Talk:Peach

message: Does anyone know why cultivar groups aren't listed for fruits on wikipedia?  I was wondering why it didn't list Japanese peaches as being distinct from other peaches.  It seems like there are differences between fruits in the same species that are significant enough to require their own sections, if not their own articles entirely.
no racism allowed on wikipedia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.47.232 (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: True or false: this article belongs at Peach and nectarine. 66.245.125.9 23:00, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: True and False.  Fruits (and wilting leaves(?)) of the rose family, including cherries, apples, plums, almonds, peaches, apricots, rasberries, and crabapples, contain in their seeds substances known as "cyanogenetic glycosides" (the most important of which is amygdalin).  A glycoside is a molecule which decomposes in water into a sugar molecule and another, nonsugar (in this case hydrogen cyanide gas (hence cyanogenetic)).  A child is in serious danger if she ingests more than a couple of the most poisonous of these, the bitter almond, with about 50 putting an adult into mortal danger. google answers Smmurphy(Talk) 06:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming question 

message: Competing views: 
(1) Google 'nectarine' and 'Washington', click Encyclopedia.com link and click Washington Times link; 
(2) http://www.thefruitpages.com/peaches.shtml; 
(3) http://westernfarmpress.com/news/farming_song_family_quality_2/; 
(4) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:2:./temp/~c107In4xB1::;
(5) http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/9109631p-10010541c.html.
Need to determine different variations of nectarine and when each variation was developed?
----
I've removed this sentence:
"the U.S. government has formally adopted the view that nectarines were (or its modern peach-rivalling variant was) first developed by Korean Americans in the early 20th Century (see 107th Congress, Resolution 185)"
(1) the US Congress resolution is a political decision not based on the facts of historical literature; it has no relevance in any international encyclopedia
(2) The Oxford English Dictionary records the first use of the word 'nectarine' in 1616, so clearly the fruit had been developed by then; also that in 1664 John Evelyn stated "Now also plant peaches and nectarines", and two other pre-1700 references.
(3) The RHS Dictionary of Gardening comments that the nectarine is "common in parts of Turkestan" as an indigenous plant or at least introduced before recorded history, and that "in Britain, John Rea in 1676 listed 35 named cultivars of peaches and 11 named cultivars of nectarines".
(4) The link cited at (1) above states nectarines were already introduced into America by 1720.
So while 20th century Korean Americans may well have been important in breeding modern American nectarine cultivars, they clearly did not play any part in the original discovery and development of the nectarine. I suspect to find that, it will be necessary to study ancient Chinese and Korean literature (i.e., where peaches originally came from). - MPF 19:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 
be right back i want a hot dog lmao ! i deffinetly need a new hat ! my life is really boring iu want some one to hold me !  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.117.162 (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nectarine History 

message: Very good pictures! Not too little or too much, and all very well shot. loulou 17:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: So many "facts" are mentioned here with no sources.  Nice case of wikiality.--Firebird 06:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No sources 

message: When I was growing up, I was told that a nectarine was a cross between a peach and a plum.   Is this a widely-held misconception?  If so, it would be interesting to remark on it in the article (but maybe it was just me).  --ScottAlanHill 03:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, remember hearing this, and Wikipedia is the first place I've ever seen them referred to as merely a cultivar of the peach rather than a distinct fruit or hybrid. Not that I've spent a lot of time researching the matter... --Haruo (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nectarine=Peach+Plum: popular misconception? 

message: I removed Image:DecayingPeachSmall.gif from the article.  While admittedly both cool and gross, the animation has no relevancy to the article besides the fact that it involves a peach.  That's peachy 'n all, but I really don't think there is any context in the article to support this *.gif.  Definitely keep this animation circulating the 'net though, no? --'oac' (old american century) | Talk 03:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: That Ol' Moldy Peach

message: I'm kind of curious why this edit moved the nectarine to its own page, without any discussion first.  76.202.58.168 17:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be inclined to merge them back together again; there's no significant difference between them (e.g. a white-flesh peach and a white-flesh nectarine are more alike each other, than a white-flesh peach and a yellow-flesh peach are). I'll merge it back in a week or so if no further comment emerges. - MPF 10:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nectarines 

message: The map showing worldwide peach production is inconsistent with the trivia entry on the three highest peach producers in the U.S. Unless I'm missing something, it's not possible for the NE to be a producer of 20% of the total produced by China if the top three U.S. producersv (none of which are located in the NE) don't make the map. If the top three U.S. producers don't produce greater than 1% of China's total, I'm almost certain that the NE doesn't produce 20%. Given the trivia entry is cited, I've been able to independently corroborate the trivia entry and the fact that the map appears to be original research with no sources, I'm removing the map. NihilisticMystic 19:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia/Production Map Inconsistencies

message: This article lacks a Nutrients/medicinal value section like at Guava and Mango. Are peaches worthless from a nutrition standpoint? One would think so reading the article. 5Q5 (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nutrients section

message: Due to its delicious taste and soft texture, in ancient China "peach" was also a slang word for "young bride".
haha what?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.214.197 (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  due to its... 

