Talk:Cherry blossom/Archive 1

National Trust pilot
Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Chinese location
The geographical location of the trees in China is confusing as it now stands. North OR(?) South middle, near the sea. If it is in the east/west middle of China, it is not near the sea; if it is north or south and near the sea, then why not just say near the sea (or are they absent between north and south, i.e., in the middle (!)? ).Kdammers (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

missing citation and odd location for comment
"In Unicode it can be represented with the ❀ (U+2740) symbol."

This may be useful in a symbolism note - but only if a reference for this use can be provided. Used by whom ? I have not encountered this even on Japanese web pages using Unicode. Korea? Taiwan ? China ? Most Japanese web pages do not use Unicode in the first place. Businesses use one encoding, academics bloggers another ... even the e-text Asia portal at U. VA. is not yet Unicode !

G. Robert Shiplett 16:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is ridiculous
Japanese ultra-nationalists and anime fans ruined the Wikipedia article on cherry blossom... It's exactly like how they had ruined the article on high speed rail by saying that "Shinkansen" is the universal term for all bullet trains because Japan dominates the field. Oh Wikipedia (119.200.100.242 (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC))

I completely agree. There is a tendency in Japan to think that cherry blossoms are exclusively Japanese. In fact I came to this article in order to provide a Japanese friend some references to the indigenous flowering cherry trees of the UK and other countries, but was presented instead an article concentrating on *Japanese* cherry blossoms and the culture of hanami. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiko666 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Warning for Korea, Japan and China
For anyone wanting to show disrespect by arguing about Cherry Blossoms, don't do it here. This is the most ridiculous form of nationalism, one can imagine. Information about Cherry Blossoms for each country will be respectfully shown in Wikipedia. Vandalism will be repaired. Travelmite (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

NSFW Sexual-in-nature misleading link
Not sure if this is the right vehicle to report these things however the link at the bottom of the page "Pictures of cherry blossoms in Japan," goes to an inappropriate page. -DA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.130.176 (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed. Thank you for pointing that out. Oda Mari (talk) 06:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Overlinking
Programs such as WP:AWB catch multiple links on a page and an editor using AWB may remove the second occurrence of a link. However, if the article is long - such as this one - the word can be linked again. See: WP:REPEATLINK. Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations such as United States, Japan etc. See: WP:OVERLINK. For general advise on linking see: Manual of Style (linking).Gmcbjames (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Natural History section?
What is the point of the 'Natural History' section? It seems to talk about a specific tree sort, but I realized that if I generalized it, it would be devoid of useful information. If we are to follow the definition of Cherry Blossom in the introduction, it includes the flowers of all trees in the greater family of cherry-like trees, which includes native European, West-Asian, Central Asian and South Asian cherry trees as well as the non-fruit bearing East Asian cherry trees. Unless the article is more specifically defined to deal only with the Japanese and perhaps other East Asian cherry blossom sorts, I think the 'Natural History' section needs to go. Cherries are all over Euroasia and not native to any specific area. Carewolf (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree Gmcbjames (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree.Nadiatalent (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The Latin Name of the Cherry Blossoms in Washington, D.C.
Wonder if anyone can provide the Latin name of the species in Washington, D.C.? --Roland 01:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See here. Rivertorch (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Philippine Cherry Blossoms
There are indeed Cherry Blossoms in the Philippines, mostly in Palawan, I feel the Philippines should be added to the list of countries in this article...

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-760606

http://quezoncity.olx.com.ph/palawan-cherry-blossoms-seedling-balayong-seedling-iid-211145920

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4036/4527379443_0e662d6a1d_z.jpg

--LakanBanwa (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Why so much about culture??
This article is about a plant and this is a web encyclopedia, it should be scientific like this Here, but instead it's more like a page about cultural aspects. The culture section should be a section at the end perhaps.

