Talk:Penjing

Conflicting information cross-article

This article:

"(Maintenance and Care) The maintenance and care of penjing trees are similar to that of the bonsai, but the only difference is with the location of the plant being outdoors for penjing."

Bonsai article:

"(Location) Contrary to popular belief, bonsai are not suited for indoor culture, and if kept indoors will most likely die. While certain tropical plants (Ficus, Schefflera, etc.) may flourish indoors, most bonsai are developed from species of shrubs or trees that are adapted to temperate climates (conifers, maples, larch, etc) and require a period of dormancy. Most trees require several hours of direct or slightly filtered sun every day."

Am I misreading this, or is the Penjing article incorrect? ZNull 10:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this as well. Only certain bonsai are suited for indoors growth, only certain species. Most are ment to be grown outdoors. I think you're right; the Penjin article is incorrect, especially if it's claiming that this is a "difference" between Bonsai and Penjing. AlexDitto 18:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Difference between Chinese Penjing and Japanese Bonsai

The above titled section lists some qualities of Chinese art but does not in any way detail differences between the identified forms, and adds no information about Penjing that is not available elsewhere in the article. If no one has made the section applicable to this article in the next week, I will be removing it. 144.15.115.165 14:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The section was a copy-paste of the paragraph directly below it, so I removed it. It didn't fit the section header, either. Unfortunate... the article needs a section about the differences between the two arts (as the only one I've been able to discern is the use of tiny statues in Penjing) but I'm not sure where to put it or what to include. This page needs a lot of work. The section at the end with the huge list seems excessive. It needs sprucing. I'll try to help. AlexDitto 18:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Bonsai and Penjing

It seems to me that the differences between Bonsai and Pengjing are not large. Moreover, the Bonsai article says: "The word Bonsai (盆栽) has been used by the West as an umbrella term for all miniature trees."

I'm wondering if there is really a need for separate articles. I know there is strong and tenacious resistance to the use of Japanese words for Chinese arts (and resentment that the name of the "derivative culture" has usurped the place of the original and authentic culture in English-language usage), but this has a lot to do with cultural chauvinism and not so much to do with the essence of the arts in question. This kind of petty quibbling over the spoils of the East Asian cultural sphere (and the deep hurt that China is not invariably given priority) is played out all over Wikipedia, from ume to Chinese dragon, to ink and wash painting, to name a few. Instead of fighting over this, the emphasis should be on enlightening readers. Articles should give a broad view over such East Asian (originally Chinese) arts rather than try and split them up by country to prevent the dirty Japanese from being given priority (sorry, but that's the mentality involved). If the same mentality reigned in the West, we would have separate articles for Classicism, classicisme, Klassizismus, Clasicismo, or cathedral, cathédrale, kathedrale, catedral, cattedrale, etc.

User:Bathrobe 17 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.161.144 (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Bonsai in India

“The practice of growing stylized, transportable plants probably began with Buddhist monks traveling from ancient India to China. However before, ancient ayurvedic physicians in India returned from the Himalayas with shoots from medical trees. By growing them in pots, trimming their branches and cutting back the roots, they were able to keep the trees in a miniature form. The tulsi is one good example of this.

“In the 12th century, Bonsai was known as Vamanatanu Vrikshadi Vidya in India, which translates as the science of dwarfing trees... ”

There is little documentation of this in English. There are two principle sources.

1) The dozen-and-a-half or so references on the Internet seem to all quote from this:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010908142327/http://www.bonsai-in-asia.com/ Bonsai in Asia Guide Book, Sept. 8, 2001, About Bonsai in India, per Wayback Internet Archive, accessed 04/19/2010

"One theory about the beginning of Bonsai is that it actually originated in India. Ancient ayurvedic physicians carried back shoots from medicinal trees from the Himalayas and grew them in miniature forms in pots by trimming and cutting back the roots, the tulsi being a good example of this. In the 12th century Bonsai in India was known as Vamanatanu Vrikshadi Vidya which translates as the science of dwarfing trees. The art travelled to China, known as pun-sai, the art of growing single specimen trees in pots. Various specimens of trees were grown with thick, gnarled trunks, in pots. With its introduction in Japan, the art got refined to a great extent. Over the times, it took a different shape. Bonsai artists gradually introduced other materials like rocks, supplementary and accent plants created miniature landscapes in nature - known as sai-kei. Finally, in the mid-19th Century, Japan opened the doors to the rest of the world. It reached Europe through exhibitions. After about hundred years, it came back in its present form to India.

"The Indian Bonsai Society was formed in 1972 and there is an indication that people all across India are showing interest in the art of growing Bonsai. Bonsai is more popular with women in India and therefore small sized Bonsai are more common. Tray landscapes 'Saikei' are grown by many and planting different varieties in the one tray is common. There is also a quarterly Bonsai magazine called Nichin Bonsai distributed throughout India. This article and pictures were taken from the BCI 'Bonsai Magazine' August 1998 and reprinted with the permission of them and authors Nikunj & Jyoti Parekh."

