Jump to content

Talk:Perry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perry in the United States

[edit]

The treatment of this issue is looking dated. I can't imagine that the uncited proposition that "Most of the Perries or ciders available for sale in the United States are imported from England" can possibly still be true (if indeed it was true at the time of writing). Threepwolfe (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crispin is a major US producer and not enough attention is paid to perry/pear cider in the US. I am from Pennsylvania and think that eastern Long Island would be great for the British cultivars from a climatic standpoint. Heff01 (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

East end of Long Island---Hardiness zone 7B North Fork---Oceanic climate South Fork---Humid subtropical climate Temperance of heat as well. Heff01 (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ACE (California Cider Company) sells a perry. They claim it is the first perry to be created in California. But I can't find information regarding this other than their own website. --- Rev. Mik McAllister (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UK English

[edit]

As the CAMRA definition is in quotes, and CAMRA is a British organisation, I have changed the spelling to British English Monique34 13:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

[edit]

The lede to this article claims pear cider is not the same as perry, but the section "pear cider" says that it is.

Which is right? -- LondonStatto (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Pear cider" is simply an alternate name for perry. The idea that pear cider was made of a blend of apple & pear juices seems to be a misconception -- I don't know where it comes from but CAMRA memoranda and definitions are cited. --Killing Vector (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perry (like Champagne) is a protected name, perry and pear ciders are different. Perry comes from particular types of pears (http://www.ukcider.co.uk/wiki/index.php/Perry_Pears) grown in a particular region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.85.228 (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I think the anonymous user has misinterpreted the webpage he or she cites. I know of nothing in the literature which says that a drink fermented from pears other than perry pears is not perry. Meanwhile, it is the assessment of CAMRA that perry and pear cider are simply different names for the same drink.[1] --Killing Vector (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. This article from The Publican does seem to draw a distinction: "It puzzled me at first. After all, perry was a well-known form of cider but one that sold pretty poorly in pubs. This was different I was told. Perry is made from perry pears. This was simply a pear version of cider – sweeter and much more attractive to consumers." In other words, I assume they are using the term "pear cider" to market a product containing possibly sweeteners or other adjuncts that would not meet the CAMRA definition of "perry". DWaterson (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The CAMRA definition of Real Perry is pretty loose and allows sweeteners, and the term "perry" isn't trademarked itself ("cider" and "perry" both appear in UK law but "pear cider" appears nowhere)....the article seems a bit confused too, saying that perry is a pear version of cider made from perry pears but that pear cider is a pear version of cider...there's no special category of "perry pears" other than "pears traditionally used in perry" (just like a "cider apple" is just an apple variety usually used in cider -- granny smiths can easily be both). --Killing Vector (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to finally clear this up: CAMRA defines "perry" as a drink made from fermented perry pears, which are specific varities designed for the production of perry - not for eating or cooking. For a number of reasons related to the nature of the fruit themselves (and the fact there are no longer nearly enough orchards) it is nearly impossible to mass-produce drink from perry pears, and nearly all the "pear ciders" on the market from the big manufacturers - Brothers, Bulmers, Gaymers etc - instead use fruit concentrate (often imported, and made from dessert or general purpose pears such as the Conference pear) as their basis. The large cidermakers' industry body, the NACM, argues that the two terms are interchangeable, whereas CAMRA are by the looks of it attempting to differentiate a drink made from actual fruit, by traditional methods, and using specific varieties which were originally selected for the purpose of producing a fermented drink. Anyway, I've tried to indicate this difference of opinion - one which seems to exist largely between craft producers and enthusiasts on one side, and large commercial manufacturers on the other - in the article. Svejk74 (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've done a pretty good job too in reflecting this in the article. Certainly CAMRA cannot simply decide that Perry means something more specific so as to narrow its definition in the interest of superior Perries, but it is largely true that the inferior (by CAMRA's standards) and more commercial types of beverage are more often marketed 'Pear Cider', and in this sense there is probably some value in making this point. Still it is worth pointing out that the CAMRA article cited begins by giving the dictionary definition of Perry as "fermented pear juice" and then goes on to restrict that meaning saying it is "unappealing"! -- Fursday 20:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial "Light" Perries

[edit]

What makes a perry "light"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.112.116 (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably depends on where it was made, but generally the same as any light version, it has less sugar than "normal" version. 85.217.34.218 (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

There's a long-standing suggestion to merge pear scrumpy into here. Shall we just do that? Any objections? Bondegezou (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold, do it! — Robert Greer (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Well, I just did a re-direct as there was nothing in pear scrumpy that was RS cited. Bondegezou (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now we have a circular redirect, from pear scrumpy to Perry, with no mention of pear scrumpy in the article to say why scrumpy is being redirected here, and pear scrumpy is still listed in the "See also" section. Bravo Rev. Mik McAllister (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pear Cider I do not think so.

