "know" that statement to be true. And cited sources must precisely support the statement. I see a problem here in a citation you've made, for example:
"The average length of the haiku appearing in the main English-language journals is about 10-14 syllables (Ross, Bruce; How to Haiku; Tuttle Publishing 2002 p. 19 ISBN 0-8048-3232-3)"
What Ross actually says on page 19 is, "When we actually write down our haiku they are in three lines of about 12 to 14 syllables in a short-long-short pattern." This is pure prescription, it's Dr. Ross prescribing for us how we should write: exactly the same problem as with Higginson & Harter, referred to above. Ross says nothing about the average length of haiku appearing in the main English-language journals! (and this by the author who claims (p.2) that Basho created the haiku form - oh dear...). Now I don't have the Gurga or Reichhold books, so would ask you once again to provide the cited text here, so that all editors can assess just how fully the citations support the statements. Thanks for your help. --Yumegusa (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay! Now I get it! I'm suppose to actually change what is quoted. I thought I just had to fill in the blank with a book that supported the structure of haiku. Thank you so much for this information. It helps with lots of things. Actually, there is no set rule. Experimental haiku is on it's way. As soon as someone states a rule, someone else will break it. That's creativity. How far it will go . . . only the editors will know. Try back issues of Raw NerVZ,

editor Dorothy Howard. Saucermoon (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

solitary reaper. daffodils. gitanjali. hemigways lined Derricksam (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Haiku sequences - new section?

An editor has just introduced new info re Marlene Mountain's "mountain sonnets" and other haiku sequences. While it seemed logical to introduce this info within the "Variant forms" section where Mountain's one-line haiku found mention, I think it would make more sense to create a new section to include reference to other haiku sequences such as rengay, gunsaku and so on. Thoughts? --Yumegusa (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to think on these issues. I would say that there may be distinct differences between haiku sequences / series and other variant forms of collaborative new linked forms that maybe nearer to renga (in its modern sense a term increasingly used to describe or cover linked collaborative work that isn't actually renku). MM's 'connections' are more than haiku series where perhaps we might consider a haiku series to be the equivalent of two or more 'haiku' presented together as a 'piece' maybe linked by subject or some other way - the 'connections' as described by mm are more akin to the 3 line 2 line pattern of renga in that she suggests that although being one-line they alternate long - short - long - short - and rengay are linked works with link and shift though working within a 'topic' - maybe these are variant new linked forms showing the development of renga alongside the new exploration of renku that we see occuring. These are just thoughts. I hope that they are helpful rather than confusing is some fogging way.

a contrail sky

blackbirds sort out

last year's nest

Susumususumu (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of indenting your text for legibility by placing a colon (:) in front of it. It's normal practice on Talk pages, so I hope you're not offended. For sure there are differences between different types of sequence/grouping of haiku, but I think they share enough to belong together in a section of this article. If the 'verses' of such a sequence are not haiku, then they don't belong in the article at all. Do you support my proposal to create such a new section? --Yumegusa (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

yes you should do what you feel is correct - just a thought in rengay would you call the two line stanzas 'haiku'?

I agree that if they are not haiku then why here even if 'haikai' - marlene's are all one line haiku but some short some long -stanzas in rengay etc might not ever be true haiku - they are perhaps a subsection of renga - 'new linked forms' or some such other term... have you seen ai li's new linked forms? many haiku poets have experimented with them. she published the journal 'still' for many years. http://www.aili.co.uk/linked/index.html

Susumususumu (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this modern use of the term 'renga' - is it attested? If so, it might be worth adding a section in the renga article (or creating a new article). I was under the impression that Gay specified that all verses of the rengay should be 'standalone haiku' but I'll have to check that out. Gunsaku and the Mountain stuff clearly are anyhow. Ai Li appears to not be explicit about what the verses in her "forms" actually are, so perhaps best not to include them in this article. --Yumegusa (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Examples

I think that there should be examples of 5-7-5 haiku, and pointed out as such. Instead, there seem to be more examples of the variant forms than of the "traditional" 14 syllable haiku that is taught in American schools.

