Talk:Cherry blossom: Difference between revisions
→Discussion moved from WP:RM: Both can be included in the article |
|||
Line 291: | Line 291: | ||
:::[[User:Bathrobe|Bathrobe]] ([[User talk:Bathrobe|talk]]) 12:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |
:::[[User:Bathrobe|Bathrobe]] ([[User talk:Bathrobe|talk]]) 12:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::The difference is: Bathrobe, you're trying to describe "Sakura" (Japanese flowering cherry) in terms of the parent species. And I'm trying to describe "Sakura" in terms of the popular [[cultivar]]s, such as "Yoshino", "Kanzan", "Akebono", or "Amanogawa". Both information can be included in the article, with proper explanation, as they are not mutually exclusive (i.e.: These--and other--cultivars are believed to have been selected from among the aforementioned species or their decendants).--[[User:Endroit|Endroit]] ([[User talk:Endroit|talk]]) 22:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:31, 11 April 2008
This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cherry blossom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||
|
Old Requested move
- The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was no consensus.
Sakura → Cherry_blossom – {What is "sakura"? "Cherry blossom" is already a redirect to "Cherry" so I believe this move requires adminstrator help.} — --Outis 07:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(No admin assistance is needed to remove redirects:- simply follow the redirect then click the 'redirected from' link to get to the (editable) redirection page. -- Mike1024)
- Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
- Oppose. The article is not about cherry blossom in general, but about its cultural significance in Japan; something along the lines of Japanese cherry blossom culture would be a better name. Gdr 09:39, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
- NOTE: Cherry Blossom gets redirected to this article. KyuuA4 23:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think "Sakura" should be renamed "Cherry blossom" and the article should explain other varieties outside Japan, but if you want to limit it to Japan, I would rename the article "Cherry blossoms in Japan." Photojpn.org 22:37, 18 Apr 2005
- Don't follow why this apparent Support of the move (judging by the comment) is cast as an Oppose. Alai 14:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- OPPOSE, the article is about the significance of the Cherry Blossom to Japanese culture, and not about cherry blossoms in general.132.205.15.43 21:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose the move to Cherry blossom, Japanese cherry blossom or Cherry blossom in Japan. Sakura is a well known word and this is not a botany article. DmitryKo 17:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose The article is about the cultural meaning in Japan.
- Support. The main part of the article should deal with cherry blossoms. The part on cherry blossoms in Japanese culture should be a subsection. Sakura is not a well-enough known word in other languages (cf: tsunami, karate, karaoke). Exploding Boy 22:42, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose any move, rename, etc. This article should stay at Sakura. BlankVerse ∅ 11:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- Support both articles are very short. They can be combined to form a more complete one. 65.190.129.5 03:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- Support Wikipedia policy is "most common name in English", which would be "cherry blossom" (yes, even in the context of English-speaking discussion of Japanese culture). Alai 14:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Deodat 21:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Thunk 00:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Even if this debate is no longer ongoing, I oppose for the reasons stated above. SlapAyoda 17:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Separate Article for Cherry Blossom
Then there should be a separate article for Cherry Blossom to include information about it as a plant species. KyuuA4 23:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
- Add any additional comments
That's a possibility. But since it's called "cherry tree" in English, and it is a tree (not its blossom) that is the subject of the article, we should consider "Ornamental cherry tree" or "Cherry tree (ornamental)" as alternatives. A disambiguation page could list "Cherry tree (fruit)" and "Cherry tree (ornamental)" with links. Fg2 07:43, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
- There are better alternate titles for the article such as "Cherry tree (ornamental)" since the article is about a tree, not its blossom. Fg2 07:45, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
Why the Sakura is famous in Japan.