2) The oldest reference I've found is a quote from an article by a past president of India first mentioning this “Vaamanatanu Vrikshaadi Vidya (Vaaman – dwarfed, tanu – body, Vrikshaadi—of trees and Vidya—science),” as quoted in Koreshoff, Deborah Bonsai: Its Art, Science, History and Philosophy (1984), pg. 2, footnote 3. That footnote is listed as Davis, M. "Ancient Hindu Bonsai" in Bonsai Society of Australia Newsletter, June 1970, pp. 6 & 8 .

Modern bonsai culture in India can be traced to a 1965 visit by American artist Mary P. Case. We have not yet found any link between some early form in India and what is practiced today. (http://www.phoenixbonsai.com/Days/DaysNov.html, NovAlso 1965) RJBaran (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Propose Merge with Bonsai articles

Bonsai contains largely the same material, there are very little differences in the essence of the article. Bonsai and Penjing is essentially the same art practiced in different countries: All of them are derived from the same Chinese art. Now, you might argue otherwise, but what makes this art different is that there can't be too different, and the reason is very obvious: plants can only react in so many ways to different handling techniques. Splitting the article would be like having two different articles for dandelions under different names.

I will say this but this is only my personal feelings. I was reading the Chinese Penjing site, and I clicked the English redirect, as the English site, with more contributers usually had more information. I wasn't surprised that the article was under the name Bonsai, but I was surprised that this art is somehow made completely and exclusively Japanese. It was only as I finished the article did I see a link to the article Penjing with exactly those "missing" informations. (history, etc.)

Now, I'm don't feel that the article should be somehow exclusively or predominately Chinese, I believe that the Japanese people contributed much to the development of this art as well. I only feels that it is redundant and confusing to split them into two articles.

So I have two things I'd like to propose. First, I feel that this article should be merged with the Penjing article on the grounds of simplicity and less confusion. It is just as well to redirect the words Pengjing to Bonsai, since Bonsai is how this art is known in the English language along with many other things. And two, I know I didn't state this above, but anyhow, I suppose that this art is practiced elsewhere in the world and not only in Japan and China, so perhaps another section on practice of this art in other countries is necessary.

If you have any comments, proposals, or concerns, you are welcomed to discuss this here or on my page.

I posted the same proposal on the Bonsai discussion board, the repetition was intentional.

Gw2005 (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: merging Penjing and Bonsai articles

I have added my comments to yours in the Bonsai article's talk page. Sahara110 (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggest changing image of "this juniper" in Penjing aesthetics section

I suggest that the image currently used to illustrate the Penjing aesthetics section (as shown at right) be changed to a more representative penjing image. The image of the juniper is labelled with Japanese bonsai terms (jin, shari) which, though correct for that specimen and copied directly from the Wikipedia Bonsai article, make little sense in the context of a Chinese penjing article. The tree itself is identified as a bonsai in the image file's original location and may therefore be considered less than helpful as a representative example of penjing aesthetics.

Since the image is not specifically referred to in the article text, I suggest a more appropriate one can be put in place with no other changes to the article. Thanks! Sahara110 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have followed up and made the change. Sahara110 (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

proposal to merge Bonkei to Penjing

As you can see in Bonkei and Penjing, these words mean almost same object.(Bonkei is Japanese sound of 盆景 and Penjing is Chinese sound of 盆景.) So these article should be merged. --HaussmannSaintLazare (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done --HaussmannSaintLazare (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

An editor has raised an objection to this merger at the Help Desk and the original article was restored. Sahara110, could you maybe clarify: Was your opposition based on the topics not being similar enough, or that while they are similar that there is sufficient content to keep them split apart? – Thjarkur (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thjarkur: Thank you for your question.

I had hoped to leave the re-use of copied Bonkei text to those editors who copied it into Penjing. There may be compelling reasons to incorporate some of the Bonkei text into Penjing. I am not aware of them. None of my local references on container cultivation of small trees (all of them books, most published between 1950 and 2000) link Bonkei to Penjing. There may be reliable internet-located reference documents, or even a little-known version of reality, of which I am not (yet) aware.

To reduce the potential scope of opinion differences, I would prefer to say that the Bonkei article in its original form was as complete as possible based on WP-compatible sources available for this topic (viz., a pre-Internet art form not hugely popular in the world's silicon valleys), adequately referenced, and did not anywhere talk about penjing or Chinese traditions related to penjing. So it does not appear appropriate to scour out its contents when enhancing the Penjing article. Surely everything formerly said about bonkei in Bonkei still stands as a useful, focused, and well-formed reference article. Titled Bonkei, if I am not clear.