I'm also wondering if the variant forms section shouldn't be after the history section. Hires an editor (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

kigo a 'rarity' in HIE?

Twice in the last day or so an IP has edited the article to either remove reference to kigo or describe as a 'rarity' its use as one of the 'more common practices' in haiku in English. I reverted on both occasions, then thought I'd better check. I went through all the ku in the 'Haiku and Senryu' sections of Frogpond 32:2 (2009) and Blithe Spirit 19:1 (2009), and found (FP) 104 with kigo, 61 without; and (BS) 14 with kigo and 10 without. Even ignoring the fact that in both cases the section includes senryu (which do not include kigo) as well as haiku, it is clearly accurate to describe use of kigo as a common practice. --Yumegusa (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Which John Barlow?

In the section Haiku movement in North America/History, we read, "another generation of haiku poets has come to prominence. Among the most widely published and honored of these poets are Fay Aoyagi, John Barlow". Given its location in the N America section I assumed the poet referred to was the American John Perry Barlow and I wikilinked accordingly. However, in the section Publications in other English-speaking countries we read "John Barlow's Snapshot Press is a notable UK-based publisher". The article on the American poet John Perry Barlow makes no mention of haiku. On the balance of probabilities, it appears likely that the UK poet is the one (mistakenly) mentioned in the American section, so I'm removing it. --Yumegusa (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Order of Haiku in English is "Out of Order"

The Variant Forms section, should be after the Haiku movement in North America

It does not make a lot of sense at the beginning. Readers should be introduced to the form and history BEFORE going into variation of form. Haikuwiki (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it is necessarily self-evident that the reader should be introduced to detail about the geographical history of HIE before its formal variants. Can you put forward any argument to support your assertion? Anyone else have thoughts on this? --Yumegusa (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Move of standard description to 'Variant Forms' section

The typical length of haiku appearing in the main English-language journals is 10–14 syllables and few have a syllabically symmetrical line arrangement such as 5-7-5 or 3-5-3. Some haiku poets are concerned with their haiku being expressed in one breath and the extent to which their haiku focus on "showing" as opposed to "telling".

The above has been moved from the introductory paragraph to the 'Variant Forms' section. I can see no justification for this move, as it describes the 'standard' form, not a variant. It is information that is needed in the lead. Is there any objection to moving it back? --Yumegusa (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm-m, you may be right... No objections to moving it back. --Badvibes101 (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

References

"Few"

A couple months back, in a search more more neutral language I changed the wording regarding 5-7-5 and 3-5-3 line arrangements from "and few have" to "and may fall into", and apparently Yumegusa disagreed since s/he reverted the change. I'd like to point out that these are the forms that almost all English speakers know and therefore write. While this page is certainly concerned with haiku as a high art, I think it too dismissive to say that these syllable arrangements are in anyway a minority. The bottom line is that no one can really know what form most haiku are written in, so it isn't possible to say few of them are one way or another. I'm strongly in favor of using the word 'may' and removing conjecture about frequency. Yumegusa (or others), any thoughts? JamesLucas (" " / +) 20:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi JamesLucas. Please substantiate your assertion that 5-7-5 and 3-5-3 syllable arrangements "are the forms that almost all English speakers know and therefore write". Please take a look at the links in the article's "Notable English-language haiku periodicals" section. It is evident from the content of every English-language haiku magazine I've seen that the article's current assertion that "few have a syllabically symmetrical line arrangement such as 5-7-5 or 3-5-3" is factual. In fact, your edit ("The typical length of haiku appearing in the main English-language journals is 10–14 syllables, which may fall into a syllabically symmetrical line arrangement such as 5-7-5") was contradictory, since a length of 10-14 syllables cannot fall into a 17-syllable arrangement. --Yumegusa (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Your point on the syllable count is well taken, and in retrospect, I'm not all that satisfied with my earlier attempt. I still maintain, however, that it's misleading to assert something about the majority of haikus by stating something about a minority. Such an inequality would need outside sourcing beyond what sounds like your own (and I believe probably entirely accurate) assessment of notable periodicals. In all fairness, I haven't retrieved the books cited, so if one of them contains an almanac of syllable counts, I would be entirely satisfied with the current status. JamesLucas (" " / +) 15:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Your point is passing me by. Read any sample of the standard publications, and it will be perfectly obvious that no strict syllable count is adhered to. And if you need to hear it explicitly: "English haiku does not follow the seventeen syllable count found in Japanese haiku" (Haruo Shirane. Love in the Four Seasons, in Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Orientalia Pragensia XV, 2005, p135). If you wish to assert otherwise, you must substantiate your position in the normal way. --Yumegusa (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Essentially I'm suggesting that this amounts to original research. I believe that you're well-versed in haiku, and I believe that your survey of major haiku publications is fairly accurate. But unless there is a published piece on the frequency of various syllable structures in English-language haiku, it really shouldn't be asserted here. "Being perfectly obvious" isn't good enough for Wikipedia even though I would personally take your word for it to settle an argument at the pub. Yeah? JamesLucas (" " / +) 00:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

