Talk:Pyrus pyrifolia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Change to Asian Pear[edit]

I think the title to this entry should be changed from Nashi pear to the more neutral Asian pear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 02:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC).

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 05:06, 3 October 2006.

Mikenike504: This pear is not the same as the Korean pear. Please create a separate article for the Korean species. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikenike504 (talkcontribs) 22:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC).

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)
What is not "neutral" about nashi pear? Is the problem the fact that it is a Japanese-derived name (the usual bugbear of Chinese ethnic editors)? Indeed, the (anonymous) editor who complained about "nashi pear" has commented elsewhere: "Actually "Nip" used quite often and I hear it alot as I am often mistaken for a Japaness person." So it seems we have a case of an Asian person who is not Japanese suggesting that a Japanese-based term is biased and asking for the article to be moved elsewhere. I don't particularly want to make ad hominem attacks, but I tend to find non-Japanese Asian (possibly Chinese or Korean) attempts to distort Wikipedia based on anti-Japanese sentiment somewhat annoying.
In fact, go into any fruit shop in Australia and you will find "nashi pears" on sale, not "Asian pears". There is nothing unneutral or biased about the name "nashi pear". Moving it to "Asian pear" seems motivated more by an aversion to Japanese names than a real concern with correct names on Wikipedia.
Bathrobe (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Your statement is really inappropriate ad hominem attack, and severally biased. If you think saying something would cause irritation or bad, please dont'. I don't care this article is named as "nashi pear" or not, but in some parts of the English speaking world, the name could be called with other alternative names, so people argue here. However your mentioning "anti-Japanese sentiment' is really annoying. Per your improper statement at Talk:Ume, I guess your anti-Chinese sentiment is already proved.--Appletrees (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Please don't go about proving my sentiments. I am criticising editors for bringing anti-Japanese sentiment into the naming of English fruit. The use of the word "neutral" by the anonymous editor concerned is quite telling. What exactly is "not neutral" about "nashi pear"? If the editor had said "not widespread English usage", there would be some room for discussion about English usage. But "not neutral"? It's only possible to understand this comment if you consider the issue that I've raised and that so irritates you.
As for "improper comments", criticising East Asian editors for nationalistic editing is "improper"? I made it perfectly plain that I consider such nationalism to be impacting on the writing of good articles. Your immediate and antagonistic response was to suggest that I support Japanese vandals. Thanks for the kneejerk response. I guess pigeonholing East Asian editors wasn't so far off the mark after all.
Bathrobe (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Go easy, and read your sentence again. I've never thought you're Japanese, so don't assume what I think about you. But I can tell you're not a neutral person, because your only harsh criticism only on Chinese and Korean editors shows that you see what you want to see. I've undergone exactly opposite cases to what you described above so many times as I said on the other place, so I don't agree on your point. I've never this species sold at "nashi pear" in the two English speaking countries, it is only found at Asian markets. So I don't know whether the name is really widely accepted name and that is why this article is titled as its bionominal name. --Appletrees (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not Japanese and as far as I can see you never said I was. As for not being a "neutral person", my criticism was of the one-upmanship among East Asian editors. That's because Chinese and Korean editors seem bent on "changing the world" -- or at least, trying to oust or modify English-language use of Japanese terms when talking of East Asia. Japanese editors are guilty of different kinds of error, and are actually responsible for some appalling editing, but it's not of the same nature. As for the naming of the article on sakura, I don't know who is responsible for that. I would not be surprised if it was an American Japanophile rather than a Japanese editor. (Note: It was user:Jpatokal, who describes him/herself as a native English speaker who speaks a high level of Japanese. My supposition was correct.) I don't think that the article should be under the name sakura.
As for "the two English-speaking countries" that you refer to, I'm not sure which ones you mean. I can assure you, however, that "nashi pear" are found at even small local country fruit markets in Australia and are definitely not confined to China towns.
Bathrobe (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I've never thought of you as "Japanese", "Japanophile" or whatever. I had thought you're a Chinese Australian thought. Instead, I'm criticizing your 'anti-Chinese sentiment and harsh verbal attacks). It is so funny that an editor who has no right to confine Chinese or Korean editors from editing articles with unilaterally titled Japanese names criticizes on only 'Chinese and Korean' and gets very sensitive to other's criticism on him. What I disagree on your "so-called criticism" is that I feel exactly opposite to what you think: weird Japanese ownership really has distorts articles regarding in overall. I'm not a native English speaker, so 'the two' is a wrong grammar. The places are surely not Oceania, just countries with a name of "united". The fruit name differ from where it is sold in the nations. --Appletrees (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not trying to confine Chinese or Korean editors from editing articles with unilaterally titled Japanese names. I am opposed to guerrilla tactics of going into an article called Ume and destroying the consistency of that article from an East Asian "national ownership" point of view. We are here to write good articles, not to push national agendas. If the article is about "Ume", all editors should go in and try to edit the article from the point of view of using ume. If editors don't agree, then they should try to change the name of the article to something better. In my comment, I was criticising editors for rigid insistence on using Chinese etc. in the article when it was quite clear that the article was named Ume. Insisting on using mei when the article is about ume is akin to vandalism.
