KaiaVintr

Cherry blossom copy editing

Hi! I saw that you've been working on the copy-edit in bits and pieces for cherry blossom, and I was just recently taking aim at the article to do a complete pass-through. Just now I went from the start of Blooming season to the end of Cultivars. Apologies if I got in the way; for now I've removed the template since I plan on finishing this by the end of the day. Thank you for your work! Reconrabbit 18:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I was going to continue copy-editing from the Korea section until the end, but I will wait until you're done. Good to see the template removed. KaiaVintr (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I finished about 2 hours ago. I'm confident with the quality overall now, but please look at the Korea section again - it probably needs special attention, and I did what I could. I'd say if there were more references and the Spain section was expanded it could reach Good Article status, but the Spanish article has a warning that "it was written from the perspective of a fan". Reconrabbit 23:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the warning is more about the tone than the content, but I wonder if it's paraphrasing its first reference too much. Anyway, I found the web site for the fiesta, and I'm working on updated text for the Spain section but I will stop if you're already doing that (I can read Spanish). Found another festival in Spain to add (in Alfarnate). KaiaVintr (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I have not started; thank you for your work. Currently have moved on to finding images of fish and may continue finding sources later. Reconrabbit 00:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe all of the passages marked {{citation needed}} are resolved, so it may be eligible for "Good Article" status. Since you've put a good amount of work into it I leave it to you to make the nomination if you want to, though I'll support the process along the way. Reconrabbit 21:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm pretty new at this, so the idea of nominating the article hadn't occurred to me, but I will see how it goes. I just made some changes to the lead section, which I hope address some of the confusion reflected in the first Talk topic (+ incorrect information about Collingwood Ingram). There's probably a lot more fact-checking that should be done, but much of it needs a native Japanese speaker. KaiaVintr (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I can see fact-checking being needed on the last paragraph of Classification and a good deal of the historical accounts on Flower viewing in Japan, along with a couple regional specifics. What else?

Good articles aren't as rigorous as featured articles from what I have seen, so it's almost there. Reconrabbit 02:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Also the middle two paragraphs of Blooming season, the long paragraph in Symbolism in Japan, and the Cultivars section, I think.

I'm concerned because it's an old article with a lot of small edits by different people. There could have been unintentional drift in meaning during copy edits, for example.

I noticed books by Toshio Katsuki referenced in many places, and found that those citations were added in February 2021 by SLIMHANNYA. If that editor is still around and could re-check, it would probably help a lot. KaiaVintr (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I've been looking at old revisions, comparing to the current text, and I'm a bit more confident now. Also saw that SLIMHANNYA made some smaller edits last year. Hopefully there are enough eyes on it. KaiaVintr (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to write a bit more about Thailand, but it is far more readable than before you started work on it. Reconrabbit 18:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate it for Good Article. I just put more in on Thailand. Will probably do so tomorrow (it's the 24th for me right now) so let me know if you have any thoughts. Reconrabbit 01:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I've finished the comparison that I wanted to do (comparing the current text to a revision from 2021 after most of SLIMHANNYA's contributions), and found only one significant issue.

The one issue is in Classification: "Cultural and scientific divergences over the classification of cherry trees stem from the lack in Europe and North America of wild cherry trees with large flowers" looks like its meaning may have changed during copy edits. The original text seemed to be explaining why it is believed that cherry blossom viewing originated in Japan (but after two years of revisions it lost its context). The references were kept, but the meaning of the text was changed. (revision for the change is 07:46, 11 October 2023 [Revigors])

Does it make sense to ask SLIMHANNYA about it on their talk page and also add a topic on the article's talk page? Or maybe I can just go ahead and delete the sentence with its references (but I don't want to start an edit war if you're nominating the article!) KaiaVintr (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I see the difference there and after puzzling over I believe that expanding upon the statement that "Europe and North America lack cherry blossoms with large flowers" is best done after "and Kanzan is actively planted in Western countries." It makes sense to keep it in the paragraph as long as there's some expansion upon it later on. However, I don't have the book that gives this information that's cited to give this info - it does not look like there's anything regarding the Western Hemisphere in "basic cherry blossom info". Probably best to comment out that reference until we hear from SLIMHANNYA. I'm in no rush to nominate, just had a feeling yesterday until I saw that. Reconrabbit 14:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the whole paragraph might need to be reworked or rewritten. It doesn't make the distinction between the genus Cerasus and the subgenus Cerasus clear. Japanese version of the page says that Japan has only used the Cerasus genus since 1992, which seems important to note (I found English language sources that back this up).