To me it seems like "the sky is blue", but I must concede that there is an element of subjectivity in there. I've just made an edit to the para in question, paraphrasing the Shirane quote above, and removing the contentious reference to the teikei forms altogether. There is a subsection on Fixed form under Variant forms where you might like include referenced info in line with your earlier assertions. --Yumegusa (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Elegantly done; I will certainly see if I think I can reference something sufficiently reliable. JamesLucas (" " / +) 04:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

and haiku is air

I admire the frankness of the third sentence of the article. "It is impossible to single out any current style, format, or subject matter as definitive."

If a single word such as "tundra", or a brief poem with approximately the number of syllables as a classic Japanese haiku, or perhaps the title of this section, can all be considered to be "Haiku in English", I'm left with the suspicion that the raison d'etre of "Haiku in English" is to take advantage of the popular appeal of the term "haiku" while ignoring the constraints to which classical haiku is subject.

Wanderer57 (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

YES! Tesspub (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Underplaying 5-7-5 syllable form

I strongly suspect that the mainstream view of an English-language haiku, at least in the United States, is that it consists of three lines of 5, 7, and 5 syllables each. I suspect this due to my personal experience growing up in the US in the 80s and 90s, during which time I was taught several times from elementary school to college that a haiku has the 5-7-5 three-line form. Googling for the query "haiku 5-7-5 syllables", I come up with several lesson plans to this effect, which suggest to me this is probably still the case (it's probably a handy way to teach kids about syllables): http://www.google.com/search?q=haiku+5-7-5+syllables

I also find that Merriam Webster's dictionary defines a haiku as the 5-7-5 three-line form (see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/haiku ). And googling for "haiku competition", in addition to competitions by serious literary publications that don't use the 5-7-5 definition, I find many contests aimed at the general public which do use the 5-7-5 form, such as this one from MacMillan's Dictionary Blog: http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/your-haiku . I've also seen numerous references to this on TV, including on the Simpsons and on Sealab 2021 ("I poke, poke his face/And yet he still ignores me/Poke, poke, poke, poke, poke").

The large collection of citations at the bottom of the article convinces me that there is certainly a literary and/or academic movement towards English-language haiku that are not based on the strict 5-7-5 form. But I think this article makes it sound as if the 5-7-5 has been mostly abandoned, which does not appear to be true at all. It may have no currency in academic literature, but it seems to be still around in a big way in pop culture.

On the other hand, I have absolutely no interest in battling this out on this article, so I'm not going to follow up on it at all. Just tossing it out there as a constructive criticism. :) --203.211.73.179 (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything said above. My suspicion (based on zero facts) is that some wikipedia haiku fascist is removing anything that says English haiku has often been based on a 5-7-5 structure. 66.66.149.221 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC).