Bathrobe (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
We, editors of course should not push "nationalistic agenda" when editing here, however, do you think Japanese claims for "keeping at ume" whose name not a common English name is obviously induced by a national ownership? That is my point of view to look at these tendentious edit wars and arguments. I don't think using 'mei' in some section is close to vandalsim because 'ume' is also not a common English either. You can't push your definition to people.--Appletrees (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you please point out 'Japanese claims for "keeping at ume"'. I don't believe Badagnani is Japanese, and I don't see a big turnout of Japanese editors for "keeping at ume". In fact, Badagnani's argument is quite clearly that ume is used in the English-speaking world (a claim that Palaceguard disputes), not that Japan has national ownership of the tree or flower.
Also, if you believe that "'ume' is also not a common English", you should be working that out on the discussion page, not going in and unilaterally subverting the article title within the article itself. Or do you have a different standard of good writing and editing?
Bathrobe (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Wrong again. You should carefully read and try to catch what others talk to you. Why am I've been talking with you here? That is because I strongly took offence at your criticism. Ume is one of examples to explain Japanese nationalistic ownership counterpart to your definition on vexing Chinese and Koreans nationalism. I know Badagnani definitely not a Japanese but very akin to Japanese culture. His claim that ume is the most widely used term in North America is simply untrue. It is just called "plum' and his examples are mostly from health care foods companies founded by Japanese people. I don't understand that why you poured out inappropriate bashing here. As I repeatedly say, I'm criticizing your way of speaking. --Appletrees (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not particularly sensitive to your criticism of me. However, I am sensitive to people who try to tell me what my point of view is. I have already made it clear that I don't agree with some Japanese editing, nor with Japanophile attempts to impose Japanese names on articles. I don't know what more I can say.
As for the article in question (by which I mean Pyrus pyrifolia), the adoption of the binomial name for this article has resulted in a truly atrocious article. For instance, this sentence: "Pyrus pyrifolia generally are not baked in pies or made into jams because they have a high water content and a crisp, grainy texture." This is inappropriate because (1) Pyrus pyrifolia is the name of the plant, not the fruit. The sentence should read "The fruit of Pyrus pyrifolia ....". (2) It is ridiculous to use Pyrus pyrifolia, a binomial name, for a commonly eaten fruit. Imagine saying in the article on apple that "The fruit of Malus domestica is one of the most widely distributed fruits in the world. The largest exporter of Malus domestica is ....". "Malus domestica is often baked into pies....". For a fruit that has usable English names, the use of Pyrus pyrifolia to refer to what are commonly called "nashi pears" in Australia, a place where they are commonly sold in ordinary fruit shops, is just about the worst outcome possible. I find it difficult how anyone can suggest that this is a sensible way to approach the naming of fruit.
Bathrobe (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
That is because nashi pear is not widely accomplished term to refer to the fruit of the species and it is not as much easily findable fruits as apples in English speaking world, so your example is simply wrong. --Appletrees (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
"Nashi pear" is the common term in parts of the English-speaking world where they are eaten. Just because you don't have them in your part of the English-speaking world doesn't mean that you can say "Oh, English doesn't use this term, so we're going to use the binomial name".
Bathrobe (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. I've been in several metropolitan cities of the countries, where very hip at Asian culture. What you think, see and experience is not a norm. Besides, can you explain why this article is still at its binominal name? You're pushing your agenda. Palace is also living in the same country as you but disagrees with your claim. That is because he is a Chinese Australian possibly having anti-Japanese sentiment? If you think so, unfortunately to say that you're just biased. You're keeping saying that some anon with "obviously" non-Japanese Asian is to differentiate "Japanese" and other Asian people which is just inflammatory and unhelpful remarks for discussion. --Appletrees (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've never seen the term "nashi pear" except on Wikipedia. In Ohio, USA, this fruit appears in Korean and Chinese grocery stores as well as in normal supermarkets. When labeled in English, it's called "Asian pear." I do realize that there are two separate species that have that name, as evinced from our disambiguation page. The fruit has been available here for at least 15 years and has become increasingly common over that time. Badagnani (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Try this website: [1]
Bathrobe (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Interesting--it's like how a reverse version of turning the Chinese gooseberry into a kiwifruit. Australians often have their own names for vegetable species or cultivars, calling the kabocha winter squash a "Jap pumpkin," for example (yes, that is the actual term they use). Badagnani (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
"Jap pumpkin" is a very common abbreviation for the full term "Japanese pumpkin".
The term "nashi pear" also seems to be fairly common on a seach at []. Perhaps it's a American/British English thing.
Bathrobe (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There are endless variety of pears growing in Asia--from Yemen and Turkey, to Japan and Taiwan. That IS Asia. Different countries call this particular fruit differently depending on their native language. If the fruit happens not to be native, then different countries use different borrowed names. In Australia it is know by its Japanese name, Nashi. In US, we know it as "Chinese pear" or even "Chinese apple"!! Never by any other name, perhaps because we have so many Chinese markets and little Chinatowns here. No nationalism or anything. By the way, can someone add the Chinese native name for this fruit to the article and how it is pronounced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:C6A5:1700:223:12FF:FE20:7BC7 (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


