Talk:Vinegar tasters

Untitled
This article's interpretation of Confucianism is rather biased. The idea that humans need strict laws to be kept in order is Legalist doctrine, which is antithetical to Confucianism. PlanBMatt 7:11, 21 April 2008 (CST)

It's been a few months since I read The Tao of Pooh, but the last few paragraphs of this article look very familiar. If someone could please verify this and find out if this is a copyright violation or not, that would be wonderful. Splat 10:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I deleted the suspicious paragraphs since it's a partial rewriting of the text of the book. If a reader wants to see it, he can simply follow the link and read an excerpt in its unedited version. Splat 10:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Versions and Chinese name
Google image search shows that there are multiple distinct paintings with this name, although all showing the same content. Based on my guess, the Chinese name is probably 《三酸图》, although that looks like a different rendition as well. --Voidvector (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Commercial site
There have been consistent attempts to link this page to a specific commercial site, presumably by the owner of the site. Recently this link has again been reinstated, with the comment: "Dear Bathrobe, the link is valid under wikipedia guidelines for special cases where it specifically points to location of a work commercial or not."

Pardon my ignorance of Wikipedia guidelines, but I would be grateful if the relevant Wikipedia guideline could be cited (with link). The use of Wikipedia to link to commercial sites, thus driving traffic and improving their Google page rank, would normally be regarded as link spamming. Unless convincing reasons and guidelines can be cited to support linking to a commercial site, the link should be removed. What does the site do that the article does not? In other words, is the link to this commercial site really essential to further a reader's understanding of the vinegar tasters? As far as I can see, the only merit of the site is that it has a second version of the painting -- hardly justification for a link.

Bathrobe (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless there is a response from this anonymous user within the next few days, I will go ahead and delete the link. This is really a case of a commercial site gaining traffic from Wikipedia, without any really valuable or interesting information.


 * Bathrobe (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the link. This user only appears to visit Wikipedia in order to link to his/her site.
 * Bathrobe (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Bathrobe. If you are not aware, that site is the only place you can get a copy of the work anywhere in the world. Also, not many people have time to hang around wikipedia deleting links just because they don't happen to know the real history behind a work. If you look do a search for Vinegar Tasters, the top of the page has images of the vinegar tasters right? Guess where all of them came from? That is right... from the site linked. Guess where all the posters you see in all the images of vinegar tasters came from? Thats right from that site. So next time you delete useful links try contacting the member sites where they got their art from (this includes posters and paintings). Also, why did you delete the pinyin translation? It is the only source of it.

If you want link policies, why don't you do a search before complaining? There is no policy against external links, even if it is commercial in nature. The biggest wikipedia policy is if it is useful information, and if you read above it is useful, as the videos are used in classrooms and the posters and paintings are used all over the world to teach children about taoism. But last but not least, look up External Link policies on Wikipedia.

What should be linked 1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.

In this case pertaining to only "entity" for this work of art in the world.

2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work...

In this case, pertaining to "other media" and "hosting a copy of the work", that site hosts not only a copy of the work but is the only location for purchasing this work of art.

Yes, you may say, but it is commercial in nature. But before you jump in, read the above again, there is nothing against commercial links as long as it serves a useful purpose and if the only place you can get apple computers is to link to www.apple.com you shouldn't be deleting that link because it happens to sell apple computers. So before you start deleting, start doing more investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.40.137.181 (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cursory search for 三酸圖, a more common name for the image, shows plenty of examples of this work unrelated to the linked website. In any case, inline links to external commercial sites should be avoided within the encyclopedic text itself. Kelvinc (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually clicked on those images of your search result? Try researching the history of this piece of art. The reason those images are not relevant is because in China, there is not a common name for this piece of art, unlike how the western audience grouped it in "vinegar tasters" in translations. Try this link: vinegar tasters and compare to your link. The link you provided only has a half-page of mostly modern cartoon versions and a lot of pics of a modern stone carving. The vinegar tasters became famous through only a few paintings and the link I provided IS that painting that perpetuated the "vinegar tasters". You are doing a disservice to educators and art historians by trying to find counter-examples. Like trying to link to unknown artists instead of picasso and other main artists who actually started the "cubism" style of art. Why don't you try asking around why a lot of people own posters or paintings at the link provided to understand the history of the work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.24.114.64 (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether the link is valid or not is a matter for debate, however I would argue it is not. The page does contain infomation in regards to the painting however the infomation is already covered in the article and the site link does not feed into this page but onto a sample gallery which contains in effect only one other varient of the work. I certainly do not feel that the quality of the article would be decreased in any way if the link is removed and I find it both bizarre and suspicious that a total monopoly of the work should be claimed by this site. I would argue a link is of little infomational value when it links to a picture already embedded within the article with the only added infomation being a price tag.

However assuming good faith I've not deleted the link but shifted it to the bottom of the page into the external links section (it is there for a reason) relevant or not it shouldn't be in the body of the article. --130.216.30.234 (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Kevin, you are extremely biased. What do you mean "only one othe varient", and "only added information being a price tag?" The link is the original location of a translation of the work in PinYin (Vinegar Tasters). It also contains multiple sources of gallery (at least 4 unique, and dozens if you count duplicates). In addition, it is the only source for that Vinegar Tasters painting IN THE WORLD. It also contains educational videos on the work. Are you sure you don't have other ulterior motives by constantly deleting this useful link used by teachers and educators for teaching? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.141.167.121 (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

past tense?
Hi everybody, I like this page, its really nice, but why is the text about taoism mostly in past tense? Isn't there taoism in the present? Is this just evolutionistic stupidity, like "we live in modern times and are to overcome religion"? Sorry, but evolutionism in cultural debates is so much yesterday. Wake up. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.38.67 (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

All three of the sections regarding the beliefs in question are past-tense. Don't take it so personally

Caution
Anybody who takes this interpretation of these religions seriously will be in trouble. Somebody noted above that the Wikipedia article is almost identical to passages in The Tao of Pooh, a harmless bit of fluff beloved by high school students, whose best parts are the nostalgic drawings from "Winnie the Pooh." (Are there no copyright laws?) Its author summarizes Tao at one point: "Life is fun." As someone has said, "The book is bad Tao, and bad Pooh." Profhum (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Lao Tse just wanted to make a vinaigrette for his salad?
If so, assuming he had some olive oil etc, then his reaction would make perfect sense.

There is a place for vinegar just tasting like this that adds to the beauty of the world.

Ganpati23 (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Strange article
It seems this article has become a place for members/admirers of the different philosophies to give their overly-long rundown (or Tao of Pooh's rundown?) of the religion. The articles for those religions would be a better place, just link to those.

If this article DOES become a religious/philosophical treatise, someone should add to the Confucius section, as it is very short compared to the other two. Mercster (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)