And since this wiki is English (western), use the Latin scientific term only and not "sakura"; peach blossoms exists in other places than Japan, why randomly use Japanese name? I've never even heard of "sakura" before; put that word in Japanese section please. Looks like a lot of Japanese are purposefully trying to change this article to Japanese culture only.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.86.127 (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The article isn't about a plant; as the title suggests, it's about the blossom of a plant. As the text makes clear, the notability of that blossom is grounded in Japanese culture and history. Rivertorch (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article about the plant is here, using the Latin scientific term.--Dwy (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Somei Yoshino is cross-breed of Japanese indigenous cherry trees of Prunus pendula Maxim.f.ascendens Ohwi cherry tree and Cerasus speciosa
The page stated "In 1933, the Japanese botanist Koizumi Genichi reported that the Japanese Sakura (Somei Yoshino) originated on Jeju-do island (Quelpaert).[21]" but this theory has been proven WRONG by DNA test(http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=205306).

This botanist hypothesized that the Korean indigenous cherry "Prunus yedoensis" and Somei-yoshino ("Prunus X yedoensis Matsumura") might be from the same variety. (The botanical terms look very similar but maybe they were named similar because of this theory)

Anyway, the botanical specimens haven't been left anywhere and this theory has been in skepticism since its publish because Somei-yoshino has a DNA characteristic of Cerasus speciosa which is native to Izu islands of Japan. And finally this theory has been proven WRONG by DNA test (http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=205306)conducted in the USA that Korean cherry tree and the Somei-yoshino are totally different varieties.

Although this theory has been proven wrong by DNA test, Koreans hold on to this theory to insist Somei-yoshino is from Korea and keep planting Somei-yoshino in its land driving its indigenous variety of Prunus yedoensis into extinction.

Anyway, Somei-yoshino is a crossbreed of Japanese indigenous cherry trees created in the Edo-era by Japanese horticulturalists.Wiki kitkat (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a citation for the parentage of the Japanese cultivars? The paper that you cite says "Putative parental taxa for both P. yedoensis and Yoshino cherry hybrids could not be revealed by ISSR and nucleotide indels." Nadiatalent (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See these., Original, translation, , , and . Oda Mari (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sakura in Ukraine
editsemiprotected I want to write about cherry blossoms in Ukraine.

Robotex (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone beat you to it!  Set Sail   For The   Seven Seas   265° 24' 0" NET   17:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

San Francisco Cherry Blossom Festival and Parade
...runs a full week in April of each year. It has been scheduled when our cherries predictably bloom (easy to predict due to our near constant weather). The festival runs for the full week with two weekends of festivities and parades. It is centered in our large Japantown. San Francisco has one of the largest per capita Japanese populations in the US, and our Asian population is now over 50% of our City--the largest per capita in the US.

Unexplained move
User:Radiojon moved Cherry blossom to Flowering cherry wthout any discussion and I reverted the move. Move of this article should made by Requested moves. ――Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cherry blossoms bring out the best in man. it allows one to concentrate on the boner, (or in a more literal term- erection), that one is trying to hide and pull down ones pants. It allows one to be open and free, willing to express ones-self. This is no joke and I hope that all who read this will take it as seriously as I take it. Thank you for listening and I will be posting more comments in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.180.213 (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Chinese symbolism?
Should a chinese symbolism of the flower be included? --76.19.133.38 (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Noone's interested in the Chinese symbolism? Is Chinese culture that insignificant, or does noone care? I guess it's the latter. Oh well.--76.19.133.38 (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone please answer something-anything :) --76.19.133.38 (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there is no significance in Chinese culture. There's no mention about it in the article in Chinese Wikipedia. If you know some Chinese symbolism, please add it to the article with source. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 06:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for the response. Only one website that says anything about Chinese symbolism was found, so I guess whatever significance it has in Chinese culture is negligible. That works.--76.19.133.38 (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

hey how the Cherry Blossom on China Airline??