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. 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. 21:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Immediate Fixes[edit]

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. 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 -- 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)


According to this article, which seems to be fairly authoritative, the species is Pyrus serotina. MrDarwin 18:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, never mind, according to Tropicos (following Flora of China) Pyrus serotina is a synonym of Pyrus pyrifolia. The article is a bit dated (1990) but might have some useful info. MrDarwin 18:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Why do you keep on reverting the changes? I searched on google for the various names. I got 7840 for Chinese Pear, 198 for Taiwan Pear, 31900 for Japanese Pear, and 4320 for Korean Pear. I think the changes should be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 06:00, 13 January 2008 (talk)

Please put new comments on the bottom, not the top. You removed the Korean and Indian names, and I restored them. Badagnani (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Prove to me how their names are relevant. Why don't we provide all the different countries' pronunciations of the word?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 06:07, 13 January 2008 (talk)
They're relevant for the countries they're most closely associated with, to assist in researchers' use of these articles. I don't know about India, but they are popular and widely grown in Korea, and the name is significant. What we can do is move "bae" to the section of the article that discusses the significance of the fruit in Korea, and keep only the various English names in the lead. Badagnani (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm..., Have you ever tried to search it by the Korean and Indian name? Besides, Wikipedia is not operated by google hit numbers. Prove to us why you keep deleting the names instead of adding missing(?) pronunciations. I don't think your revision should not be kept. You don't have any plausible reason except the number.--Appletrees (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


