Talk:Pyrus pyrifolia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

I think the title to this entry should be changed from Nashi pear to the more neutral Asian pear.

I second this suggestion. Furthermore, luxurious present it may be in Taiwan, on many occasions (e.g. hospital, marriage, etc) giving pears as presents is not appropriate, due to the phonetic pun with 'splitting' or 'departure'. The mentioning of year 1997 is puzzling too... does it correspond to a certain event? Nijisseiki and Shinseiki cultivars have been widely available in Taiwan and were available even for export, I recall at least since the 1980s.

Mikenike504: This pear is not the same as the Korean pear. Please create a separate article for the Korean species.

Asian pear redirects here, but the "asian pear" marketed in Britain is actually the Ya pear. This needs sorting out, perhaps with a dismbiguation page. Totnesmartin 14:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Jimp 05:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Asian pear is now a disambiguation to this article and Ya Pear, with photos to help people find the one they want. Please add any other fruit called Asian Pear to that page. Totnesmartin 20:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

Someone, presumably an overzealous Korean patriot, moved this page (badly) to Korean pear. I have no dogs in this ridiculous fight - I'm Welsh-Irish, not East Asian. And maybe "nashi" isn't the most accurate or NPOV name, I'm not sure - though I rather doubt that "Korean pear" is the accurate, NPOV version. But this isn't exactly the right way to do things. I almost never edit, but I wasn't going to let this affront to a delicious foodstuff go unanswered. 69.140.12.199 03:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

jesus, can you get more text book than that? "i'm not racist but <insert racist comment>." anyway, the article should probably be moved to korean or asian pear. i've never heard of a nashi pear until now, and i sincerely doubt most american imports are labeled as nashi pears. Jclf19k 20:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"korean pear" has a whopping 922 hits on Google, compared to 22,000 for "nashi pear", and 160,000 for "asian pear". As for a move to Asian pear, it might be a good idea to set that page up as a disambig between Ya pear (also 22k g-hits) and this article. Neier 22:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Google	"asian pear" = 168,00	"ya pear" = 24,600	"nashi pear" = 24,000	"korean pear" = 9,310
Google	"asian pears" = 108,000	"ya pears" = 12,800	"nashi pears" = 10,200	"korean pears" = 763
Yahoo!	"asian pear" = 110,000	"ya pear" = 12,400	"nashi pear" = 5,540	"korean pear" = 1,160
Yahoo!	"asian pears" = 85,600	"ya pears" = 2,020	"korean pears" = 2,310	"nashi pears" = 1,440

korean pear is not widepsread like i believed, but it's obvious here that nashi pear isn't suitable to replace asian pear. using the ya pear as an excuse to make nashi pear the article name is useless. 170 - 25 = ~155,000 hit difference using your own results. Jclf19k 23:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not debating that "asian pear' is the more predominant term. But, I'm debating the insinuation that "asian pear" always means the nashi pear. Since "asian pear" can mean both "ya pear" and "nashi pear", then, the disambig is the only sensible solution -- especially since there is no clear-cut advantage between the google hits between the two. Also, I still only get 922 hits for "korean pear" at google (on a second computer). That's odd that you get 10x as many. Neier 23:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jclf19k, I'm not seeing any "racist comments" above. I didn't even say I wasn't racist, though I like to think it's true. What I said was that it wasn't exactly an angry mob of Japanese fruit-nomenclature fascists getting annoyed here, it was just me, a normal Wikipedia reader with no particular loyalties to any of the many nations Pyrus pyriflora is claimed to have originated in. Regardless of whether "nashi" is the appropriate term (which is something I neither know much about nor care much about), attempting to move the page without knowing how - and, most importantly, without discussing it - is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which is something you and me and the Japanese fruit-nomenclature fascists alike all implicitly agreed not to do when we started editing.

Three points of advice, and then I'm done:

1. Fix the first sentence, it's ridiculous. The first sentence of an encyclopedia article should say what something is, not what it's also known as. And unless you can cite a source that establishes "Korean pear" really is the "usual" name for the fruit, put it in with the rest of the pseudonyms. Even if the Google count supported you, which it doesn't, it's not a valid source.
2. Rewrite the article to put more or less equal weight on all the involved ethnicities - Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, Chinese, the lot. Neutral point of view is the goal here.
3. Finally, I suggest people discuss the possible alternatives, of which I see four:
   1. leave the article where it is
   2. move it to Korean pear (which will need evidence backing up your claim that it's the most common name)
   3. move the article to Pyrus pyriflora (easiest good solution, but perhaps not the most elegant)
   4. move to Asian pear and put a disambig line across the top saying Asian pear may also refer to the Ya pear... - if, that is, "Asian pear" refers to pyriflora more commonly than the Ya.

Thanks for agreeing to talk, Jclf19k. It means that I don't have to care about this any more. 69.140.12.199 21:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Immediate Fixes

As stated there are a couple of possible solutions

1. Finally, I suggest people discuss the possible alternatives, of which I see four:
   1. leave the article where it is
   2. move it to Korean pear (which will need evidence backing up your claim that it's the most common name)
   3. move the article to Pyrus pyriflora (easiest good solution, but perhaps not the most elegant)
   4. move to Asian pear and put a disambig line across the top saying Asian pear may also refer to the Ya pear... - if, that is, "Asian pear" refers to pyriflora more commonly than the Ya.

Thanks for agreeing to talk, Jclf19k. It means that I don't have to care about this any more. 69.140.12.199 21:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel that another option is creating an "Asian pear" disambiguation page which has Pyrus bretschneideri (the Ya Pear) and Pyrus pyriflora as options. Then redirect Nashi pear, Korean pear and any other name that refers to P. pyriflora to Pyrus pyriflora. Similarly, redirect Ya Pear and any other to Pyrus bretschneideri --140.160.106.158 21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Per the flora naming convention, I have moved the page to its scientific name. --Rkitko ^(talk) 04:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I simply copied and pasted the scientific name up at the top of the article (Pyrus pyriflora) which appears to be incorrect. I'm not an admin, so I'm unable to move it to Pyrus pyrifolia, but I have listed it at Wikipedia:Requested moves per the flora naming convention. Best, --Rkitko ^(talk) 04:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)