Vandalism
I can't f*cking *believe* how much this page gets vandalized. Maybe we should consider protecting it? Yunfeng (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just delated this sentence "obama likes to eat chuncks of cheese" that had obviously nothing to do with the aticle. User: Veroribo 9th May 2013

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Luna Chew.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Old Requested move
no consensus. Sakura → Cherry_blossom – {What is "sakura"? "Cherry blossom" is already a redirect to "Cherry" so I believe this move requires adminstrator help. } &mdash; --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. Blank Verse  &empty;  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
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 17:09, 20 Apr 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.


 * Featured picture candidates/Magical Sakura


 * 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)

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). Blank Verse  &empty; 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). Blank Verse  &empty;  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)

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)

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)
 * Note: see below: there is an opinion for moving instead to Japanese flowering cherry or similar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:32, 12 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)


 * 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".
 * 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?


 * Bathrobe (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.


 * Bathrobe (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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".


 * Bathrobe (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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. --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
 * 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: .  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.)


 * 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 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 your aforementioned species or their decendants).--Endroit (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2008 (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.

Taxobox
Just a passing comment - since this page does not describe a particular taxon, it should not include a taxobox. If these species and hybrids comprised a section, then the taxobox should stay. As it stands, it's misplaced. I thought about removing it, but figured a discussion might be necessary given the recent move. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Japanese cultural aspects of cherry blossom
OK, so the page is about cherry blossom... but not really, is it? It is about cherry blossom in Japan. An article about "cherry blossom" would deal with the specifics of the flowers, the pollinating insects, and similar things.

The article should either be transferred to "Cherry blossom in Japan", "Japanese cultural aspects of cherry blossom", or back to "sakura". // habj (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. The article is now confused and has no focus. It still refers to this 'loanword' all the way through, it is clear that the article is primarily about sakura in Japan. The people who proposed the renaming really have a responsibility to ensure that it made sense after the change. Imc (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2008 (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)


 * The following discussion is an archived 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 Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Taxobox image
I replaced the current image image with the one on the lower right because I thought the image was blurred and was not the best one in the Commons. Then User:PiccoloNamek reverted my edit. Please compare the two images in the Taxobox. and. The other images I thought good were File:Tenshochi Park.jpg, File:U Wash Quad cherry blossoms 06.jpg, File:淡墨桜(cherry-Usuzumizakura).JPG, File:Chidorigafuchi sakura.JPG, File:CIMG7141.JPG, and File:Cherry blossoms at Isuzugawa-Tsutsumi01.jpg. I'd like to ask for other editors' opinion. Oda Mari (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look out of focus at full-size on my monitor. Plus, it is artistically superior to the replacement image in every conceivable way. It is a featured picture and has been at the top of the article for nearly five years and nobody has tried to replace it until today. That being said, if the majority decide it needs to go, I'm not going to object because it isn't that big of a deal anyway.PiccoloNamek (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've long thought the image at the top of this article was inappropriate. It looks like a bizarre photoshop filtered image. It's attractive and artistic, true, but its informative power is not great. The image is a misrepresentation of reality: It's not what the trees actually look like. This is an encyclopaedia after all, artistry is important but only in so far as it doesn't harm our ability to educate. --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would prefer a "realistic" - which does not necessarily have to, but still could, mean a boring snap - over an artistic but unrealistic presentation, for the pupose of this article. Piccolo did a superb job in creating a magical, "unnatural" presentation as commented himself during the picture's FP candidacy. There's always a first time; the picture served perfectly well for the last severals years, and I guess it's the time it can retire. If given a choice, I liked this one: File:Chidorigafuchi sakura.JPG. --Mantokun (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I applaud PicooloNamek for devoting much time to creating this and uploading it to the project. However, I feel s/he is being a bit disingenuous in the response to the out of focus thing. Obviously it looks out of focus because the creator of the pic (PiccoloNamek) has photoshopped (applying a blur to it) as stated in the pic description page. This was criticized by several people in the featured pic nomination. Regardless of "it is artististically superior...in every conceivable way", the picture doesn't at all look like a photograph. It looks more like a Monet, which is a good artistic comparison, but for an article where somebody wants to actually see what a real cherry blossom looks like, I think it's quite inadequate. --C S (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