In which nation was the photo at the top right taken? The photo does not seem to have a clear description. Badagnani (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


What does "received in Korea" mean? Does this mean it was not purchased, but received as a gift? The grammar is strange for English, so I recommend substituting "purchased" or "received as a gift." Badagnani (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think how the pear was obtained does not help readers to know about pears. The caption should explain about the picture itself, like "A Nashi pear with a lucky phrase belt in Chinese characters. American quarter is put for size reference."
Moreover, the purpose of the belt should be explained.--Mochi (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

All of those things should be known and described. Why is the photographer not answering? Badagnani (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the caption. I don't know the purpose of the belt. If it a Korean custom, please add more words.--Mochi (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You have to get a consensus from editors if you want to make a change on some controversial matter. It is silly the caption is being a subject of edit warring. Some anonymous Japanese editor removed Category:Korean fruits from the related articles and then made edit warring with Badagnani. (I didn't realize it until the category was deleted) After the category of Korean fruits was nominated for deletion and then Japanese editors so quickly appeared at the page, and for the next step is to delete all Korean mention on this article? Badagnani left a note to the photographer, so we have to be patient to get a clear answer from the photographer. --Appletrees (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggested a new caption and waited for a while. Nobody objected. It is a general approach to get a consensus. It is rude to revert without any comments at the talk page.
From the picture itself, I got no special information about Korea, so I deleted the word "received in Korea". The pear is special because of the belt, so added about the word. I don't know the belt custom, so even suggested to add more infomation. If you want to write about Korea, you can as a Korean custom, if it is a Korean custom.--Mochi (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it is "unwarranted" to claim as if you gather a consensus from editors as using "Per the talk page". I of course read this page and there is not much we can do about it because the photographer haven't answered to the question yet. As for the usage of "rudeness", you're so rude to falsely accuse me with that labeling. you misguided the information at the summary. You should stick to "facts". --Appletrees (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please write complaints of me at my talk page, not here. Well, edditors, what do you think of my suggestion? I think "received in Korea" does not help edditors while the belt should be explained.--Mochi (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You are the one who complained about my "restoring" from your revision to the last status at this talk page. Please be civil as possible and your double standard is not reasonable. The judgment is your POV. I think we would better have to wait for the answer from the uploader. Or you can upload a good free licensed image of the pear. I have some images of this pear but not that good compared to the picture on the article.--Appletrees (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The question you are waiting for the answer is Image talk:Korean pear.jpg, right? I think the question does not help us. As I mentioned before, how the photographer got the pear does not help readers to know about pears. What is the question for?, and why we should wait?--Mochi (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I believe you and Badagnani also is waiting for the answer. However we don't need to wait for him to answer as long as a good image replaces with the one. What we matter by far is "the caption". --Appletrees (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, what does "received in Korea" mean? Does this mean it was not purchased, but received as a gift? The grammar is strange for English, so I recommend substituting "purchased" or "received as a gift." Badagnani (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any information about the cultivar? According to the size (yes, it's a big one) and the popularity in South Korea, it is probably Singo (niitaka) However, currently, it is just a large Korea pear of unknown cultivar harvested there comparing with a quarter.--Jjok (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to see that all this went down three years ago and I hardly knew how much commotion there was. Does anyone have any questions still? I was studying as an exchange student in Korea when I got this pear, and I received it (and several others) as a gift from a man that I was tutoring for English. I took the picture in Pohang, but the man also commuted on the weekends from Seoul, so it could have been from either place. Furthermore, I saw these pears not infrequently when I was in both Pohang and Seoul, leading me to believe that it is common across S. Korea. For any other questions, hit up my talk page. Phasmatisnox (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Other images[edit]

