This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 00:31, June 24, 2024 (JST, Reiwa6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
At my current level of Wikipedia expertise, I'm entirely happy to leave these kinds of issues up to someone else. But maybe that's exactly the wrong approach. I wonder ...?
Ooperhoofd 17:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to switch the order of References and Footnotes. It makes more sense to have Footnotes first. In general, be bold and make edits as you feel appropriate. If others disagree, they can discuss it at that time. Bendono 01:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any cites to suggest that Manyoshu has ever been revered above the Kokin Wakashu?
Well, uh, what do you think was revered above the Manyoshu before the Kokin Wakashu was compiled? --Gwern (contribs) 02:05 2 August2007 (GMT)
Touche; I just think the current introduction might lead people to believe that the Manyoshu has always been revered most highly even down to the present day; AFAIK the Kokinshu overtook Manyoshu's place once it was compiled and has never lost its status since then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.45.200 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a general reader without any specialized knowledge of Japanese poetry or this work, I couldn't understand the following sentence in the first paragraph:
The collection contains poems ranging from 347 (#85-89)[1] through 759 (#4516) [2],
Somewhere in the manual of style (WP:MOS) it states that all articles are supposed to be written for the general reader. Would someone please clarify what the numbers mean? Reconsideration (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty clear to me. The 85th through 89th poems are from the year 347 and the 4516th poem is from the year 759. You could also refer to the cited references. Bendono (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. It isn't obvious on its face that the years are, in fact, years or that the poems are numbered. Not all anthologies number the poems within them, and even if all Japanese anthologies number poems, the general reader can't be expected to know that. Perhaps we could rewrite the passage in the way you just restated it, or we could rewrite it as "(poems #85-89)". How does that sound? I'm not sure what to do about making it clear that the years are years. Some possible options are "the year ..." or "A.D." or "C.E.". If this is done the first time this comes up (like a first reference to something), I don't think it's necessary to do do elsewhere in the article. Reconsideration (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until recently the years were linked making it clear, but were de-linked due to changing Wikipedia policy. Your suggestions are reasonable, so please feel free to try to clarify the passage as you see fit. Regards, Bendono (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll make an edit. If there is a year or estimated period when the anthology was completed, that would also be useful at the top, and it would help clarify the years with less rewriting. Reconsideration (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The exact date of completion is unknown, but as a whole the complete 20 volume anthology was completed circa 759. Bendono (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Man'yōshū. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I haven't checked the cited source (Satake 2004:527, which doesn't seem to be available online), but Man'yōshū Best 100 says "Although [#85-88] have been attributed to Empress Iwanohime of the fifth century, it is likely that they were actually written by anonymous poets of later centuries", and the article on Iwanohime says "Some modern scholars [...] advise a healthy skepticism in these difficult to verify attributions." -- BenRG (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone think that it would be beneficial to add a section about various shifts in reception of the anthology over time? I'm thinking like adding how the Kokugaku scholars revitalized focus on it as a "purely Japanese" anthology, or how it was utilized by early 20th centuries writers to further Japanese nationalism. If other editors think this is something worth adding, I might be able to start that section. Kurtishanlon (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