This page is for discussing ways of improving the article. Assertions such as, "My suspicion (based on zero facts) is that some wikipedia haiku fascist is removing anything that says..." are not particularly helpful in this regard. Where the opening section of the article states, "English haiku do not adhere to the strict syllable count found in Japanese haiku", it cites Prof. Haruo Shirane, a noted authority on the subject. Please feel free to add a counter-assertion, but only if you can back it up with independent WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Statements such as, "I strongly suspect..." and "it seems to be still around..." will not cut the ice in a serious encyclopedia. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. 5-7-5 is conventional for Japanese Haiku. The current intro paragraph attempts to summarize English Haiku, and as such it addresses the 5-7-5 as both an acknowledged standard and far from a requirement for Haiku in English. john factorial (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

User:JamesLucas and I are edit warring. JamesLucas, you are removing the sentence "the traditional elements of Japanese haiku, including the standard convention of utilizing 17 syllables in a 5-7-5 pattern" from the introduction paragraph, but this is a statement of fact regarding Japanese haiku. The citation you requested is cited in the first sentence of the Haiku article. This thread has historical conversation addressing consensus on the need to mention this fact about Haiku in the Haiku in English article. Your change also states that Japanese haiku "utilize a three-line structure" which is not usually true (another fact verifiable from the sources of the Haiku article). This convention of Japanese Haiku is not a requirement of Haiku in English. My wording clearly communicates this, but yours replaces it with incorrect information. I leave this comment respectfully hoping to end the edit war. john factorial (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I have explicitly invited improvements, so I’m a little confused why you resorted to reversions rather than drafting new wording that fixes the shortcomings, but I now understand (or at least hope I understand) your point about lines vs. phrases in the Japanese, and I have drafted a new version that hopefully addresses that inaccuracy.

My takeaway from the above conversation is that there has been a concern that some editors might have tried to “bury” the existence of the English 5–7–5 syllable pattern, possibly out of a naïve hope that denying it on Wikipedia will delegitimize it. I, for one, do not seek that. My preference for removing it from the article’s intro is rooted only in the fact that the intro is a challenging place to address finely parsed distinctions. The sources and—not that we should be citing Wikipedia—the Haiku article say that the Japanese 5–7–5 pattern is based on the on rather than the syllable, which is exactly the kind of subtle-but-meaningful difference that I find hard to convey with the brevity required in a leads section. If you think that this issue can be neatly packaged, though, please take a stab at it! I hope that we can triangulate on a better version of this article rather than just oscillate between two imperfect states. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 02:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it's on me that I reverted rather than edited. I mistakenly thought you were editing only the intro paragraph. I'll edit the intro now to correct the issue I see persisting there. john factorial (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I've now edited the opening paragraph to restore what I feel was lost in your edits. Specifically: (a) restored mention of the 5-7-5 pattern that is nearly ever-present in haiku but not in English Haiku (b) removed statement that haiku are rendered in 3 phrases or lines (not necessarily true). I personally find the distinction between onsetsu, mora, and "syllables" to be unnecessary detail for an introductory paragraph, but have respected your opinion that it deserves mention with this edit. If you'd like to improve the intro paragraph further I welcome it. My only request is that the mention of 5-7-5 remain because there is consensus that this is the most well-known defining characteristic of Japanese haiku and the lack of that pattern in English Haiku is a highly visible distinction between the two art forms. john factorial (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Cool—I think we got somewhere decent. And, yeah I agree that the on–syllable difference is fine parsing, but my sense is that there are working poets out there who find that parsing meaningful, so I think it’s our duty not to obfuscate that way of thinking. If we elect not to err on the side of saying less, I’d rather get into the weeds briefly than say something simple that contradicts the more complete explanation that comes later. Cheers! —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 20:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Here's a scholarly article (apparently a reprint from "Language Issues: Journal of the Foreign Language Education Center (vol. 1)") that discusses the 5-7-5 form, and provides some evidence for the idea that among academic/literary haiku enthusiasts the 5-7-5 form is not well regarded, while among the popular culture it is.

In section 3 "Contemporary English Haiku Examples and Issues" it describes how only 22% of haiku in two "major North American [haiku periodicals, 'Modern Haiku' and 'Frogpond'" are of the 5-7-5 form. It goes on to say "Clearly, a large majority of haiku are no longer being composed according to the 5-7-5 syllable count. Many familiar with English haiku, the present authors included, consider strict 5-7-5 syllable-counting to be a poor method of emulating the Japanese form, if that is one's compositional intention."