message: Would this be the place to add information about Florida peaches?  Or would it need it's own category?Floridapeaches (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Florida Peaches

message: Could someone knowledgeable add a section on typical growing seasons for peaches?  Maybe a map showing when they are harvested or something. Unschool (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growing season 

message: If anyone can add botanical information about prunus persica, please start an actual article, so that it doesn't simply redirect to the food page.  Tealwisp (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prunus persica 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:White peach and cross section edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 30, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-07-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng  {chat} 19:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:White peach and cross section edit.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Fifty years ago, I think I remember that nectarines would become somewhat soft and sweet, more or less like an ordinary peach. Am I misremembering? Nowadays they stay hard and tart for a long time, then go straight to rotten.Tldoran (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nectarine question 

message: Congratulations to Wikipedia! At least this article should end the oft-held nonsense about the nectarine being a hybrid of a peach
and a plum. It (i.e. the nectarine)  is not  - it is simply a smooth-skinned peach. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations

message: Currently the article claims that "Peaches do not ripen after being picked from the tree, so storing for ripening is not necessary." This claim contradicts both my personal experience and thousands of cooking and gardening related webpages giving advice on how to best ripen peaches. Can someone check the source and see if this is just some kind of misunderstanding? 93.133.217.120 (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ripening peaches

message: Seems odd that the doughnut peach (aka Saturn peach) has its own article, which is not linked to from here, while the nectarine and peacharine are treated as subsections here. I'm half inclined to suggest merging. --Haruo (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doughnut peaches 

message: I strongly suggest that Nectarine should be moved and treated in his own article! Slighter82 (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Drsruli (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nectarine needs his own article! 

message: Wikipedia desperately needs a "List of peach and nectarine cultivars" page. For a similar example for strawberries, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strawberry_cultivars . (Sorry but I do not have the time to start such a page at this time.) Bhami (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of peach and nectarine cultivars needed 

message: Note that the description of clingstone and freestone peaches occurs twice, once under "Description" and once under "Cultivars."  One uses the word "stone" for the seed; the other, the American "pit."  Why not combine them and use "pit or stone" or vice versa.  That way, everyone's happy.  Kostaki mou (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Peach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130114152342/http://www.uri.edu/ce/factsheets/sheets/peaches.html to http://www.uri.edu/ce/factsheets/sheets/peaches.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120524221609/http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=B&i=1013997&v=43 to http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=B&i=1013997&v=43
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120524224042/http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=K&i=255510&v=43 to http://100.nate.com/dicsearch/pentry.html?s=K&i=255510&v=43
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Learn to respect reasonable edits, don't be so lazy and do the work yourself, and stop squatting on the article. Zedshort (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It the responsibility of the person wishing to add content to Prove it not everyone else. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do the work yourself 

message: Further evidence of Chinese origin has recently been published: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep16794 - Peaches Preceded Humans: Fossil Evidence from SW China William Avery (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fossil peaches 

message: From the article: "The peach was brought to the Americas by Spanish explorers in the 16th century, and eventually made it to England and France in the 17th century, where it was a prized and expensive treat. "
However, the source of the first citation in this article, Faust, M. and Timon, B. (1995) Origin and Dissemination of Peach, in Horticultural Reviews, Volume 17, states there is evidence of peach cultivation in southern France from the first century CE. Literary mentions in France begin circa 530. In 1275 trees were planted in the gardens of Edward I of England.
There are a number of inconsistencies in the history section that do not jive with the research from this well-sourced article.
142.169.78.52 (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical inconsistances e.g. in France and England 

message: Maybe pages on trees should have a section on the value of the wood in woodworking. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This suggestion would be better directed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants, since there's nothing in it specific to the peach tree.--Thnidu (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value in woodworking? 