For the infobox, I think File:Cherry_blossoms_at_Isuzugawa-Tsutsumi01.jpg would work the best out of all the suggestions. --C S (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to echo some things C S wrote. I find the original photo by PiccoloNamek to be artistic. It is romantic, relaxing and appealing. However, what an encyclopedia needs is a clear illustration. Art is not the purpose of including a picture here; illustration is. Some of the alternatives presented, such as File:Chidorigafuchi sakura.JPG and File:Cherry_blossoms_at_Isuzugawa-Tsutsumi01.jpg, are clearer illustrations and I recommend selecting one such photo for the opening of the article. Fg2 (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I like Chidorigafuchi_sakura.JPG but some of the others are nice too. Even at thumbnail size, I like showing a landscape rather than a single tree. Kingdon (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have really no opinion on the lead image, but unless this article is describing a specific taxon, I don't think it should have a taxobox at all. That's been standard practice for a while. Are the species listed in the taxobox currently all in a section, subgenus, series, etc. of the genus Prunus? --Rkitko (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rkitko. As it stands, the article is misleading to someone who takes the taxobox seriously, because it either implies that there are only four species in Prunus or that there is some unspecified taxonomic subdivision of Prunus, with the common name of "cherry blossom'', that consists only of these species.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Add me to the list. My first reaction to "Taxobox image" was, "Wait? Why would there even be a taxobox in that article to begin with?". Circeus (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, converting the taxobox to a lead image (and no infobox) makes sense to me (see "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox" at MOS:IMAGES). The list of species and crosses from the taxobox could presumably go later in the article. Kingdon (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think File:Cherry_blossoms_at_Isuzugawa-Tsutsumi01.jpg or File:Chidorigafuchi_sakura.JPG the best for this purpose as they show the trees (and blossoms) well. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I may be the only one, but for a lead image, I actually prefer blossoms or a branch (something like File:2007_Sakura_of_Fukushima-e_007_rotated.jpg) to a tree or a landscape.--Dwy (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent choice. I chose the best from listed suggestions, but I like this one the best so far.  Good point.  --C S (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I don't insist my first choice is the best. I thought a full view tree image would be appropriate for the box. That's why I selected the one above. So, if asked, I prefer File:Cherry blossoms at Isuzugawa-Tsutsumi01.jpg to the Chidorigafuchi image. If editors think the close-up blossom image would be appropriate, I have no objection. File:Yoshino Sakura Tidal Basin DC.jpg, File:Someiyoshino.jpg, File:IMG 2329 - Washington DC - Tidal Basin - Cherry Blossoms.JPG, and File:Wild Cherry Flowers.JPG are beautiful too. There are so many cherry blossom images at Commons. Please help to find beautiful ones. Commons:Category:Cerasus, Commons:Category:Sakura and Commons:Category:Pink flowers. As for the box, I do not know much about MoS for plant-related articles. Please change it to the appropriate box. Oda Mari (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I replaced the lead images. I'm thinking about changing the layout of the images and replacing other images too. Because the page seems to be untidy to me. I'm ready to welcome any comments and suggestions. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

cherry blossoms in Korea
Somebody seems to have something against mentioning cherry blossoms in Korea, removing the mention of Korea from the natural history section, and now repeatedly removing a fully sourced sentence explaining the widespread adoption of cherry blossom festivals across South Korea. What's up with that? Is this Korean or Japanese nationalism at work here?

There's a little irony here because my attention wouldn't have been drawn to the topic of cherry blossoms in Korea if not for the initial attempt at suppression. After investigation I learned that cherry blossom watching is a big deal in Korea, with their own forecast and many festivals.