How about this one? The picture is good because we can know how it is served.--Mochi (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I rather support the current picture than the new one and then remove the description as to "received from Korea". Your picture is not as much good as the picture due to the greenish color of the pear in my opinion. The photographer seem to have lived in South Korea for his university exchange program and then returned to US and his friend in South Korea may send the pear to him. However, this is all assumption and not warranted. I don't know the wrapping band over the pear is prevailing in South Korea because I don't eat the fruit much and go to buy it. And products for export are gennearlly cared differently from products for domestic purpose. Or I think I might have to search better one in Flickr. --Appletrees (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I adjusted the colour. The peel of hosui nashi gradually changes from green to gold, so the upper-side one is picked some early.--Mochi (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I know the fact, but the picture is still not looking good in tone and composition. And if the article is expanded more, I suggest to use this picture of peeled pear. --Appletrees (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in terms of the skill of photograph, Image:Korean pear.jpg is out of focus and lacks information about the belt. Why not remove? We can choose better one, my suggestion or yours.--Mochi (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the current one features the whole figure of the fruit unlike the cropped new one. Every four spaces in the new picture are cropped and the overall tone is dim and if the green one colored the yellowish, I would also support to replace this one with the picture with the band. The vanishing point is placed on the greenish peer and the color is not enticing. Image:Asian pear CDC.jpg could have been a good substitute if the picture is bigger and has more space. --Appletrees (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
As for Image:Korean pear.jpg, the belt hides the pear, so I'm becoming sure it should be removed.--Mochi (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You're making nonsense on the "band" (belt? hmm......where is the waist of the pear?) I rather support the flickr one among all of possible pictures. Or I will upload a picture taken by me. :) --Appletrees (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Any problem with "belt" ? Since I don't know the exact name and the purpose of the thing, I just call it with a figurative word.
Well, we already have an image of whole pear Image:Nashi pear.jpg. So we can remove Image:Korean pear.jpg and put a cut fruit instead. I think my suggestion is not so bad, because it is well focused. You are seeing the color of green one as a problem, but it is a color of nature. What is a problem? I'm afraid you just would like to object me.--Mochi (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Mochi, please play fair and don't make any false accusation on me if you wish to have a constructive discussion. Did I ever upload and describe about the venue of the image? I previously objected to your claim that that is consensus reached decision to remove the original contents by editors. I also said that I don't like the new image in many aspects. Fore alternatives, I uploaded these images to commons and brought various options. Any problem to seek better pictures? And the "belt" comment sounds funny because you previously said "the belt" makes the picture special and you stood on the wrong comparison with my comment on the whole figure of the fruit. Every space are cropped and the overall color is not good. But you were pulling out the "belt". So stop any further "making problems " and give your input on other new pictures. --Appletrees (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my rude words. Since you objected my suggestion immediately while you did not about Image:Korean pear.jpg, I think it a bad image for an encyclopedia, I felt your double-standard behaviour about photograph skill. That is a misconception.
Now, I know your objection on Image:Nashi-pear,katori-city,japan2.JPG. What is your further opinion? You uploaded several photos, and which you recommend ?
I recommend Image:Asian.pear-Pyrus.pyrifolia-01.jpg because it shows how it is served.--Mochi (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I may go for No. 2 or 9 but they also not satisfying. If no.4 are not much cropped, or the greenish pear (actually it looks like apple) were yellow-brown, I would've supported it. By the way, the pictures are all I can get from Flickr. I put every possible word for this fruit (Asain pear, ya pear, nashi, nashi pear, bae, and words in Chinese character or hiragana, hangul etc).--Appletrees (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree to #2. and #9. In addition, I found another picture at Commons, #11. They are green, but surely kind of pyrus pyrifolia, Pyrus pyrifolia Nakai var. culta Rehd. cv. Nijyusseiki commonly known as Nijisseiki(20th century) in Japan. It will be a good example for Aonashi group.--Mochi (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If nobody oppose, I will remove #1 and put #2, #9 and #11.--Mochi (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait, three images are too much for the article. If all images are used, the article might need a gallery section. --Appletrees (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm planning to make a gallery section.--Mochi (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Number 4 is the best one. Badagnani (talk) 06:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nashi pear[edit]