Then in section 4, "Historical Evolution, in Brief", it describes the popularity of the 5-7-5 form outside of literary publications, especially in primary school: "In the 1970s, the Western haiku flourished and became an international phenomenon. By this time haiku was being taught in many American grade schools, often as a means of syllable-study. Thus, English haiku as 'ever and only' 5-7-5 syllables got caught in the cultural craw."

Further on in section 5 it quotes "a letter written in 1971" as saying "the rigid 17-syllable requirement ... does not exist in Japan ... and who started it for English syllables I do not know. Probably, the 5-7-5 'rule' began after any number of people read that haiku are composed of 5-7-5 syllables." My point in referring to this quote is that it acknowledges the idea of a widely-perceived "5-7-5 rule" for haiku in the minds of the general public. The paper also quotes a 1967 book titled "Haiku in English" which has this advice for teachers: "The most general area of agreement is on form. It is generally taught that the form should be 17 English syllables divided into three lines of 5, 7, and 5."

My point is, this article I've linked to does not advocate using the 5-7-5 form, but it does acknowledge that this form is widely known in English language haiku, is widely taught in schools, has been known and taught for at least 50 years, and is persistent despite the fact that it's rarely used in haiku literary publications. Thus I think the 5-7-5 form deserves at least a paragraph in the "haiku in English" Wikipedia article. I found this one article supporting the viewpoint by spending 5 minutes googling "haiku 5-7-5". I'm certain there would be more supporting citations available if anyone wanted to look into it.

--202.78.240.7 (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The point is that serious practitioners in the West, whether writing in English, French, German (Wirth, Tauchner), Swedish (Härle) or Danish (Bjerg) do NOT use the 5-7-5 syllable-counting format. Really, all you need to do is look at Modern Haiku, Frogpond, Mayfly, Heron's Nest for all of 5 minutes to see this plain fact. Primary school teachers claiming otherwise is neither here nor there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.215.148 (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not just primary school teachers. It's the popular culture at large, outside of academic literary journals. If you were to stop random people on the street in an English-speaking country and ask them to define a haiku, if they knew what it was at all, probably over 90% of them would describe it as the 5-7-5 syllable count. That's what they learn in schools, and see on TV and in advertising. Moreover, show them a non-5-7-5 haiku and they'd most likely object that it's not a haiku at all.

The fact that this is the "popular" meaning of haiku in English is reflected by the fact that it's mentioned in most English-language dictionaries, as well. It's an improvement that now the article mentions the "17 syllables" as one of the three definitions of a haiku, but it should really mention that they're usually split into three lines of five, seven, five as well. And a section about "haiku in popular culture" would be good as well. -- 2404:130:0:1000:222:4DFF:FE6A:5F5F (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the point of this talk section - that the "Haiku in English" originator crafted the Wiki entry from a POV (that "Haiku in English" is completely free of the "on" or syllable requirement). At a minimum, this point is arguable. Phrased another way:

No Five-Seven-Five?
Concise poetry, perhaps
Mislabeled haiku

Ricegator (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The article does now at least list the 5-7-5 form as the first of the variant forms, and describes it as the "traditional" form, so that's good. I still don't think the article does a good job of reflecting the continued prevalance of the 5-7-5 form outside of literary journals, though. From the discussion here, it seems like the reason is not so much about evidence, but a question of which POV should be included in the article -- there's the "academic POV" of the serious practitioners & literary journals; and there's the "popular POV" of dictionaries, schools, advertising, TV shows, etc. Perhaps there's an existing Wikipedia page with a similar definitional divide between academic & popular, that could be used as a template for how to handle this? Or maybe something in the NPOV policy articles?