Secondly, the symbolism section mentions the chopping down of cherry trees at Gyeongbok Palace in 1995. This seems to be a widely reported fact, but it seems Wikipedia has played a large role in that. Did this really happen? After all, the cherry blossom festival at the palace is a big event, drawing many visitors, and is heavily advertised by the Seoul tourism agency. Did they replant trees? --C S (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * These pages say the origin of Korean hanami was Japanese hanami introduced in Korea during the colonial years. and . This page says origin of Someiyoshino is Jeju-do, but actually it is not. See . Oda Mari (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In my addition, I carefully avoided stating whether or not Korean hanami was from Japanese. It probably is, but I can't be sure.  In any case, it's become a major cultural event inside South Korea.  Many Koreans like participating in such things even though it is perceived to be of Japanese origin.  So it is worth mentioning here.  I presume your last link was to demonstrate Japanese cherry blossom is not of Korean origin, which some Koreans might insist; however, it does shows Korean variety is probably indigeneous to Korea and supports the addition of Korean material to this article.


 * Regarding the Gyeongbok Palace question I asked, I heard that the Koreans might have chopped down the Japanese trees and then replaced them with trees from Jeju. I can't find any sources confirming this.  --C S (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I never deny the Korean hanami nor disagree with the mention of Korean sakura viewing on the article page. But why did you avoid stating the origin of Korean hanami? Though they are in Japanese, the first two links I provided above are Korean source. Here is another Korean source. I found it's interesting that Koreans stopped chopping down the trees (the seventh paragraph in the second link) when they learned, falsely though, that the someiyoshino was originated of Korea and then it was Korean or Korean American scientists who analyzed someiyoshino DNA and proved that the origin was not in Korea. As for the the Gyeongbok Palace, I tried to serarch but couldn't find any. Why don't you ask it at WP:Korea? Oda Mari (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I found this from the same Korean newspaper site in English. Oda Mari (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I avoided mentioning the origin of Korean hanami because I'm not sure of it. The most likely origin of any traditional Korean hanami would be China, not Japan, as Japan adopted it from China and Korea is intermediate.  Your English source does not back up any assertion about the origin of Korean hanami, and I can't read Korean or Japanese, so I'm not going to make any edits based on sources I can't understand (including the Korean one in the article that may say anything for all I know).  It seems entirely plausible that there is some older Korean tradition here which was not very prevalent or was abandoned.  The period of Japan's annexation of Korea is obviously important in spreading the hanami practice, so in a practical sense, it may make sense to say Japan introduced hanami to Korea.  On the other hand, if Koreans want to insist it's the revival of some older practice, then I can understand that view too.  Actually, I was initially surprised when you brought up the claim that cherry blossoms are from Korea and then provided sources apparently refuting it, since that had not yet been discussed.  I had no idea what a hot button topic this would be.  But since it seems to be one of the classic Korea versus Japan type disputes, I think I'll stay out of this one (even though the wording of the recent edits could all be improved).   --C S (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't have much interest on the topic ar first. I just showed you the source of the origin and didn't mind if it was mentioned or not in the article. Especially when they were not in English. I thought it was OK with your this edit. But your additional comment that you carefully avoid... made me curious. Why should you do that? And I learned about it on the web. It seemed to me the Japanese origin was a hard fact. So I thought it should be mentioned. It is sad that you cannot read Japanese nor Korean. I can't read Korean too. Could you please use this and translate the origin part in the two sources above? The one I added to the article is the original Korean version of this. Translate the title "没落王朝の宮廷には桜…解放後、花見は残る" and  And the last sentence in the fourth paragraph "それ以降、日本の帝国主義による植民支配時代は終わったが、桜の花見は残った.  ".  And the last sentence in the first paragraph of the second source. "しかし鎮海（チンヘ）軍港祭からソウル汝矣島（ヨウィド）輪中路（ユンジュンロ）桜祭りまで花見客があふれる今日、花見は生活の中に溶け込んだ日帝の遺産になった.  ".  What do you think?  But as far as I know, Japanese did not do hanami in order to spread it, they did it for their enjoyment. Oda Mari (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe you might have unintentionally translated your sources incorrectly. In the Korean article it states that the Japanese planted trees in the palace to simulate the Japanese practice, but it doesn't say that the Japanese introduced the art of cherry blossom watching. Then it states that the cherry blossom watching festival may have become popular because the Japanese pushed this in Korea. (It wasn't an introduction but a systemization to make it popular) The Koreans seem to have their own version of flower watching similar to the Chinese and cherry blossom watching in Cheju. Seems Cheju practiced this thousands of years before the Japanese occupation. I think this is where you guys are getting confused. The Koreans are saying they are revitalizing an ancient art from Korea and Japan is saying they made it popular by forcing Koreans during the occupation and wants credit. It can be viewed both ways. --68.96.217.203 (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Sorry, I noticed right now. One of the above sentence "それ以降、日本の帝国主義による植民支配時代は終わったが、桜の花見は残った. " was not where I thought in the Korean article. It is actually the last sentence in the fourth paragraph in the Japanese version, but it is the first sentence of the fourth paragraph in the Korean version. I mean this sentence: "이후 일제는 떠났지만 벚꽃놀이는 남았다". So I don't think it was an unintentional mistranslation, but a simple mistake. Please point out if there are any incorrect translation. And the second source says "Hanami is an inheritance of Japanese Imperialism"/꽃놀이는 생활 속에 녹아이다 일제의 유산이되었다 (machine translation). Anyway, both of the sources are articles of Korean newspaper. And, as you wrote above, if there were cherry blossom viewing in Korea before Japanese annexation, sources please. Then add it to the article. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, you already added it to the article. I read it again and again and found that your edit was contradictory to the sources I provided, not to mention the edit has no citation. So I am removing it. Oda Mari (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That sentence says Japan has left but the festivals live on. It doesn't say Japan introduced cherry blossom watching in Korea. I'm sorry but your translating it incorrectly. --68.96.217.203 (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I don't understand your claim. If there was cherry blossom viewing in Korea before and after Japanese annexation, it had nothing to do with Japanese annexation, hadn't it? The newspaper articles didn't have to mention about Japan at all if the viewing has been in Korea all through the time. And as I showed above, the second reference says clearly that the viewing was an inheritance of Japanese Imperialism. Every reference indicates that the origin was Japan. Please show me some proof, if the origin is not Japan. Additionally, your wording of  The Japanese  STARTED watching... could be misleading. Could you please rewrite it yourself?  I asked you repeatedly to show me a reference to the viewing in Korea before Japanese came. Why couldn't you do that?  Please answer my request for reference before editing. It would seem to be PoV or original research. Oda Mari (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

