Talk:Callery Pear

Sourcing
you cannot remove the unsourced tag when the article has zero foot notes and sources. this is clearly an unsourced article, pollinator. Vargob 19:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE says Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Nothing else was challenged, so quit slapping tags where they aren't needed. Or provide the references! Pollinator 01:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Then I would like to know where this "fact" came from: "It is a deciduous tree growing to 15-20 m tall, with a conic to rounded crown, and often thorny branches." How often is often? If it is a single species you would think that it would always or never have thorny branches, unless there are specific veriatals (sp?) that do and ones that don't. Do you have a gardening book, perhaps? With out a single reference, I don't see how all of the page can't be called into question as there is no primary source noted. Vargob 13:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I should also like to point out that this is one of the greatest criticisms of wikipedia, that otherwise good articles are often unverifiable and can have mistakes. As someone who obviously spends a good deal of time here, I'm sure you're aware of this. It is counter-intuitive to me that you would not want to help polish the articles and the wikipedia project. Vargob 13:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I should also point out that is it counter-intuitive to me why any Wikipedian would run around slapping tags on an article, when he could easily provide such references. If the article is deeply esoteric in an area where the editor has no experience, or if it is hotly contested, I could maybe see the point of a tag, but simply tacking on a tag on an uncontroversial and pretty basic article is a lazy way to edit.


 * Likewise we must strive for genuine accuracy (which I do). I can show some examples where Wikipedia perpetrates a falsehood, simply because others have said so, and some Wikipedia editors slavishly follow with citations. See my personal page for one such example. Citations are not the be-all and end-all of Wikipedia. Don't make a sacred cow of them. Instead make the article accurate. I have already invited you to provide citations. I invite you to do so again.


 * Incidently you mentioned a second contended point, which you did not mention previously. I made the appropriate correction. See how easy it is! Now stop fussing and add citations to your heart's content. Pollinator 14:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I could go through the entire article and make such points. Regardless, I'm not going to persue this matter further except to say, the way this page is ended http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Theresa with "This article was originally based on the text in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religion." would be more than sufficient to allow someone to look up in the primary text to verify. Say maybe: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Trees 85.238.136.12 18:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed this WikiProject as I believe it to have been added in error. I've never heard of this tree's fruits being used as food (by humans), and in any event it isn't mentioned in the article. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; that looks right. The categories are kind of spaghetti-like, and only approximate whether things are eaten by humans or not, which I suspect is how this happened. Kingdon (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The flowers' smell
I think it should be mentioned in this article that when in bloom these trees smell just like semen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.246.87 (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, the current description of the smell is not specific enough. I tried to change it but the edit was reverted. --67.62.236.137 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you want to find some sources to back up this description, we can talk. Kingdon (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just find a Bradford Pear tree, and you'll see why. Or you could just Google it. 24.47.210.64 (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)NotRegistered


 * Hear hear. I feel there is a distinct lack of "professional" or formal sources on that bit of information because such a comparison would be considered inappropriate for the nature of said sources.  This is not a rare or obscure plant, however, and first-hand research is easily possible.  Such information would definitely be very helpful for some people. (76.112.216.142 (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC))

The comment on the noxious odor of the flowers of these trees was removed, but it definitely should be present. --136.142.163.55 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The smell of the Bradford Pear, in particular, is extremely noteworthy and sources are everywhere. Skiendog (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The comment is on the page, with a source. There is no problem. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I added two relevant sources (http://forestry.about.com and Missouri Deparetment of Conversation). I'm standing under a Bradford Pear in my yard on my laptop right now, and I'm telling you it stinks to high hell of dead fish [but that would be original research, which is why I quoted the other two]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M-w-b (talk • contribs) 20:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

My bad, re-reverting my revision. I see you have already added a minor comment regarding their odor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M-w-b (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Pollinator?
If the flowers have an "unpleasant" smell, do they attract something other than bees, e.g. flies or wasps? Do they smell like rotting meat? Or is it just a heavy smell? &mdash;Monado (talk) 05:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Rosaceae generally attract beetles and flies as well as bees. Different people have different opinions about smells; to me they smell more-or-less like a wet dog. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)