(I acknowledge that in a perfect world I would do the work myself, of finding lots of citations to back up the idea that the 5-7-5 form is still in widespread use, and writing up a section about that, and defending that section here on the Talk page. But my social anxiety prevents me from engaging in all but the mildest forms of debate, so chiming in here once a year is about all I can muster. I'd like to think that Wikipedia is not an adversarial system in which one editor champions one position while other editors assume the burden of proof to change their mind, but instead a collaborative system in which person adds what they can. And this suggestion is basically all I can add.) --2404:130:0:1000:15EF:D1CF:9244:F78A (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

To clarify the previous comment, the article has lots of great information about non-5-7-5 literary haiku, and that should certainly remain its focus. But to better reflect reality, it should address the wide use of the 5-7-5 form in a non-literary context. I think ideally, there'd be a couple of sentences about how the 5-7-5 form is widely used in pop culture and education, but that serious haiku authors usually avoid the form, and why they avoid it.

The main reason I suggest this on the Talk page rather than writing it myself (other than social anxiety) is that I'm lacking in good secondary sources to cite. Primary sources are the popularity of the 5-7-5 form are easy to find; i.e. there are lots of them on Google and TV, and my own lived experience. But I barely know where to begin in finding a secondary source about this topic. I'm hoping one of the haiku enthusiasts who I imagine to haunt this page may be better positioned to find a suitable secondary source on this subject. --101.98.144.68 (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a "Haiku in Pop Culture" section may be valuable here, just to show the contrast. Like the previous author, though, I don't have any good sources to cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brecherdc (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Journal circulation figures

Is there an accepted way for literary journals to reliably report their circulation? I have been openly publishing the circulation figures of tinywords, the haiku journal I edit, for years. It currently stands at about 3,220. However, apart from opening my Mailman distribution list to public inspection (something I cannot do for privacy reasons), it's difficult for me to establish that figure. What constitutes a reliable assertion of circulation on Wikipedia? Dtweney (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dt, sorry for the delay in replying. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. In essence, every source must be independent and verifiable, so I can't see how this can be made to fit. Within the context of this article, an individual publication's circulation figures are in any case not of great relevance. --candyworm (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I agree it's not particularly relevant, except that tinywords is occasionally deleted from lists of haiku publications here on Wikipedia, which after almost 10 years of publishing haiku is getting a little annoying. So I'm looking for ways to help establish the relevance of the publication. 04:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtweney (talk • contribs)

Are there other poetry publications or websites, independent of yours, which make mention of tinywords? E.g., in reviews, editorial references, reprinting of haiku acknowledging tinywords as the original publisher. I'm no expert on reliable sources but I think this sort of "mention" would carry some weight by indicating that people recognize and respect your publication.

Wanderer57 (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

tinywords exists, whether or not the terribly important wiki editors say it does. Deleting it is just another manifestation of the fundamental silliness underpinning the entire wiki editorial approach.

Similarly, Ardea exists (I added it and it was deleted). I know it exists, because I have been published in it and have had work accepted for publication in the upcoming issue, scheduled for July 2012. I provided a link. When will Wiki's terribly important editors grasp that they do not make the facts, nor do they make them disappear when they happen not to like them, but are only supposed to record them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.215.148 (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to be abusive of the editors here who put in a great deal of hard work for no return. Reading the conversation above, it seems clear that no-one was disputing tinywords' existence, neither was anyone suggesting deleting its article, so it's hard to know who or what you're arguing against. --212.118.232.111 (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Err ... (1) Yes, they did, in fact it was disputed by someone who by his own admission is no expert. (2) The absurd gambit of 'a great deal of hard work for no return' cuts no ice at all with me when the result is (a) refusing to list a well-known journal like TW, (b) deleting the listing of a perfectly legit journal like Ardea on a personal whim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.215.148 (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please adhere to Wikipedia guidelines in your posts - see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It now seems that tinywords has been entirely removed from this page. (I re-added it, but not sure why it wasn't there to begin with.) In addition, the tinywords page was deleted and redirects here. I'm not sure how a page on haiku in English can be complete without this site, which for the past 10 years has been a major part of the haiku world in English. --Dtweney (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Can I add computer source code Haiku?

I wanted to ask as it's more comic than serious.

I've written an OpenCOBOL program that fails when run and really, fails as poetry. It's in the OpenCOBOL FAQ.

       program-id. one.
       procedure division. add
       1 to return-code.

