Talk:Callery Pear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Callery Pear is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

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)

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)