This paper says that Linnaeus used Cerasus as a genus and it was merged later by Bentham and Hooker (contradicting the Prunus article). It gives the reason for confusion as lack of phylogenetic analysis, so we could say that instead of the current "lack of large flowers" explanation. https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2307/2657135 KaiaVintr (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Comparing to other good article candidates (e.g., Maize) I'm going to need a lot more citations on this but they shouldn't be hard to find. One thing that stood out to me was the mention of China being the originator of cherry blossoms in the Tang dynasty; a lot of articles online seem to parrot this without any elaboration. Tried to add some more info on that; always appreciate your work there. Reconrabbit 18:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think people in Japan generally believe that. SLIMHANNYA's source seems to be arguing (with evidence) that cherry blossom cultivation likely originated in Japan.

I searched for the Nihon Shoki reference, and saw that there is a mention of cherry blossoms in an event with date given as 419 (although the Nihon Shoki is unreliable as a historical record for early dates, and it could be an embellishment):

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nihongi:_Chronicles_of_Japan_from_the_Earliest_Times_to_A.D._697/Book_XIII

How do we acknowledge this type of debate without wading into it? KaiaVintr (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Right now I've written "The identity of the original cultivators of the cherry blossom around this time has been the subject of debate", which could be followed up with Nihon Shoki as a counterpoint. First sentence would need to be rewritten to indicate that 'some have stated this happened' or that it wasn't necessarily the originating point. Reconrabbit 20:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

What does the source say that you added (the Yoshiko Ishikawa reference)? KaiaVintr (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I looked into it and could not find a more detailed preview of the passage I was drawing from. Will try to get a copy somehow. The source describes how plum blossoms were appreciated both in China and Japan, the preference for it by the Chinese literati up through the 9th century, and a shift towards the use of cherry blossoms in the Heian period. Reconrabbit 14:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

That is partially covered in the "Flower viewing in Japan" section (although maybe the Chinese origin of uwe viewing in pre-Heian Japan was not made clear).

The problematic text is "Japan diplomatic groups brought the cherry blossom back to Japan from China", and I'm guessing that the Yoshiko Ishikawa book does not say this. That text was added recently by a user who has only made two Wikipedia contributions (the other was similarly claiming that something Japanese is actually Chinese, and it was immediately changed by another editor). I noticed that it is not exactly the same claim as in the news articles that a google search turns up.

Regarding the news articles, they all seem to be repeating statements by the "executive chairman of the China Cherry Industry Association". In one, he mentions migrating birds (I could not find a mention of diplomats). I could not find one where they asked any academics for an opinion. I don't think there is enough information in those news articles to determine precisely what he is claiming (although maybe Chinese language news has more information). Obviously there are wild cherry trees native to Japan, including a 2000 year-old tree. One explanation might be that a Japanese text says migrating birds brought the species to the Japanese islands in the distant past, and this person is misrepresenting it as saying it occurred 1200 years ago.

I'm thinking that the lack of concrete information means we would be unlikely to use those news articles as a reference, except for documenting the existence of the controversy. Given the lack of academic attention (from what I can tell), it seems difficult to give a rebuttal/counterpoint without doing "original research" (at least in terms of making guesses about what is being claimed). Are there any Wikipedia guidelines that apply here?

Maybe adding a "Controversy about origins" section is unavoidable eventually, but it would need a source that seriously discusses the claims.

I think any negative impact on the country sections should be kept to a minimum, and probably that was not done enough in the Korea section. KaiaVintr (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The origination point referred to under the China caption is probably giving undue weight to an unclear statement then. The Korean dispute at least has a time frame and research around it that distinguishes it. Reconrabbit 18:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)