      *btiffin*

Compiles with cobc -x one.cob (an open source and freely available compiler for everyone, international translations are in the works). The program runs with ./one, and returns 1 as an exit code, an exit code usually denoting failure. Worthy of mention? I think it is, but I did want to ask, as it's jokey. BTiffin (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this notable? Is it reliably sourced in a third-party publication? Heck, is it haiku? I think the answer is 'no' all round. --candyworm (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Richard Zimler

I've just reverted here the addition of Richard Zimler to the Notable haiku poets section of this article. Some examples of "haiku" from Zimler's 2011 book LOVE'S VOICE can be found here. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Notable haiku poets

Even though the article is about haiku in English, the name of the section "Notable haiku poets" seems too general and confusing. In my opinion, it should be changed to "Notable non-Japanese haiku poets", "Notable English language haiku poets", or something along these lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiku_in_English#Notable_haiku_poets

Malikov (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. In the context of this article, it seems perfectly clear what is meant. However, I'm glad you called attention to this section. Its introduction reads, "Although the poets listed below have published some haiku, not all of them are known primarily as haiku poets. Some of them have written both haiku (or haiku-like poems) and mainstream poetry." I believe that it is both trivial and misleading to include 'mainstream' poets who have merely dabbled in haiku, since they are not "notable haiku poets" as the term would normally be understood. I propose to edit out such poets, so that the section includes only poets noted for their haiku, as the title suggests. Any objections before I set to it? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I have an EL, if you'd like it?

I have been removing some of the WP:OVERLINK on the Haiku article, and found one that seemed like an interesting resource, but was all about English haiku, so I figured it might be more at home here. However, it is relatively small, and probably wouldn't provide a unique resource beyond what this page would if it was of FA-standard. Still, if anyone is interested in it: [1] elvenscout742 (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Over-rated Pop culture

It probably should be noted that there are many who don't consider English Haikus anything more than over-rated pop culture.They may have been picked up by various popular writers at times in the past but do they really deserve so much status as they have now. Most really are just simple opinions written every second of the day by all humans. A Haiku could be compare to a twitter post at this time in history. The depth really isn't in the writing its in the interpretation. So considering Haikus some exceptional form of English work is just silly to many. 101.51.234.17 (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No doubt some/many people do think this, but it would need a reference to say it. Haiku are taken seriously by quite a few journals, books and poets. Ben Finn (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Pretentious clever-clever spring to mind 86.129.235.87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Request withdrawn. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Haiku in English → Haiku outside Japan – I have edited this article before and I don't think an article on English haiku is a fundamentally "bad" idea. However, currently the article at Haiku contains a section called "Worldwide" which discusses haiku in Bengali and other languages. Therefore, we are left with the odd scenario that this quintessentially Japanese poetry form has two articles in this encyclopedia: one about haiku in English, and one about haiku everywhere else. I initially wanted to just merge the material from Haiku#Worldwide into this article, but the current title of this article makes that problematic. Therefore, I propose the articles be balanced out to Haiku, which would discuss Japanese haiku, and Haiku outside Japan (I'm open to suggestions about a better title) which would discuss haiku from everywhere else. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose make a different article for Haiku outside of Japan instead. This is the English Wikipedia, so a separate article for "in English" is something that is likely to be found here. If there is not enough to sustain a separate worldwide article, then it should remain in the main Haiku aritcle. As this form of poetry is now found outside of Japan, and commonly taught in English classes, in English language form, a different Haiku in Japan should also be created. Haiku would then be an overview of the form, a short history, and summaries of global, Japanese and English-language usage. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

WHAT!? We should have a separate Haiku in Japan article now!? What you are essentially saying is that just because this is English Wikipedia, English haiku are more important for this encyclopedia than Japanese haiku, even though the number of notable English poets specializing in haiku can likely be counted on two hands. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the the structure of the haiku can be an article in and of itself, with supporting elements for development, spread and popularity. That we can have an expansive article on "Haikus in Japan", as a subarticle. And this being English Wikipedia, there is no reason to not have a separate "in English" article. This article is already large, so there's no need to make an unbalanced "Haiku outside of Japan" article out of it, as it will be heavily weighted towards English. Being that haikus are popular in English, an "in English" article is entirely appropriate. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