How about changing Cherry Blossom so it redirects to Sakura? Nearly the entire article is about the signficance of these cherry trees in Japan. Perhaps the current content could be a fairly large section of a general article about ornamental cherry trees, but simply moving it to a different name without changing the content doesn't seem like a good idea to me. -- Rick Block 14:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
oppose In fact, this redirection from Cherry Blossom to Sakura seems to currently be the case (March 2007) and this I strongly oppose! Cherry blossom is *not* sakura, sakura is just one particular type of cherry blossom! In fact, I looked at the article since it caused an acquaintance some confusion for precisely this reason. MossMan 13:59, 12 Mar 2007 (UTC)
My vote would be for Cherry tree (ornamental) or Cherry (ornamental) with a redirect from Sakura.Exploding Boy 15:33, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
- See Talk:Péter Cardinal Erdo for a recent example of how you can alter a standard "Requesed move" to add other proposals. Philip Baird Shearer 17:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. First of all, I don't understand why "Cherry blossom" redirects to "Cherry" because it talks mainly about the fruit and tree, not the flowers. Since "Cherry" already goes to the cherry article. "Cherry blossom" should go to the "sakura" article which talks mainly about the flowers. I think "Sakura" should be renamed "Cherry blossom" and the article should explain other varieties outside Japan. But if you want to limit it to Japan, I would rename the article "Cherry blossoms in Japan." Photojpn.org 22:37, 18 Apr 2005
- Create a disambig page including Cherry (fruit), Cherry (tree, ornamental) and Cherry blossom, the latter to redirect to Sakura. Exploding Boy 20:17, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
OPPOSE, the article is about the significance of the Cherry Blossom to Japanese culture, and not about cherry blossoms in general. People searching for cherry blossoms may not appreciate a Japanese cultural page instead of talk about the repoductive cycle of cherry trees. 132.205.15.43 21:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- On the other hand, sakura is a Japanese word, and anyone even vaguely aware of the significance of sakura in Japan would know where to start looking. People who aren't aware wouldn't be searching for sakura. Exploding Boy 22:21, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- It's not a reason to move sakura to cherry blossom, that's a reason to disambiguate cherry blossom into cherry and sakura 132.205.64.135 20:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Would you please place your your votes in the top of this section and sign them with ~~~~... thanks. DmitryKo 17:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Decision
Template:Notmoved violet/riga (t) 17:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Sakura
I never heard of the plant called Sakura, yet I and anyone I know who think sakura would think the anime series. I believe 'Sakura' should send to the disambiguation page, or at least keep a notice with a direct link to the anime version too. Elfguy 20:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That's because you and your friends are anime geeks. Sakura is a flower and your anime are named after it. Jpatokal 15:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- just to be fair, I don't believe there is an anime with simply the name "Sakura". (Is there...?) I know of many series with the word in the title, but not as simply the one word. Some people have the tendency to think "OMG CARDCAPTOR" when they hear Sakura, which is the wrong notion anyway (two different series). Besides, anyone who wants the CCS page would actually type the entire title out, same for Sakura Wars/Taisen. Daisenji 03:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- It would make much more sense to make or merge into a cherry blossom festival page. I doubt we write articles about the cultural significance of every animal, plant and mineral that is involved in any number of festivals. In Japan we would just call them Cherry trees or if we talked about the flower it was the blossom. The word Sakura is obviously not an English word or even adopted by English such as words like garage and coyote, so it would make sense to talk about the blossom in its cultural context with the appropriate title. Sakura makes no sense to anyone who doesn't understand the Japanese word. This is an encyclopedia and as such should be informative, not some ego boosting article written by someone who thinks that using a Japanese word in an English article makes them look cool. Honestly, make up your minds, Wikipedians. Either use English, or stop getting on other peoples' backs for using the proper pronunciation of a foreign word instead of the English bastardization. 05:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Mouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.0.13 (talk)
merge with Prunus serrulata
An editor (User:ChongDae) has requested that the Sakura article be merged with Prunus serrulata. I strongly oppose this suggested merger. The Sakura article is as much about a cultural phenomenum as it is about the plant, while the Prunis serrulata article is only about the plant (and should be only about the plant). BlankVerse ∅ 20:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
- I oppose.PiccoloNamek 21:10, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not all sakura are Prunus serrulata, some are derived from other cherry species - MPF 21:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
From Talk:Prunus serrulata:
- An editor (User:ChongDae) has requested that the Sakura article be merged with Prunus serrulata. I strongly oppose this suggested merger. The Sakura article is as much about a cultural phenomenum as it is about the plant, while the Prunis serrulata article is only about the plant (and should be only about the plant). BlankVerse ∅ 20:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
- I concur with BlankVerse JoJan 20:44, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
- In wikipedia, we don't split the object and the cultural phenomenon on the object. (See apple.) -- ChongDae 21:02, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
- I also oppose a merger. Not all sakura are Prunus serrulata, some are derived from other species of cherry, including P. sargentii, P. subhirtella and others. - MPF 20:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Rather than a merge, I would say that the article sakura should include botanical informations, like what species fall in Japanese cherry category, like MPF said. (See ja:サクラ.) --Puzzlet Chung 02:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Prunus serrulata is clearly going to deal with it from the scientific point of view. This is about the cultural significance of cherry blossom. It may be about the same physical object but the two pages have quite distinct themes.Dejvid 19:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Taxobox