Back in February 2008, someone changed almost all occurrences of "nashi pear" to "Pyrus pyrifolia". "Nashi pear" was also removed from the head of the opening sentence and placed at the head of the "also calleds". Since the person who made this extensive edit gave no justification for this action, and given that the result was exceedingly awkward in English, I've reverted to the earlier usage. The binomial name is fine as the name for a botanical article, but the constant references to the fruit as "Pyrus pyrifolia" is simply poor English, and the sidelining of the more natural name "nashi pear" difficult to justify.

If anyone feels that my reversion to the usage of the original article is unjustified, please leave a message here on the talk page.

Bathrobe (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted an edit to the article that wrote the first para as follows:
The tree species Pyrus pyrifolia is commonly called the nashi, Asian, Japanese, Korean, Taiwan, sand, or apple pear, bapple, papple, or bae, from the Korean 배 or li () in Chinese. In India is it called nashipati and in Bangladesh and Nepal it is called nashpati. Sand pears are widely grown for their fruit.
This is supposed to be an edit for clarity, but:
  • It ends up saying that a "tree species" is commonly called xxx (names of fruit), which is no clearer than the previous edit.
  • In what appears to be the editor's preference, "sand pear" is used in the first paragraph as though it were the most neutral or accepted name of the fruit ("Sand pears are widely grown for their fruit"). Granted that this fruit may be known by different names in different places, it is important to have one name used throughout the article, not a different name wherever different editors feel fit. The variant names are listed in the first paragraph. "Nashi" is used throughout the article and is arguably the most accepted name (although there is no doubt room for argument) because the growers' association in a major growing country uses nashi in its official name. Personal editor preference for "sand pear" should not be a reason for pushing it as the standard name in the opening paragraph.
  • In the second paragraph, the description of nashi as "crisp" as against "buttery" for European pears is omitted, leaving only "grainy" as a description of nashi and nothing as a description of the texture of European pears. Whether the distinction is "crisp" vs "buttery", or something else, omitting these adjectives can only leave the reader puzzled as to what the actual difference might be. Moreover, "grainy" is certainly not the only or most prominent feature or the nashi's texture.
For these reasons, I have reverted the good-faith edit of the first paragraph of the article.
Bathrobe (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted the change by Bathrobe to the previous version, with the exception of the "crisp and buttery" adjectives.
  • 1st sentence and paragraph for clarity. The name of the article is Pyrus pyrifolia; the article is about a tree species, not a fruit, although practically the entire article has devolved into one. The primary identification of a species is by scientific binomial notation, and secondarily by "common" name. Since common names are almost always uncommon, colloquial, controversial and obscure, it should be the first order of business to equate the species epithet to the vernacular. (Nashi, et al) "pear" in this case refers both to the tree species and the fruit of that species.
Almost the whole of this discussion page refers to arguments over "common" names, which is why we don't use them as scientific designators. The first sentence or paragraph of any such organism with so many colloquial, nationalized names must enumerate them without appearing to favor any.
Nickrz (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the article was not originally named "Pyrus pyrifolia", it was named "Nashi pear". Someone felt that, with conflicts over the common name (especially by people who felt that "Korean pear" and other namese were better than the Japanese-derived "nashi pear"), the binomial name would be better. That is why the article, which "should" be about the tree, "devolves" into an article about the fruit.
Bathrobe (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that papple is not this species but a hybrid, and I can't find any justification for bapple, so (in response to some vandalism) I've removed both "common" names. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking on Google, it seems that "papple" refers to a number of fruits that are superficially a cross between an apple and a pear. Some of these may be hybrids while others, such as this one, aren't. I've had one in my time, which I believe was the one this article is about. People at the gathering were variously calling them "papples" or "pear-flavoured apples", the latter presumably out of ignorance.
Still, it would be good if we could find enough information on the other kinds of "papple" to write articles about them. — Smjg (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my last edit for NPOV, citations, ordering, etc.[edit]

Hello everyone,

I have given this article a bit of a tidy up. I shall outline what I have done.