As you can doubtless scout, much of this nym's work in the last decade was removing text from Bonsai because the page had repeatedly been flagged by senior (to me) editors for containing irrelevant material, containing too many subtopics (e.g., bonsai cultivation, indoor bonsai, bonsai containers), with too much detail. After the dust cleared, the original Bonsai article had been significantly reduced in size, references had more than tripled, and several new pages (also with usable references) had been created to focus on the subtopics, now elevated to become full-fledged topics. The key to success in these major article changes was a clear adherence to common WP aspirations in article form, writing style, reference support, focus, thoroughness, and length.

I believe Penjing can eventually attract contributors who will focus on improving the article's references, and on making the organization and content of the page closer to the WP ideal, perhaps eventually to transcend Bonsai's C-class article rating in the WikiProject on Horticulture and Gardening. It's unlikely a complete transclusion of a WP article like Bonkei describing a Japanese cultural practice will remain within the Penjing article at that point.

Please let me respectfully repeat that I am not trying to minimize the cultural insight and sensitivities of those who, expert in the history, culture, important figures, economic impact, techniques, and concrete products of the Chinese art of penjing, also work on the Penjing article. If they need extensive descriptions of bonkei in the article, I have a good-faith desire and belief that they will do well in reusing and adapting that text. The result will be a better Penjing article, though perhaps it will not need to mention bonkei at all by that point.

But I have not yet heard a strong rationale for eliminating the original Bonkei article. It's pretty unlikely someone following a link to Bonkei, whether a freshly minted Google link or an older one from someone's website, is going to be much enlightened by the other contents of Penjing. Note that Bonkei's print references are all to sources on the Japanese art form of bonkei. None refer to penjing.

Why would WP be happy having the Bonkei contents "disappeared" into Penjing, when (for example) Rail_transport_modelling#Landscaping could make a similarly powerful claim to absorbing Bonkei? Model railroad landscaping may be the older practice, and it may be much more widely known, and it may have international standards organizations and annual conferences, and it may generate far more revenue annually, and it may have a much broader range of regular industry and participant journals and magazines, and it may loom larger in the world's mind. It's at least a candidate for eradicating the bonkei article (which even refers to model train landscaping, though - I repeat - not to any similar penjing practice). So let's transclude Bonkei into Rail_transport_modelling#Landscaping. It will lengthen the rail article significantly and notably improve the page-edit stats of the contributor.

But model train landscapes, like penjing, are not the Japanese practice of Bonkei. The cities and regions with the greatest contribution to the two practices are on different continents (I am guessing, but they're not co-local to any degree that I could document). The materials of each art form are peculiar to their geographic range of practice: take a look at the list of exotic stuffs in the railroad article. The techniques of using these materials have been taught by different schools of thought in different eras across the two practices. The prominent figures, the major events, the key philosophies of each avocation are completely different. (And I hope we someday see all those details described in Bonkei and an upgraded Rail_transport_modelling article.)

There are clearly long-standing cultural and economic reasons that bonkei styling, materials, subjects, or colors are not widely used for train models, to pick one of a million reasons that Rail_transport_modelling would not be improved by copying into it text describing bonkei from Bonkei, then deleting the original contents from the original article. I feel pretty much the same way about any random WP article reducing or concealing the specificity, focus, relevance, and reference support provided by a stand-alone article like Bonkei once was.

In recent hours I have not even been able to find the name of a penjing variant that matches the detailed description of bonkei (three-dimensional cement or similar sculpture of landscape, decorated with non-living materials representing soil types, water bodies, and terrain, and using such techniques and fixatives as necessary to be long-lived during indoor display). Is there one?

If it exists, it should be detailed under Penjing. Surely this style is of interest to the broader Penjing community. WP users may be fascinated to discover which Penjing practitioners excel in "bonkei" style. What are the regional centers of practice, as seen for other penjing styles like Jiangsu Style or Guangdong (sometimes called Lingnan) Style, of which it has been said "[t]he main characteristic of this style is its natural appeal and the appeal of easy and smooth" (ref Penjing)?

I can't improve on that. As I said at the start, I am not much concerned with the content of the Penjing article and wish its editors well. The article is much improved over five years ago, one hopes not solely by the practice of disembowelling other articles with interesting text. Let them fill in the details of a so-called "bonkei style" with well-supported references to the appropriate penjing sources and everyone will see the improvement.

There's not much point generating ever-wackier analogies to (try to) make it clear that Wikipedia, a project to gather and disseminate important knowledge to the world, favors articles focused on a clearly-delineated topic, as brief as encyclopedically possible while adequately treating the topic, and with adequate references to support the article's textual claims. The correct spot for discussion of the Japanese practice of bonkei is Bonkei, and similarly the place for discussion of what I will - once only - call Penjing Bonkei Style is undoubtedly Penjing or one if its sub-topic articles.