I added taxobox into the article, because sakura is the term indicating a kind of tree. --Puzzlet Chung 14:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Replace the Photoshopped image in the taxobox
I think it's important that the image in the taxobox (and really, all wildlife/nature images in Wikipedia) be left "unenhanced" (unless, perhaps, it is clearly labeled as altered). Mostly, just because it would be a better representation of the actual thing, but also (in my opinion) because it would simply look better. That's subjective, of course, but it really is bad precedent to set. So, I would like to replace the current image in the Sakura taxobox with another image. The un-photoshopped version of the current picture would probably be very nice (it's why I came to look at the picture in the first place), but another picture could work as well. Subnubilus 04:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be a very good idea to change the current picture, considering that it's a featured picture. And besides, this article isn't about the technical aspects of Sakura. It says at the top of the article "This article is about cherry blossoms and their cultural significance to the Japanese". There are other articles (Prunus, Prunus serrulata) covering the scientific aspects this of these species of trees. Almsot everybody at the Featured Picture candidates section seemed to agree that it fit the article perfectly, that, "It gives a wonderful idea of why the Japanese might partake in blossom viewing, and why the Japanese have been writing waka, renga, and haiku on cherry blossoms for 1,000 years.", and "it surely captures the true essence of sakura trees, and "I think a significantly altered image (however subtle) has to be very special and make a more-than-usually relevant contribution to its article to be worthy of FP, and this fits those criteria!". Furthermore, I no longer have the original picture, and I also explain on the picture's image page exactly how I achieved the glowing effect. Besides, there are also other pictures on the page that are unaltered, such as the Tidal Basin Sakura picture. In other words, I oppose your proposal. PiccoloNamek 04:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
SteveBaker agrees that it is important that the photo should be unenhanced. If we are trying to show why the Japanese revere this kind of scene, we should show Wikipedea readers what those people actually see and let our readers see for themselves why that might be. By manupulating the image, you give people a false idea of what lovers of flowering cherry trees enjoy. This is an encyclopedia and deliberate distortion of images is just as bad as deliberate distortion of facts. This isn't an art forum - it's a cold, hard fact repositiory. The manipulated photo might perhaps be appropriate in a section entitled "Art inspired by Sakura" - but not at the head of the article where people are looking to see what such a scene might actually look like.
- I understand completely. Perhaps we could replace the image in the taxobox, but I would like very much for the current image to at least remain on the page, not only because I took it, but because it is also a featured picture, promoted to featured picture status specifically because the majority of people felt it contributed significantly to this article. I have plenty of pictures of the same type of tree (taken in the same spot, actually) that I'm sure would fit better within the taxobox itself.PiccoloNamek 17:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. SteveBaker had it right; this is an encyclopedia. If your work was used by many publications to represent sakura, or it had some sort of cultural or social significance, that might be different. It is not a matter of whether your work is good or bad, it's just that it's altered and inaccurate. In the original picture, you can see that the image is overexposed, and that's why when you pinked up your whites the ground, which should not have turned pink (and would have been easy to prevent), also turned pink. I clicked on the image originally because I thought it was real and I thought the pink the ground was fallen petals. So, no, I don't think that image should be on the page at all. I also think your unedited image is overexposed and seeing as there are probably thousands of excellent Cherry Blossom images that have been taken already, we should settle for something that is clearer. I don't have any images to propose at the moment, but I will post some here later tonight if I find any. Subnubilus 18:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- The original image was not overexposed. The new image, which is not overexposed (where overexposed means the details in the highlights are lost) is not the original of the edited image. Furthermore, the current image was promoted to featured status with the full knowledge that it was 1. manipulated; and that it 2. appeared in this article.
- Consensus said that this was acceptable. Until an equal or greater consensus says otherwise, I will have to revert any attempts to remove the photograph. I'm sorry, but unilateral (or in this case, bilateral) attempts to remove featured pictures from their articles are generally frowned upon here, and I would defend another's picture just as much as I would any of my own.
- But I am not an entirely unreasonable person. A thought has just occured to me. Perhaps the article, Kigo would be a much better place for this picture. I have contacted the person who has done the most work on the article to see what he thinks. In the meantime, I would like the picture to stay where it is.PiccoloNamek 00:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that the image should be moved to the Kigo article. The image is acceptable until clicked on, the altered nature of the image is just too obvious, perhaps it could be replaced with a close-up? I think the image needs to be tossed altogether; why was it featured? I think it does little justice to the tree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaemera (talk • contribs) 18:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
My monitor is very large and for some reason Wikipedia will not let me download or view the higher resolution version of the image, so if it is not overexposed, I apologize. But, there are definitely very close highlights on the ground and in the flowers above, even though the ground is wood, isn't it? So it does leave the impression, when all the highlights are made pink, that there are thousands of pink petals on the ground. Nevermind, though, that's not the point (as I've said, it's not whether it's a good or bad pictures that makes it appropriate or not). I do think the article you suggested would be a better place for it, but I don't intend (and never intended) to remove your image myself, I just wanted to start a discussion on the issue in case someone else wanted to move it. Even if the image is removed, I do think it should wait until your image is no longer on a featured picture page if possible. So, I won't argue any further for now, and we'll see what other people think about this, and perhaps they will decide to leave the image, or maybe not. Subnubilus 15:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
