Talk:Three Friends of Winter

Symbolism
Sources on the symbolism of the individual plants give various, and occasionally contradictory, meanings. In any case, their collective meaning as the three friends is the subject of this article and consideration of their individual significance outside this context is best reserved for articles on the individual plants. In revising the article to bring it up to encyclopaedic standard, I have therefore deleted the section on their meanings as inappropriate. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I find your removal of references to credible sources more inappropriate, such as the National Palace Museum, British Museum and others (atleast versus adding blogs and sites that copy-pasted their exact info). Also, they have those positive symbolism connected to them is why they are the Three Friends. It is written as "What are they (Three Friends), why are they it (for their qualities/symbolism during winter)?". Rewriting is one thing, but it wasn't just that, because I can spot removal of sourced info in the other sections too. Since when does "regularised references" (in your edit summary) means half the removing credible sources and replacing it with blogs and such? You find the "symbolism" section "inappropiate", that sounds like a POV, it's verifiable and that's what matters. I'm reverting it back. Also feel free to add your info from that blog back, not that I agree with blogs being a reference. -- Cold Season (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with the user Cold Season, it will be lack of resources when remove those varies of resources. I'd like to add some references of different meanings of three plants. It will be easy to understand, and let readers know this kind of Chinese culture better. User talk:Vivian243697 — Preceding undated comment added 7 March 2014
 * As far as I can see, you have been copying your material almost word for word from other sources. Since you won't listen to reason, I'll recommend that your article is deleted for plagiarism. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What reason? I see none. That was plainly out of the blue, and I'm not notified of it, if that is your issue. As you can see, I've cited everything I put in, but if you feel that I have not sufficiently wrote it, I will rewrite it now again. Cold Season (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with, and I'd like to give a reference on the reference page. User talk:Vivian243697 — Preceding undated comment added 7 March 2014
 * You do not have the writing skills. Your 'rewritings' only make things worse and the content less encyclopaedic. I now have now located the evidence and am proceeding. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, and how are you supposed to write "encyclopaedic"? (rhetoric) This article is about symbolism. If it mean "beautiful", I will write "beautiful". But you have a problem with that I can't write those exact phrases so I reworded things to make it concise... There's proper citations they can check, even online, so I guess I will be like the "bamboo" here and see what will be decided. Cold Season (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed my mind. I have adressed this issue and rewrote it, I herby remove the notice as it is allowed per WP:PROD, though I still have not found a clear violation (which you decided to claim suddenly half-way through, after I've reverted your mass removal of litterally over half the sources and the verifiable info you did not like or more specifically in your POV words was "inappropiate").
 * Also, about that claim that "[I] do not have the writing skills", still not a reason for me not to edit. And also, your claim that "[I] won't listen to reason", well... Maybe you should check out WP:PERSONAL. -- Cold Season (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Your History section is word for word lifted from this source. The notice is replaced until you have addressed this issue and checked all your other sources for copy-and-paste infringements.

Have you checked the individual WP articles on the three 'friends' to see if the Chinese (and Japanese, please) cultural symbolism is mentioned? It certainly is in the one case that I checked. That is the proper place for the information in the section that I deleted and you could redirect your readers to those articles. Take a look at the Between Scylla and Charybdis article and you will find the concentration there is on the linking idiom and links are provided to articles on the mythology of the individual monsters. It is that kind of encyclopaedic precision that I wish to urge on you - apart from a more correct use of English, which I can supply (if you'll now permit it) after you've finished your revision. I agree that there is a need for your article but there is also a corresponding need to keep up standards. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My history section can't be lifted "word for word" from that book, because frankly I wrote only one line there with that book. That book you linked to, I was the one that place it there, properly cited so everyone could find and seems you did. I worded it and have placed that proper citation after the first line. About listing these plants to the individual articles, I will not edit to redirect to there, because this article is about the symbolism and those articles are general info about the plant. I won't edit it myself, if I disagree. For what matters, there's already wikilinks to those plants in symbolism section. This is another issue, not related to the former deletion proposal. Also, I am not the one that can give permission to editors, so go ahead and improve the article. Can you also read WP:PROD. To sum it up. it says that you can not re-propose deletion, you have to list it for discussion for deletion. Cold Season (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's make peace, Cold Season. We both want this article to to appear to best advantage and co-operation is better than armed neutrality. I also have to offer a couple of apologies. First, I gave the wrong reference above. Rather than searching for your other web source, I'm now ready to accept that you have worked hard to express what you have learned in your own words. The other apology is for losing some of your references initially. For some reason, when I did the original edit your references came up as invalid when I previewed and I assumed the mistake had been yours, not mine. I've been much more careful this time not to lose anything.


 * You'll notice that I put a template against the statement about when the 3 Friends migrated to Japan. Since you're so scrupulous about naming sources, I though you might like to give one for that statement. You know the field better than I. I could look it up in Binyon, but unfortunately I only have the French edition. Something else that hampers me is that I was brought up with the Wade-Giles transliteration and find Pinyin difficult to adapt to. Usage fluctuates on WP and it could be that there are articles on some of the authors you cite but using the Wade-Giles name. I'd be grateful if you would check. It might improve the article to quote the liminal poem by Zhu Qingyu. I've tried to locate it in my anthologies but can't.