South Korean's lie
I use the translation chance. It is a famous lie that cherry blossoms in Japan are South Korea origins. The theory of KOIZUMI is completely denied by DNA analysis now. I know the fact agitated so that the newspaper of South Korea may modify the article on "Cherry blossoms" of wikipedia. The newspaper of South Korea insists on the agreement of DNA of a part of cherry blossoms and it insists on the origin to grounds. However, SOMEIYOSHINO is a population kind that hybridizes KOMATSUOTOME and OSHIMAZAKURA and makes it. There are peculiar cherry blossoms to Japan a lot. You must ask the botanist in a lot of Japan what I say if it is unbelievable. The Japanese cannot resist notorious "South Korea origin theory" because it cannot speak English as well as me.--220.144.194.227 (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand what you meant. I've heard about it a little. But you have to provide references that your claim is correct. Then you edit the article. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To contributer 220.114.194.227, you seem to making accusations without references. The botanists are saying that all the Japanese cherry blossoms are cultivated and not part of Japan's natural flora. Its not the Koreans only. The US department of Agriculture who stated that Cherry blossoms in Japan are not natural and cultivated are not Korean, Koizumi Genichi and Takaki Kiyoko sure don't sound like Koreans either. That is why the Japanese are working so hard on theories about how Japan got Cherry blossoms. If it was natural why would you even waste your time on this study. --4.23.83.100 (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a serious misunderstanding on your part. Because something is hybrid does not mean it did not occur naturally or was created on purpose in Japan.  It is widely accepted that somei-yoshino (Prunus x yedoensis) is in fact a hybrid, sure, but a hybrid from two varieties of cherry native to Japan.  The article on Prunus x yedoensis has sources backing this up, and so do many English language sources  on the web if you look for them, e.g., .  If you look in plant books like  (p. 197), you will see further evidence of the wide dispersion of this view.  See also  (p. 3094).  Even the book currently being used as a source for the sakura as a symbol of Japanese Imperialism agrees that somei-yoshino was obtained from these two cherries in Japan .  Indeed, even the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition given in the article (first footnote) states: "any of certain ornamental hybrid cherries developed in Japan chiefly from two species (Prunus serrulata and P. sieboldii)..."  The theory that somei-yoshino, a cultivated hybrid, is somehow the same as a wild Korean variety seems limited to either outdated works or recent Korean writings by non-experts (such as the very dubious long, italicized quote currently in the article).  --C S (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said before, I don't believe in edit-warring over this article with nationalists, but I believe there is enough in my comment above to summarily remove the recent misinformation. However, I would also advise that this biological information be moved to the "natural history" section.  It is not so relevant to the topic of cherry blossoms in Korea except in a political way.  Some comments, perhaps, on some initial earlier theories such as Koizumi's theory, etc., may also be warranted for inclusion, but they should not be emphasized over current prevailing theories.  --C S (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me make a further comment regarding your claim about "US department of Agriculture who stated that Cherry blossoms in Japan..." Actually the USDA itself does not make such claims or take positions on these matters.  The authors of the paper you are referring to are (two) employees of the USDA, while the other two are affiliated with Seoul National University and Cheonnam National University resp (see ).  In addition, you don't seem to have understood their paper.  You have latched on to their assertion that somei-yoshino is cultivated, as if this were controversial; however, their paper is not about proving that, and they just take it as accepted (as does everyone else).  Their new result is that they showed using certain methods that the variety in Korea sometimes confused with the cultivated variety in Japan is different.  So their paper actually refutes your claim.  --C S (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Then remove the material added by User:Historiographer and add something like this? "There was a dispute over the origin of somei cherry whether it is Korea or Japan, but the study in 2007 denied its Korean origin." Or no mention at all? Oda Mari (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think most of the detailed origin research should go into the more scientific article, prunus x yedoensis. This article has obviously been set up to be more of a cultural article and also about a broader range of plants called "cherry blossom".  However, I think it would be appropriate to mention under "natural history" that research into the exact origins are ongoing but it is generally thought that yoshino cherry is a cross between two native cherries in Japan.  In the Korean section, it would also seem ok to mention that there are wild varieties in Korea and some of the controversy about origin and whether festivals should be held.  --C S (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion sounds neutral and good to me. Would you please edit this article and Prunus × yedoensis? My English is not good enough for the matter. I created the "curinaly use " section but I had to ask an editor to correct my English. I don't like edit wars either. Recent comments here might be related to this essay asking Korean readers to edit cherry blossom at en Wikipedia. C S, try machine translation, if you are interested in. And I found these. Don't worry they are in English. and . Oda Mari (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you guys still saying Koizumi Genichi and Takaki Kiyoko are Korean liars. You silly people. --4.23.83.100 (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not surprising that you are avoiding addressing the points I raised and instead set up strawman arguments to counter. Silly indeed.  --C S (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What point did you make? I didn't see any new info, read the article it states the research is ongoing and their are multiple theories. Silly indeed that Koizumi and Takaki are Korean liars. --4.23.83.100 (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Koreans are working the very special project way larger than Wikipedia. The project's called the ongoing re-engineering of the world history concerning things Korea. 06:56, 17 March 2010 User:74.12.249.238

Inaccurate photo
The photo here is of plum flowers as you can tell by the arrangement of the flowers and the reddish color of the leaves. Can someone remove this photo or use another one?
 * I am the photographer, and I think you're right! Apologies. I will remove it and change the information. Thank you for picking up on this. Inverse Hypercube (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

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)