About the pictures- today(Nov 12 2006) I changed the coding on the pictures, so they now go down the right side of the page- previously they were in a line across the page and covered up some text. Someone please feel free to re-organise the pictures to make them look more attractive, I'm not quite that awesome. Cantras 20:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Chinese symoblism
"On the other hand, in China, cherry blossom is the symbol of feminine dominance, female beauty and sexuality. Additionally, the cherry blossom is the Chinese symbol of feminine principle and it also symbolizes love in the language of herbs. Interestingly, cherry blossom is the flower of the April in China, whereas in Japan, it is wisteria." Spring flowers of Japan Some additional Japanese symbolism of flower petals can also be found on the site.--141.213.196.222 07:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you the one who inserted that into the intro? It's not well placed and the link is inappropriate for that section. I'm removing both for the time being. Aesshen
- Instead of losing the information forever, you could've moved it to a more appropriate place.--24.62.238.122 23:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Japanese Language
At the beginning of this article, kanji and hiragana transcriptions are given; is it necessary or even at all useful to include a katakana transcription, considering that katakana is used for loan words, not native words? Granted, katakana is sometimes used with native words for emphasis, but can't we assume that if someone can read Japanese well enough to encounter this usage of the word, they'll already know katakana well enough to figure it out on their own? Jonathan 17:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, if anything, hiragana is unnecessary rather than katakana. In the academic usage (and from this, in the Japanese wikipedia article), katakana is used to make it clear that the species is talked about rather than other common usages. --Revth 08:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Peach vs plum
Plum is most like a mistranslation for peach. Peach is far more likely to have symbolic values in East Asia. Intranetusa 18:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've reverted your edits until you can come up with some sort of source for that. I've never seen or heard of peach blossoms being celebrated in Japan, but plum blossoms (梅の花 umenohana, see Ume and ja:ウメ) are a famous early-spring event and the national flower of Taiwan. Jpatokal 01:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- “Most likely” and “more likely” are not reason enough to change existing (though only weakly sourced) material. If you change something, please cite a source for your change as per WP:ATT; if you have no such source for your material, then please don’t even add it, let alone change something. If you believe something to be true, then look for a reliable source to attribute it too; if you can not find a reliable source, then please don’t add it to the article without discussing it first on the talk page. Thanks, Jim_Lockhart 02:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think the plum is symbolic for self-sacrifice in Chinese culture. It's often referred to in Chinese poety and several idioms came about because of it, as in the story of the plum tree sacrificing itself for the peach tree. The story goes that when a plum tree is planted by a peach tree, it will offer its roots to attacking insects that would otherwise go after the peach tree. The plum tree thus dies, but the peach tree is spared.--24.62.238.122 16:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- So? What does it have to do with sakura? If nothing, it doesn’t belong in this article; try the ones for ume or peach instead. If it has something to do with sakura, add it to the article—provided you can attribute it to something more substantial than “I think” (see WP:ATT). Jim_Lockhart 00:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Seattle
Not sure if anyone wants to do anything with this in the article, but one of the main Japanese cultural festivals in Seattle, Washington is known as the Cherry Blossom Festival; there are some photos in a Commons category Commons:Category:Seattle Cherry Blossom Festival. It's part of the Festál series at Seattle Center. Also in Seattle, on the University of Washington campus, a very impressive grouping of Japanese cherry trees in the quad. As you can see in some of the pictures at Commons:Category:University of Washington, there is quite a turnout of Asian and Asian-American students when they are in bloom. Finally (probably less relevant) there is a Seattle-area anime convention called SakuraCon. - Jmabel | Talk 04:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
And last is from me, Im Aditya Ananda from Indonesia, so why Sakura not growth in America Or England?
Sakura in poetry or literature
I think a short excerpt of an ancient poem or piece of literature about sakura would be nice. It would be an example of its influence in Japanese culture. Kent Wang 19:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Buried corpse
I could have sworn this article used to say that Japanese folklore holds that every cherry tree has the corpse of a fallen warrior buried beneath it, whose blood turns the white blossoms pink in spring. Or is that purely a creation of Seishirō Sakurazuka in Tokyo Babylon (though in his case it's more likely to be his previous victims), based upon an old poem? Dave-ros 15:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's an interesting question, if someone knows the answer to it I'd like to know as well. --BiT 15:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- The myth of dead bodies being buried under the cherry trees is also alluded to in RahXephon. A character explains the sakura blossoms are colored by the blood of people buried nearby. If you've seen the series, you'd know this is particularly significant because the blossoms are colored blue (instead of pink).--Nohansen (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Requested move: Cherry blossom
This topic has been covered before, but the use of the Japanese loan word sakura in preference to the normally accepted term "cherry blossom" seems to be in contravention of Wikipedia policies on using the ordinary English name and should be changed.
- In most literature on Japan in English, it is conventional to use the term "cherry blossom". I'm sure someone is going to challenge me to name a source for this, but let me put it the other way around. Nobody has yet provided any sources to prove that the term sakura is the most commonly used English term for this flower. The use of sakura throughout the article is innovating language for most speakers of English. The traditional name is "cherry blossoms". Why is Wikipedia trying to lead linguistic change?