message: Regarding the claim that Alexander the Great introduced the peach to Greece, there is absolutely no historical evidence for this at all. That's why the source listed here does not list any sources itself. What's really weird is that literally everyone who repeats this story in the literature fails to mention any ancient source. I have since found one source that has stated this in a publication: 
Alan Davidson, Oxford Companion to Food, Oxford University Press: Oxford 1999, p. 588. (an updated reference to the most recent edition would be great if anyone has access)
This isn't a crazy big deal, but I've changed the sentence, following Davidson, to read:
"It is often assumed that Alexander the Great introduced the fruit into Europe after he conquered the Persians, although there is no historical evidence for this belief."
and I've added a reference to Davidson. My preferred solution would be to simply take it out, or perhaps move it to a section at the end of peach-lore, but I suspect it's most useful for this to appear in the section on History (since people will be more likely to look there if they've heard the story from elsewhere).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancientmedicine (talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander the Great 

message: §  History says in the second paragraph: 
: A domesticated peach appeared very early in Japan, in 4700–4400 BC, during the Jōmon period. It was already similar to modern cultivated forms, where the peach stones are significantly larger and more compressed than earlier stones.
This seems like a contradiction. Compressing something makes it smaller, not larger. The word here may refer to something like surface texture, e.g. more wrinkly-looking, but it should be clarified. --Thnidu (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it may mean laterally compressed, i.e. flatter. Stay tuned... Just plain Bill (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "larger and more compressed" 

message: Someone else added an edit that mentioned the emoji and an reviewer accepted the (unsourced) pending edit. I don't think that the pending edit should have been accepted, but since it had been, I at least tried to make the content fit in the article. Frankly, I'd rather just have the discussion of the emoji removed. Psu256 (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You beat me to the punch on adding a source, and it was better than I found. If it were just the emoji, I would consider deleting it as trivia. Symbolism might me an appropriate addition, but I haven't figured out how to approach it with the existing "cultural significance" section. Possible additional source: . To me, adding the emoji opened up a can of worms I'm not up for repackaging. BiologicalMe (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Emoji

message: Proposing merging Peach (fruit) into this article. Much of the content overlaps. The disambiguation on this page even says "This article is about the tree and its fruit", yet the fruit has its own article for some reason. Kstern (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: the filter appears to be broken. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're referring to your changes not being auto-accepted, there seems to be nothing wrong with the settings on the page or your account. I'm not a developer, but you can contribute (to) bug reports at phabricator. If you're referring to some other issue, you'll have to elaborate. Thanks. Samsara 08:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken filter 

message: How is this different from Cabbage, Broccoli, Kale, Cauliflower, Brussels Sprouts all the same species, but commercially distinct? Drsruli (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can write a sufficiently long article then I agree. Their genetics are very similar however and so their pest management is the same. I don't know if merely the difference in texture merits a separate article. Invasive Spices (talk) 1 July 2022 (UTC)
"I don't know if merely the difference in texture merits a separate article. " The same might be wondered for the examples that I gave, Kale and Collard Greens, etc. Drsruli (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logically, nectarines would merit their own page 

message: I like to tidy grammar when I can, but I'm puzzled by the intent of this sentence: "An article on peach tree cultivation in Spain is brought down in Ibn al-'Awwam's 12th-century agricultural work, Book on Agriculture." I suspect this is some kind of artifact of lifting a section from another language (probably French, as the reference is to a French article), with a poor translation. I would speculate that it ought to read something like "Peach tree cultivation is discussed in..." but I find the intent of the phrase as found too incoherent to be sure. 2001:56A:F0E9:9B00:712A:8A27:217F:B60F (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puzzling sentence in History section 

message: "Peacherines are claimed to be a cross between a peach and a nectarine, but as they are the same species cannot be a true cross (hybrid); they are marketed in Australia and New Zealand."
- If you can cross broccoli with cauliflower, then you can legitimately cross peaches and nectarines.
Drsruli (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peacherines 

message: the taxonomic classification between this and whats on wikispecies and a lot of pages on different plants is not upto date based on the latest apg four group taxonomic findings.   the traditional structure of kingdom phylum etc isnt as rigid and consistent, because while the goals of taxonomy being stability and predictability they conflict at times and the more genetic studies and other molecular markers they add to things, some things shift and the traditional structure isnt always the best so they get rid of phylum and have these things called clades and ive noticed if looking at it ever and trying to make sense what a sub genus or sub family or clade this or that is, while those works can have some general meaning for what they are, in general they are just another split in the evolutionary tree for that species.   trying to outline this for my garden was a bit confusing once i realized the taxonomy system had been updated. but once i made sense it wasnt bad.  just thought id say that i notice the inconsistency between the wikispecies page for this and how the taxonomy is represented on all these plant pages.  why they arent linked i dont know.  H2orocks4001 (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angiosperm phylogeny 4 group