For those who think "Oh ho! The article Bonkei does not identify the major participants (or other thing I have said above would mark a good article) in the bonkei art form either!", I have few final thoughts. Bonkei is objectively real, exists in Japanese culture even today, can be referenced online and in generally-available English-language books (see Bonkei for a beginning list of references), and (used to) have a decent though admittedly brief Wikipedia article. When more suitable references come to light, their insights will be incorporated into Bonkei.

That article will grow in value with every new reference to the Japanese practice of bonkei. It will not experience the same growth and improvement if we leave it as a redirected jump-link into the last quarter of an article reputedly covering the history, practice, major figures, and other factualia related to the Chinese art of penjing, such as the current Penjing article.

We have seen previous attempts to borrow the definition of the Japanese art of bonsai for the decoration of other courtyards (e.g., Talk:Bonsai#Propose_Merge_with_Penjing_articles, Talk:Bonsai#bonsai:_tray_planting_or_japanese_tray_planting?). Most arguments from a WP-standard POV (as seen in the preceding references and many others) support focused articles, good-quality references, and minimal article length. Entities of WP, I give you the article Bonkei.

Please let us continue to work on it, to fill in the currently scant historical and cultural information, and indirectly to make it less attractive to those who prefer the feathers of other birds in their page-edit stats. This will only happen if we leave the article as and where it originally sat in the encyclopedia. It will not happen if it's "parted out" to bulk up other articles related to dioramas or physical terrain modeling or restful evening pursuits.

I yield the remainder of my time to those still wakeful and wise.

Sahara110 (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose merge: there are sufficient stylistic differences, bonkei is distinct in not using live plants. And agree with Sahara regarding smaller more-focused articles. Pelagic ( messages ) – (19:30 Wed 14, AEST) 09:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Sounds quite reasonable, thank you Sahara110 for this detailed explanation. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thjarkur; Thank you for contacting me and asking your initial question, triggering my response.

Current text status at time of this message has changes from 24 hours ago.

[1] I see that the quasi-transcluded Bonkei content under Penjing is now reduced to a "see also" link in the usual spot near the end of the article, where it has been over some preceding years of article revisions, and also as a bonus "see also" link of unknown import, located under the heading Japan.

[2] The original Bonkei page content and associated data seems to be returned in whole to visibility on WP, with no redirect concealing things.

[3] And a (relatively) recent edit on the Bonkei article has revealed a new bonkei source document online, which should lead to upgrades in the Bonkei contents, as I had wished for earlier in this conversation.

My thanks as well to all other contributors in this discussion. Sahara110 (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Bonkei to Penjing (April 2021)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, given the uncontested objections and no support; distinct artistic practices warranting separate discussion; common etymology isn't a sufficient reason to warrant a merge. Klbrain (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

---

As you can see in Bonkei and Penjing, these words mean almost same object.(Bonkei is Japanese sound of 盆景 and Penjing is Chinese sound of 盆景.) So these article should be merged. --HaussmannSaintLazare (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the same reason I wrote in #proposal to merge Bonkei to Penjing. I did the merging with a silent consensus. But my merging was undid with no prior discussion. So I propose it again. --HaussmannSaintLazare (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that the person, who want to undo the merging, should propose the division, rather than write the disagree message after completed discussion. However, it has been a long time since the merging was canceled, and it is considered that a consensus has been reached regarding this state, so I propose the merging again. --HaussmannSaintLazare (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Only in English wikipedia Penjing and Bonkei are devided. In ja:盆景 (linking to Bonkei) it is written that 「盆景（ぼんけい）とは、お盆の上に土や砂、石、苔や草木などを配置して自然の景色をつくり、それを鑑賞する中国や日本の趣味、伝統芸術である。」, and in zh:盆景 (linking to Penjing) it is written that 「盆景（盆栽）是在中国发明，之后传到日本、越南和朝鲜特有的一种传统艺术，约有一千二百多年历史。」. It is a matter for English speakers, not for the subject itself, how to properly use the four English words Penjing(盆景), Bonkei(盆景), Penzai(盆栽), Bonsai(盆栽). I think that it should be written in the English wikipedia how to use them properly.--HaussmannSaintLazare (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• I am not involved with this subject, but Sahara110 does raise some good points above. Only having the same origin or etymological root isn't a particularly strong reason to merge if things have diverged — we often have different articles for each national variety of bread, for example. Are you aware of any sources that treat these as the same subject? It doesn't appear that this article treats them as identical, instead it treats Bonsai as the Japanese counterpart of Penjing. – Thjarkur (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, as there are distinct topics (different aesthetics). Just as English art differs from American art, Penjing differs from Bonkei, even though both might be practiced anywhere. Klbrain (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.