1) Order of Country Names

It seems that the order of country names was a point of contention, and so I have simply opted for alphabetical order. This works well, because the three main nations - China, Japan, and Korea, are listed on List of Asian countries by population in 1st, 6th, and 12th place, respectively.

This is repeated later in the article, under the subheading culture.

2) Unnecessary and excessive use of one of the fruit's names.

The repeated reference to "nashi pear" throughout this article is clearly poor grammar. I have therefore removed many contentious references to the name of the fruit and tree. If the reader has somehow forgotten what article they are reading, then I suggest we refer them to the title. I personally do not care what you call the fruit, and for most of this article, it does not specifically need to be called anything.

If there is a particular instance where omission of the name will cause confusion, please try to find a way to rephrase the sentence such that it does not, or use the scientific name.

3) Country specific VERSUS General information

I have relocated general information about this tree, and its fruit, to the top the relevant article section, and placed country specific information below it.

4) Asian Pear / Name section

I do not use this name. I do not know anyone who does, but Google seems to have located an awfully large number of English-speaking people who use this name more than the others. I realise that this may be due to the term being popular in the United States, and not representative of global English-speaking usage, however, it is the best data presented thus far - so I have moved "Asian pear" in front of Nashi in name section.

As the name section as a whole is disputed/contentious, I have stuck a "fact" tag on it.

I would like to suggest that this section be broken into two parts, one covering the names used in specific countries where the tree is cultivated, and one relating the names by which the fruit is known in countries it is exported to.

5) External Links

The first link is for one of those sites that transcludes Wikipedia into itself, specifically this article, and parts of another article on pears. I have commented it out - please consider deleting it.

6) Cultivars

This section refers only to Japanese cultivars. If the trees are grown in China and Korea, what cultivars are used? The only listed Korean cultivar is a cross of two Japanese cultivars.

I have tried to clarify the first article which discusses the red/brown and yellow/green groups of cultivars, but there is a chance that the original writer meant something else. The last sentence regarding Yamanashi is still unclear.

7) China

This article has recieved some enthusiastic additions from editors living in Japan and Korea, but what of China? If it is indeed a popular fruit with cultural associations, then surely there must be something interesting to add to this article?

Thanks, --James Chenery (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Salty center.[edit]

What makes them so salty near the core? There isn't even a mention of the saltiness of the center. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


Added a reference to a Bengali dictionary showing the transliterated word "nashpati." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Nashi pear.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Nashi pear.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 20 August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Article lumping different cultivars together[edit]

I've been attempting to research why the Korean variety has such an alcoholic taste to it compared to other varieties (it's often used in cooking but can eaten raw), only to find that this article is lumping together different cultivars as if they were all the same thing. I find this article confusing and uninformative. (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pyrus pyrifolia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Other names[edit]

Does anyone else call them apple pears? Where I live in Alberta, that's what they're called, but it might just be an Alberta thing, so I wanted to ask before I added that to the section on its numerous names. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Haven't heard that but I have heard "pear apple". HalfGig talk 21:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


  • "Can the same tree be grown from Asian pear seeds?
Or are they like apples and it is a crap shoot?"
"Asian pears have to be cross pollinated so you never know what you'll get if you grow them from seed..."
"The seed of pear cultivars will not usually breed true to type."
"pears are highly heterozygous, and therefore do not breed true from seed"

Please add info to the article about propagation, particularly from seed.- (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)