- While the cherry blossom may be of special significance in Japan, this is not sufficient grounds for using a loanword as a title for the article. Using the word sakura also removes any possibility of linking cherry blossoms to other cultures in East Asia. The conventional opposition (in English) is "cherry blossom" vs "plum blossom", botanically inaccurate as these names may be. But "Sakura" vs "ume" is Japanese usage divorced from the wider picture in East Asia, where each country has different names for these culturally significant flowers.
- The article itself states that "Sakura is the Japanese name for ornamental cherry trees, Prunus serrulata, and their blossoms". In other words, the article explicitly states that sakura is not English. The note that it changes to zakura in compound words demonstrates pretty clearly that we are talking about a foreign word.
- The article actually starts with the word Cherry blossom. If editors feel that "Cherry blossom" is the most natural lead-in to the topic, then the title of the article should be harmonised with the content.
- Following the discussion below, it appears that "sakura" in English is a horticulturally more limited than the term sakura in Japanese, referring specifically to (flowering) cherry trees originating from Japan, in particular varieties resulting from the "centuries-old hybridization process in Japan, meant to enhance the beauty of the blossoms". In Japanese, sakura can refer to wild cherry flowers as much as hybridised cultivars. Using the term "sakura" in English is thus unnecessarily limiting both in terms of the wider horticultural scope of ornamental cherry blossoms (wild as well as cultivated), and in terms of the distribution of the plant in countries other than Japan.
For all of these reasons, I propose that the article should be moved to Cherry blossom.
Bathrobe (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support. DBaba (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support per User:Bathrobe in this case. English Wikipedia should title widely accepted "English name" not "simply transcribed name" by one ethic group. --Appletrees (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support per Bathrobe. I am a native speaker; I recognize Cherry blossom, by me Sakura is a restaurant name. I am not alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support per the comments above. Article titles should reflect the most widely used English name, nothing more needs to be said. Parsecboy (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support per common English usage. Yunfeng (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Discussion for move
- Japanese flowering cherry is the more specific term, per Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, Merriam-Webster, 2002 (http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com). The following are dictionary entries for sakura and Japanese flowering cherry, respectively:
- Main Entry: sakura
- : JAPANESE FLOWERING CHERRY
- Main Entry: japanese flowering cherry
- : any of certain ornamental hybrid cherries developed in Japan chiefly from two species (Prunus serrulata and P. sieboldii) that bear a profusion of white or pink usually double and often fragrant flowers followed by small inedible fruit, that have long been admired and revered by the Japanese, and that are now widespread in cultivation in regions of moderate climate -- called also Japanese cherry
- Cherry blossom is not necessary equivalent to "sakura".--Endroit (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Japanese flowering cherry is the more specific term, per Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, Merriam-Webster, 2002 (http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com). The following are dictionary entries for sakura and Japanese flowering cherry, respectively:
- I am referring to the "cultural concept" of "cherry blossom", not to specific Prunus species. The disambiguation page is actually misleading.
- Cherry blossom as "The Prunus family of flowering trees, including the cherry tree" is just wrong. Cherry blossom does not refer to the "Prunus family".
- The website Cherry Blossom, the musical band Cherry Blossom, and the candy are all derivative usages. They don't impact on the meaning of "cherry blossom" in a primary sense.
- That leaves Prunus serrulata and Prunus × yedoensis, both of which are botanical names of specific species, not the names of flowers.
- When "cherry blossom" is used in English, at least as a phenomenon worthy of a Wikipedia article, it refers to the flowers of several varieties of Prunus. As you mention, these include P. serrulata, P. sieboldii, and it seems Prunus x yedoensis. The term is thus culturally defined. Sure, you could say that "cherry blossom" refers in a literal sense to the flowers of any kind of cherry tree, but as an article on the cultural phenomenon, "cherry blossom" is fine. There is no need to introduce the foreign term sakura to try and be more precise. The term "cherry blossom" is used extensively in the translation of Japanese literature and in many other cultural contexts -- I would suggest far more extensively than sakura. It thus has a long history and venerable tradition.
- In fact, I suggest that the superficial precision that is being aimed at by introducing the term sakura is illusory. The term sakura as used in the Wikipedia article is not actually even a true match to the Japanese meaning of the word さくら. An attempt is being made to use sakura as a technical term in English when it's really nothing of the sort in Japanese. さくら is not much more precise in Japanese than "cherry blossom" is in English. (Why does Japanese call the cherry fruit the 桜ん坊? Because "ordinary" cherries are technically sakura in Japanese, too.
- Bathrobe (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think we have to be careful when applying WP:UE (and WP:NC) in naming the articles. Wikipedia sometimes prefers the more specific foreign terms over the generic, more popular English names, especially if the words are not equivalent. Emmental (cheese) comes to mind, where we also have a corresponding article Swiss cheese discussing the English name.
- "Cherry blossom" is a generic term in English, refering more to the flowers rather than the trees.
- "Sakura" may be a generic term in Japanese, but in English, it specifically refers to the (flowering) cherry trees originating from Japan. It includes the cherry blossoms, as well as the trees themselves.