 * I'm still not completely happy about the Symbolism section. If you look at the WP article on Plum Blossom, for example, you'll find a much longer discussion of its cultural significance. It was linking to that particular section (and others like it, if they exist) which I was proposing to you. In its place you could create a gallery of thumbnails of key scrolls and other pictures, and possibly some ceramic and textile use. I've located quite a few and will start uploading them to Commons in a while. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think the history section can be removed, just add a topic sentence at the beginning of the section.User talk:Vivian243697 I 'd like to explain something about the "Three Friends of Winter at the end of the article in order to talk about the real value and status in China. User talk:Vivian243697 — Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I plan to delete something about Japanese, Korean meaning, it won't add here.talk.Add more about the status of this painting in China will be better, because it is one of the most influential one in Chinese history and arts and culture. User talk: Vivian243697
 * Mzilikazi1939 was talking complete nonsense out the mouth when (s)he accused me of close paraphrasing or copy-paste violations etcetera... and has already admitted to being mistaken, failing to properly check sources. It won't be removed. Also, I'm not sure what's the point of these new comments here, and don't edit the discussion by removing text or writing through other people's comments. --Cold Season (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I just blanked user:Vivian243697/sandbox, a revision with no citations added and which therefore appeared to be WP:OR. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * you deleted a section as not supported by citations. Another editor added citations in a user draft, user:Julieatuoft/sandbox - please would you review whether these are valid? If so, please incorporate them; and either way, please blank the WP:COPYARTICLE when done. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the main additions in that draft is the last two paragraphs in the History section.


 * To support the content, a 1913 woodcut print with color by Helen Hyde (housed in the Smithsonian) is referred to to support the assertions present in the draft. The links of the references (specifically ref 9, 10, 11, and 12) point to a description page of the object, a direct but dead link to an image of the object, and a dead link to another description page of the same object. The citations can be used to describes a single object, but it does not extend beyond that (i.e., how the art motif is treated in culture generally). I do not consider it valid. --Cold Season (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I have just found two more abandoned user drafts from the same date: User:Sammydu913/sandbox (which I have trimmed down to show just the added material) and User:Jessyluyi/sandbox. Would you mind reviewing those likewise? – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That's a bit curious; as if it was a school project or something... (other drafts include  and ).


 * I'm not really inclined to include the first draft: (1) The "cultural symbolism" section contains identical wording to the citation (see web archive ). (2) I do not see need to include a lot of poems cited to an art blog without context.
 * The second draft neither: The "introduction" section (the addition) describe the plants, but it is off-topic as it is not in relation to the art motif. --Cold Season (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Bad revisions
I returned to look at this article after a long time away and find it cut down by its creator to such an extent as to make it bland, boring, and lacking in historical sense. I suspect ColdSeason to be of Chinese ethnicity and suffering from all the shortcomings I came up against in two years as acting as an encyclopaedia editor in Taiwan.
 * 1) Slavish attachment to written sources (where the article is dealing with a visual motif)
 * 2) Lack of interest in the development of the motif, especially in the Western context: an aspect of assumed racial superiority that undervalues anything outside the Chinese cultural sphere

Looking at the edit summaries, there seem to be few adequate explanations for many of the cuts made. Let's remember that primary sources outside the written are acceptable on WP, so long as they are not interpreted in such a way as to constitute OR. Possibly, too, the excessive amount of revision demonstrates WP:OWN. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Who I am as a person is of none of your business, so bugger off with those WP:PERSONAL attacks of assumed racial superiority and insinuations of ethnicity.
 * Secondly, you have demonstrated a lot of shortcomings: you accused me of copying text and then backtracked, and then followed that by uploading copyrighted images. That's ironic.
 * Thirdly, your statement about "slavish attachment to written sources" is ridiculous. I state things as it is, as how the sources state it is. Perhaps you like loose use of citations for WP:OR interpretations, but I don't.
 * Fourthly, you cited to webblogs, the itunes store, amazon, and other webstores for your "Western context" information, but it would have remained had you cited it to reliable sources (but I guess your shortcomings made you blind to it). --Cold Season (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Shochikubai
Shochikubai (松竹梅) redirects here and has uses beyond poetry, notably the ubiquitous Japanese matsu/take/ume system for ranking set meals in restaurants. we do indeed probably need a better source for this (this, perhaps?) but straight up deleting the content and reverting my attempt to restore it is inappropriate. Jpatokal (talk) 06:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The content about the ranking system remains, but I don't see the need to translate the words for bamboo, pine, and plum separately; in regards to it as grouped, you may go ahead if sources show that. Though that bookshop reference does not show that. Vice versa, mass reverting all my edits is neither. --Cold Season (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added the Japanese names with references. And with all due respect, you are not the WP:OWNER of this page, I would advise you to approach this collaboratively since you have repeatedly landed at WP:ANI previously for not doing so. Jpatokal (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, people may challenge content that does not meet verifiability in reliable sources (and in this case, fails). I would advise you to keep comments on the content (notwithstanding you saying something untrue), since I too can look up your ANI history. --Cold Season (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)