Talk:Li Bai/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Li Bai. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This section for current (and future) Talk page archives. See also: In regards to Talk page archive

• archive 1 (12 April 2004 — 13 April 2012)

There are many issues of importance previously discussed, however some seem to have resolution, and none seem to have current pressing urgency; or, at least, a seeming lack of current dialog seems to exist regarding article issues: thus, archiving old talk (see Main link(s) above). Dcattell (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Since footnotes are generally avoided in a lede, I put the documentation in "do not read": Stephen Owen, "Poetry in the Chinese Tradition," in Ropp, ed. Heritage of China (U Cal P 1990), p. 303 says Li was a major poet in the "Golden Age" of Chinese poetry in the mid-Tang Dynasty which set a model for the next thousand years, and on p. 307 Owen says Li and Du Fu are considered the "greatest poets of traditional China." The pages 303-307 are a close reading of several of Li's poems. ch (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

LATER: Sevillade's explanation on the edit of 14 April 2013 is much to the point and helpful, so I carried on in Sevillade's spirit and made a few more tweaks, also trying to preserve links to relevant articles. Here are some thoughts:

• "Greatest" is quoted from the highly qualified scholar, Stephen Owen, and also used by several other heavy weights. William Hung, titled his biography of Du Fu, Li's counterpart, China’s Greatest Poet (Harvard UP 1952). Encyclopedia Britannica says Li “rivaled Du Fu for the title of China’s greatest poet,” so I suppose the word "greatest" must be “encyclopedic.”
• We also want to avoid Weasel words (“often regarded” “considered among”) – see WP:Weasel.

Accordingly, although I don't see the problem with "greatest," which is well attested, another phrase would be no problem. So I suggest "acclaimed," from Sabina Knight’s “one of China’s two most acclaimed poets.” (Chinese Literature: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2012 ISBN 9780195392067), p. 38).

• In search of a good word, I also checked the second source noted in the lede, Watson’s Chinese Lyricism, and found to my surprise that he says the opposite (Watson is quoted correctly in a lower section of the article):

“The first thing to say about Li Po’s poetry, particularly in comparison to Tu Fu, is that it is essentially backward looking, that it represents more a revival and fulfillment of past promises and glory than a foray into the future. In the matter of poetic form critics generally agree that Li Po introduced no significant innovations. He seems to have been content to take over and employ what his predecessors had left him, writing in all the verse forms of the time... In theme and content also, his poetry is notable much less for the new elements it introduces than for the skill with which it handles the old ones.... [141]

I adjusted the second paragraph accordingly to give the reader a quick rundown on what it is most important to know. ch (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution on this page. However, the statement The "genius" of Li Bai, says one recent authority, "lies at once in his total command of the literary tradition before him and his ingenuity in bending (without breaking) it to discover a uniquely personal idiom...." He is the most musical, most versatile, and most engaging of Chinese poets, a Mozart of words.... is problematic. Phrases such as "says one recent authority" is too vague to support such a heavy statement regarding his ingenuity, especially in the lede. Further, lead section usually don't contain big quotes, unless the quote itself has become such a indisputable part of his cultural legacy. If we are going to use someone's opinion, it should be from the most notable authority on Chinese poetry, or at least someone well-known.--Sevilledade (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, considering piling a bunch of characterizations about him from other people might be too much for the lede.--Sevilledade (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sevilledade commented “not sure why commentary moved to the opening statement,” and I’m glad to go into more detail and offer a revised lede which will respond to the concerns expressed. I apologize if my 15 April explanation above was not sufficient. I again thank Sevilledade for opening the discussion, and for his sensible edit on the question of Li’s birthdate (I checked seven references here in my study and deFrancis ABC Dictionary was the only one to say 699 – if deFrancis is sometimes wrong, then what hope is there for the rest of us!). In fact, we probably don’t need a note on this at all.

But to the lede, or “lede on MacDuff”!

• First, as explained in the 15 April comments, to say that Li “stretched the rules of versification of his time” is the opposite of what Watson says in the footnoted reference. Why restore something which is wrong and has been shown to be so?

Watson says “the first thing to say about Li Po’s poetry” is that "is essentially backward-looking, that it represents more a revival and fulfillment of past promises and glory than a foray into the future." [p. 141] So if a leading scholar tells us that it is the first thing to say, why don’t we say it first?

Since the preceding sentence paired Li and Du, it is logical and helpful to compare them, especially since Watson makes this comparison as part of the “first thing to say.”

To comment that this is “an author’s comparison” is quite true, but the comment of 15 April said that “If we are going to use someone's opinion, it should be from the most notable authority on Chinese poetry, or at least someone well-known.” Surely there is nobody more notable or well known on this topic than Watson. Or Stephen Owen. Or Mair’s The Columbia Guide to Chinese Literature.

• Second, the present lede (18 September) does not do the job.

What are the Wikipedia guidelines? The WP:Manual of Style/Lead section says:

This page in a nutshell: The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.

Then, with a link to more detailed explication:

Wikipedia articles cover topics at several levels of detail: the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points, and each major subtopic is detailed in its own section of the article.

But probably the most sensible and effective thing is to basically revise. So here are my thoughts:

• The substantive points in the present lede are that Li was “acclaimed,” he and Du Fu were the “most prominent figures” (actually redundant with “acclaimed”), was “prolific and creative” (redundant with “thousand poems”), his poetry was “esteemed,” (duh), and 34 of his poems were in 300 Tang poems. (BTW, “extant today” is also redundant).

• There is nothing here about the nature of his poetry, which is why we need the Watson quote, that is, unless we can agree on a characterization which is sourced in the body of the article.

• There is also nothing on other major points in the article such as his most famous poems (often a topic mentioned in other ledes), how Li fits into the Chinese tradition, or (since the article is “Li Bai” and not “the poetry of Li Bai”) his personality.

The present lede at 139 words gives us plenty of room to expand, judging by a quick comparison with other poets – Shakespeare at 450 words, Walt Whitman at 350, and Shelley and Byron at only a few sentences. So we have some latitude in our precedents.

I didn’t put footnotes, but the characterization of his poetic themes comes from Watson, and the popular legend of his drowning comes from Encyclopedia Britannica [1] �

Hope this helps.

Cheers to all ch (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"However, the actual cause appears to have been natural enough, although perhaps related to his hard-living lifestyle. Nevertheless, the legend has a place in Chinese culture"

So where is his death, if it was natural enough, why hasn't the author said the cause of death, its quite flummoxing

They call me Mister Tibbs (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)