- The National Cherry Blossom Festival uses "cherry trees" or "blossoming cherry trees" to refer to the trees themselves, rather than "cherry blossoms". [1]
- Also, I think it would be a mistake to describe Sakura in terms of any fixed species of trees. Rather, Sakura culminates from the centuries-old hybridization process in Japan, meant to enhance the beauty of the blossoms during hanami. When the editors start adding material about this hybridization process, it should belong in a "Sakura" article rather than a "cherry blossom" article.--Endroit (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- My comment above was bashed out in about five minutes in a big hurry, so it probably wasn't so coherent.
- I have some trouble following your reasoning.
- Point 1. "Cherry blossom" is a generic term, referring to flowers rather than the trees.
- In fact, your point suggests that "cherry blossoms" is entirely appropriate, because the article is specifically about the flowers and their cultural significance. The trees in a botanical sense are covered at Prunus serrulata and (if it existed) Prunus sieboldii.
- Point 2. It would be a mistake to describe "sakura" in terms of any fixed species of trees.
- In fact, that's a point in favour of the generic term "cherry blossom". You also say that sakura must refer to "varieties hybridised in Japan". There is, in fact, some question about this narrow definition. According to the Japanese Wikipedia article on サクラ, there is quite a variety of "sakura" and they are not necessarily hybridised varieties. These include:
- ヒカンザクラ群 (中国の冬桜花、チベットのヒマラヤザクラなどが野生種にあたり、1月から3月にかけて緋色の花を咲かせる。) Hikan-zakura -- wild cherry trees in China, Tibet.
- エドヒガン群 (日本と日本から持ち込まれ朝鮮半島にかけて分布するエドヒガン、台湾に分布するムシャザクラ、中国に分布するP.changyangensis Ingramの三系統があり) Edo higan-zakura -- 3 lineages: Japan and Korea (brought there from Japan), Taiwan, China.
- ヤマザクラ群 (日本列島および朝鮮半島、樺太(サハリン)南部に分布する。葉が花と同時に開く) Yama-zakura -- Japan, Korea, Sakhalin
- マメザクラ群 Mame-zakura
- チョウジザクラ群 Chōjin-zakura
- シナミザクラ群 (中国南西部に7種が分布している) Shina mi-zakura -- Southwest China
- ミヤマザクラ群 (中国南西部を中心に5種と、日本に1種分布しており、日本産のものは中国産のものとは別種と考えられている) Miyama-zakura -- SW China, Japan.
- So, in fact, quite a few of these サクラ are found wild not only in Japan, but also in China, Korea, and Russia. サクラ in the broader sense is thus not simply the culmination of the centuries-old hybridization process in Japan.
- Point 3. "Sakura" in English specifically refers to the (flowering) cherry trees originating from Japan. That is, although "sakura" cannot be confined to any specific species, it must originate in Japan.
- This seems to imply that varieties found outside Japan referred to above cannot be called sakura, at least in English. But given that the Japanese themselves are conscious that "sakura" are not limited to Japan, why are we using "sakura" in the title if in a technical sense it is going to limit us to varieties found in Japan?
- All in all, I'm not sure what you're driving at. The article is about "cherry blossoms" as a cultural phenomenon, yet you appear to be insisting that (1) cherry blossom is too narrow because the article should be covering tree species, not flowers, and (2) that "cherry blossoms" is incorrect because the definition of "sakura" in English is very narrow, referring to various species hybridised in Japan and no others. What exactly are you proposing that the article should be about?
- I think I'm finally coming to grips with where you are coming from. You are saying: sakura and "cherry blossom" are not strictly the same thing; therefore, substituting "cherry blossom" for "sakura" is incorrect. The problem is that this is putting the cart before the horse. Rather than debate whether the words are exactly the same in every respect, it would seem more sensible to look at their suitability for an article about the cultural significance of cherry blossoms. As it stands, it's hard to see how "sakura" is more suitable as a name for the article than "cherry blossom". "Sakura" as you describe it is a narrow horticultural concept. There would seem to be good grounds for taking away much of the current article and placing it in a broader article dealing with the cultural significance of "cherry blossoms", leaving "sakura" as a rump article dealing with horticulture. This amounts to pretty much the same thing as renaming.
- This article was about the word "sakura" to begin with, including the Japanese concept, as well as the derivative ones. Then, on March 20, 2007, somebody added the words "cherry blossom" to the lead section. Then, Bathrobe, you now propose a page move. I merely suggested above that "Japanese flowering cherry" is the more specific translation of the word "sakura" in English. As long as that information is included in the article, and all the correct definitions are included in the article, you can carry on with your WP:RM.