How about this: since the problematic section is so short, we merge it into this article under the section-title "Haiku in other languages", and we leave the title of this article as "Haiku in English". Since this article is essentially already meant to be a discussion of haiku in English as opposed to Japanese, including similar discussions for other languages here rather than in the article on Japanese haiku seems appropriate. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Elvenscout, good call, the existence of Haiku in English without an intermediate level umbrella article Haiku in languages other than Japanese is a bit odd (I just created that start article, but there's a large, overlarge chunk in the main Haiku article already). But there's another issue here Haiku outside of Japan is a geographical distinction, Chirac composing Haiku in Japanese in Paris would be "outside Japan" - is Japanese-language Haiku outside Japan, Chirac excepted, notable enough to be anything more than the coverage it already gets in the main Haiku article? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I find that merging "worldwide" into this article as highly problematic if it isn't about English, since we have the general article Haiku, and that is where the information should sit. This article is focused on English, and should remain that way. IIO's solution of "Haiku in other languages" is much better than merging non-English content to this article. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem lies in the way sections 6 and 7 of the main Haiku article seem to have grown like topsy without being careful about the distinctions between:

- foreigners attempting Japanese Haiku

- foreigners translating Japanese Haiku into English/French/Spanish/German/Bengali

- foreigners writing new English/French/Spanish/German/Bengali Haiku

It isn't just all mixed up, it often isn't clear which bits are which. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Foreigners attempting Japanese haiku is a good thing, but it doesn't belong in the Wikipedia article on haiku unless those foreigners themselves meet GNG as poets and their poems have in some way had a significant impact on haiku as a genre (I've actually never heard of such a thing, though).

Extensive discussion of foreigners translating Japanese haiku doesn't belong in the main haiku article, or in the articles on Japanese haiku poets. If it belongs anywhere on Wikipedia it's on the pages related to the translators themselves: if the translators don't meet GNG then their work doesn't belong in the general article on a poetic form. Additionally, not all English translations of haiku are haiku themselves. Toury 1995 has the rest of the details.

Foreigners writing new haiku in English/French/Spanish/German/Bengali don't belong in the main haiku article as long as this article (and that new article you started) exists.

elvenscout742 (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I've endorsed In ictu oculi's solution. elvenscout742 (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Matsuo Allard wrote essays in [one-line haiku's] favor"

In the section on the one-line haiku variant, it says Matsuo Allard "wrote essays in its favor and published several magazines and chapbooks devoted to the form."

I've tried to find these essays online, but I can't find any mention of them. Does anyone know the name of these essays and where they were published? Is there a citation for this?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.225.166 (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Several Example Poems Removed

I have just removed several example poems from this page. Not that they're not all lovely, but the page's encyclopedic information was ill-served by the plentiful examples, many of which were poor examples of the context in which they were placed. I believe the editors intention was to showcase the variety of HIE forms, and I believe that this edit accomplishes that purpose better by not cluttering the page with the 12 poems I have removed. Readers hoping for more examples of the art form are free to access references & external links. john factorial (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I was surprised to discover that Robert Spiess seems to have been thrown away, except for a modest reference. He seems to have been rather important in the field of haiku, wrote books and articles, was an editor, and you can find various references about him on the Net. I was interested by a quote of him I found on YouTube, mentioning this WP article, but lo! he just disappeared. So I have to find other sources... 2A01:E0A:C75:4180:A874:FA63:D965:96B6 (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Broken Ref link

The link for ref 32 is a parked domain page now. "The Lune: The English Language Haiku by Holly Bliss at GoArticles.com" rubah (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Haiku in english - In popular culture section?

The popular and appreciated reddit "haikusbot" that detects 5-7-5 syllable comments brought me here. I thought it would be interesting to note this curious fact or some other instances where haikus written in english come up in popular culture. Girlsolano (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)