- To reiterate my point, the Japanese concept of "sakura" includes the hybridization process of the trees, which concerns the "tree" itself rather than the "blossoms". Regardless of the page move, the hybridization process belongs in a "sakura" article rather than a "cherry blossom" article. If the page move is completed, a new "sakura" article should be created to discuss this hybridization process, if and when an editor volunteers to do so.--Endroit (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Endroit, your rationale is even more implausible. So are you insisting that the Japanese term for the species, "sakura" is widely used as a "COMMON ENGLISH"? Somebody added the "cherry blossom" because that is the "most common name" of the species in English speaking world. Here is not a Japanese site and of course, ENCYCLOPEDIA, not operated by Japanese government. Sakura is just a transcribe word in English by Japanese editors or Japanophiles who seem to try to introduce the term and fixate it in real life via Wikipedia. The references on the article do not even justify to your claim. One of your insistences for keeping the name is because Sakura has been addressed for a long time? So what? To say, it is one of typical problems that Wikipedia is really operated by "democratic number account" not by 'fact' with reliable sources and a long time distortion. --Appletrees (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Go back and re-read what I said. I never said anything of the sort (i.e.: that "'sakura' is widely used as a 'COMMON ENGLISH'").--Endroit (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Then, why did you alter the order of 'sakura' in the first sentence for which none support you yet. You should distinguish an 'implication' and try to catch what people say to you in the context. Re-read your statement, and mine too. I fully looked throught your unconvincing statement.--Appletrees (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Go back and re-read what I said. I never said anything of the sort (i.e.: that "'sakura' is widely used as a 'COMMON ENGLISH'").--Endroit (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Endroit, your rationale is even more implausible. So are you insisting that the Japanese term for the species, "sakura" is widely used as a "COMMON ENGLISH"? Somebody added the "cherry blossom" because that is the "most common name" of the species in English speaking world. Here is not a Japanese site and of course, ENCYCLOPEDIA, not operated by Japanese government. Sakura is just a transcribe word in English by Japanese editors or Japanophiles who seem to try to introduce the term and fixate it in real life via Wikipedia. The references on the article do not even justify to your claim. One of your insistences for keeping the name is because Sakura has been addressed for a long time? So what? To say, it is one of typical problems that Wikipedia is really operated by "democratic number account" not by 'fact' with reliable sources and a long time distortion. --Appletrees (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, Endroit's rationale makes sense. On the basis of Endroit's comments, the article could equally be moved to Japanese flowering cherry, dealing with the horticultural aspect. That is because "sakura" is another name for the "Japanese flowering cherry". If we do start a separate article on Japanese flowering cherry, we still need to consider the question of "cherry blossoms in Asian culture". Does this require an article of its own? Or should it be included in "Japanese flowering cherry".
- Endroit pointed that the article was started as "sakura". Actually, it was about the city of "Sakura". Then someone decided that it was better to reserve "sakura" for the cherry tree and its blossoms. The original stub read simply: "Sakura (桜) is the Japanese name for the cherry tree and its blossoms." There was also a note on the cultural significance of cherry blossoms: "A well-known symbol of Japan, sakura are said to represent the beautiful yet fleeting and ephemeral nature of life, and are a frequent subject of all forms of Japanese art. The yearly Hanami festival celebrates the beauty of sakura."
- As we all know, "history has many cunning passages". Contrary to what Endroit says, (1) the words "cherry" and "blossoms" were used from the very beginning to explain the meaning of sakura; the addition of "cherry blossoms" was not some gratuitous action, (2) the article at the beginning was not based on the Webster's definition; it was the deliberate use of a Japanese word ("the Japanese name for the cherry tree and its blossoms"), with the Chinese character 桜 in parentheses to emphasise the point, (3) the article from the beginning was culturally, not horticulturally based; it is only later that the horticultural aspect became more prominent. Endroit's suggestion that the article should concern itself with "Japanese flowering cherry" is much later than the concept of "cherry blossoms".
- Any sources for "flowering cherry trees" (other than ones originating from Japan) being revered in Asia? The one in Philippines ("Palawan Cherry Blossoms") appears to be Cassia nodosa in the Fabaceae family, unrelated to cherries. [2]--Endroit (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Discussion moved from WP:RM
Moved from WP:RM, so this is slightly out of sequence. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- The article is about the cultural significance of cherry blossoms. According to the rule WP:UE, English names should be preferred to foreign names. The word "sakura" in English is a loanword and is a more narrowly defined horticultural term than the word "sakura" in Japanese. "Cherry blossoms" is both more familiar and more traditionally used than the loanword sakura. —Bathrobe (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Much of the page Sakura is about the word "sakura" and Japanese cultural history, rather than cherry blossom in general. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Is the requested move to Cherry blossom or to Cherry blossoms? 199.125.109.104 (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus agreed on cherry blossom. PeterSymonds | talk 16:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- The term "cherry blossom" is ambiguous. To a European or American it may mean "sakura", i.e. "Japanese flowering cherry"; or it may mean "the blossom of the tree that grows edible cherry fruits", same as "apple blossom" is the flowers of an apple tree. Move Sakura to Japanese flowering cherry? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- The cherry blossom seems to be celebrated equally whatever cherry tree it comes from. I doubt that the International Cherry Blossom Festival in Georgia is celebrating "Japanese flowering cherries", yet they are still celebrating the cherry blossom. I don't think it matters what kind of cherry the blossoms come from. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- So where are your sources stating that other cherry trees (besides the Japanese flowering cherry) are being regarded for their Cherry blossoms? Just in case you didn't know, Yoshino Cherry trees are a prime example of Japanese flowering cherries. The cherry blossoms in Georgia belong to this Yoshino Cherry category.--Endroit (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I find it most telling that there is not a single link from the article at Prunus × yedoensis (Yoshino cherry) to sakura. Indeed, "sakura" is not even found at Prunus speciosa, one of the bases of the "Yoshino cherry". If "sakura" is the term of choice, why doesn't it turn up in the two articles? (For good measure, it's not found at Fuji cherry, either.)
- The proposal to move to Japanese flowering cherry, as suggested by Anthony Appleyard (in one of his rare ventures into the cherry orchard :)) might actually fly. If "Japanese flowering cherry" is a generic term for the different species and hybrids covered by "sakura", the horticultural and cultural aspects can be contained within one article (cf rose, which is not just about the flower, but also about the plant).
- We seem to be fighting against a kind of inertia, here. Because someone who knew a bit of Japanese felt it was "cool" to name the article "sakura" back in 2005, we now have to fight tooth and nail if we want to move it to a more widely recognisable English expression. If it had been named "cherry blossoms" or "Japanese flowering cherry" in the first place, there would be no such battle. Wikipedia is awfully young to be struggling with historical inertia. Bathrobe (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am curious. The box lists three species of "sakura": Prunus serrulata (Prunus jamasakura), Prunus speciosa, and Prunus × yedoensis. But there are other species prized as "cherry blossoms" referred to in the article, including Prunus pendula and Prunus subhirtella. Are these also "Japanese flowering cherries"?
- Bathrobe (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps put all relevant pages in a Category:Japanese flowering cherry articles? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Someone should write a page about Prunus amanogawa. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- I find myself repeating... "I think it would be a mistake to describe Sakura in terms of any fixed species of trees. Rather, Sakura culminates from the centuries-old hybridization process in Japan, meant to enhance the beauty of the blossoms during hanami."
- Prunus × yedoensis is the most popular cultivar today. Prunus serrulata cultivars (including "Kanzan") were the most popular before "yedoensis". There are other cultivars, of course. But these were all hybridized to enhance their beauty. There's no need to list all the cultivars in an infobox.
- With respect to the article name, either "Sakura" or "Japanese flowering cherry" is fine. There's no need to force this article to become a generic "cherry blossom" article.--Endroit (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- They are not different "cultivars", they are different "species". There is a big difference. That's why the term "hybridised" is used.
- So it appears that you are now in favour of separate articles for each different species, as well as an article on the "Japanese flowering cherry" which would presumably cover the use of these wild species for ornamental use. Is that correct?
- Appleyard, if we are thinking in terms of a category, the best name might be Category:Ornamental cherry articles, possibly as a subcategory of Category:Cherry. 01:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC) User:Bathrobe
- They are not different "cultivars", they are different "species". There is a big difference. That's why the term "hybridised" is used.
- Bathrobe, you don't really understand what a Sakura (Japanese flowering cherry) is. Numerous cultivars were developed in Japan, and then spread throughout the world. Here is a source describing Prunus × yedoensis as a cultivar: [3]. USDA agrees that Prunus × yedoensis is "only cultivated".
- In essence, all Sakura exported from Japan are cultivars, and this has been so for at least over a century. And no, we don't need an article for each different cultivar, although I'm not against the creation of the major ones.--Endroit (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, I'm trying to figure out why my understanding of the word "cultivar" differs so much from yours. To quote Wikipedia, a cultivar is "a cultivated plant that has been selected and given a unique name because it has desirable characteristics (decorative or useful) that distinguish it from otherwise similar plants of the same species" (emphasis mine). My understanding is that Prunus serrulata, Prunus speciosa, Prunus pendula, Prunus sieboldii etc. are separate species belonging to the genus Prunus. Please enlighten me if my understanding of binomial names is inadequate. Prunus x yedoensis is an artificial hybrid name (rather than naturally occurring species) as indicated by the 'x'. (It is, as the articles you refer to state, a clone.)
- The difference is: Bathrobe, you're trying to describe "Sakura" (Japanese flowering cherry) in terms of the parent species. And I'm trying to describe "Sakura" in terms of the popular cultivars, such as "Yoshino", "Kanzan", "Akebono", or "Amanogawa". Both information can be included in the article, with proper explanation, as they are not mutually exclusive (i.e.: These--and other--cultivars are believed to have been selected from among the aforementioned species or their decendants).--Endroit (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)