[edit]

Oxford dictionaries website 2015:06:24 Definition Perry "An alcoholic drink made from the fermented juice of pears."

OED, my own copy, first recorded 1315.

"Certainly CAMRA cannot simply decide that Perry means something more specific so as to narrow its definition"

CAMRA are merely using the term correctly, in accordance with the supreme authority on the English Language.

The people bastardising the definition are the mass producers, and they are doing for, well, er, profit. Adding some pear flavouring, to some inferior cider, ensuring that the difference in taste is disguised by serving it frozen, at eye watering prices. And lying in their adverts, which the current article resembles closely.

Sorry the OED trumps every other source. If no-one objects I shall remove the whole pear cider section. AnnaComnemna (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your removing an entire cited section. It appears to me from the discussion above that this controversy was addressed and the article improved in 2009. If you think you can improve the section further, please do so, but you have not explained why you would remove it altogether. General Ization Talk 12:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Objection noted. The following is based on UK usage alone; this of course is not following the Wikipedia model. Perry is an alcoholic drink made from fermented pear juice, alone: Sources OED CAMRA.

Perry, real perry, is very expensive and available in limited quantities because there are few real perry trees. The trees are also slow growing.

The huge increase in sales , 24X, per the current lead in the article, has been achieved by not supplying perry. Because for reasons already stated the quantity of raw material is simply not available. It has been achieved by the re-defining perry by those who have a solely commercial reason for so-doing. The manufacture of a product whose tenuous connection with perry is that they have a photograph of a pear in the factories in which it is produced.

"Pear cider" has in recent years been used as an alternative name to perry" States the current article. By people who have a vested, commercial, interest in pretending that the two are the same. Not by anyone else.

As I stated above "perry" has been used with its original definition, in English for 700 years. "Pear cider" for 20 years.

These manufacturers also sell an "alcohol free" pear cider, demonstrating their allegiance is to the £££££, not the authenticity of the product.

In view of your objection my proposal is 1) Create a new article, entitled "Pear Cider" which describes this product. 2) Add to the "Perry" article a "see also pear-cider", remove all other references to this ersatz product. AnnaComnemna (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as really no different from the discussion of Aceto Balsamico Tradizionale versus Condimento-grade balsamic vinegar at Balsamic vinegar. One is a product made through traditional methods, including aging, that produce a limited quantity of a relatively expensive product, and the other is a commercial process that produces bulk quantities of a less sophisticated and much less expensive product – but they are both called "balsamic vinegar". The advantage of discussing both in the same article is that the reader learns the nature of the authentic, traditional product and also the fact that the product of the same name that they buy at the supermarket may bear little or no resemblance to that product. Splitting the articles would be a disservice to the reader in that they would likely lose this understanding. Same here. Unless your focus is something other than service to the reader, I can see no benefit to creating another article called "pear cider" to differentiate "traditional" perry from the commercial product marketed using the same name. General Ization Talk 18:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did not question my statement that in English the OED is the supreme authority. The OED definition of pear cider is "perry", adulterating materials not included. So the pear-cider being sold is simply not perry and should be somewhere else in Wikipedia. I still think the article resembles an advert for pear cider. "My focus to the reader" is accuracy. Has accuracy disappeared from the criteria while I was doing something else? AnnaComnemna (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I not only question your statement, your statement is outright false, the OED is not the supreme authority on the English language. It is a very good source for much accumulated and historical knowledge about **written** English, but English (and all natural languges) are defined by being spoken; children learn to speak **fluently**--it is the only way to gain fluency--without learning to read, and illiterate people cannot in any way be said to not speak their language. No written work based on other writing can be said to be a supreme authority on anything spoken. That said, nobody within earshot of me over a period of many years has ever said the word perry except as a name, but everybody I know knows what pear cider is, so ... so this is another instance of zealots hijacking a wikipedia page over their narrow and misguided obsession. 96.246.69.126 (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense trumps the OED. If this article would be less useful to the reader as a result, your proposal for dividing it into multiple articles or excising any mention of the non-traditional product(s) (purely on the basis that you find it objectionable that companies produce a product they call "perry" which does not meet the OED definition) fails. Accuracy can be achieved in this article without splitting it or gutting it. This an encyclopedia, intended to reflect accurately the real world, and hence real-world uses of terms, rather than a purist philosophy that ignores those usages. When you write your own book about perry, you will of course be free to leave out any discussion of anything that doesn't meet the OED definition. General Ization Talk 16:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curious omission

[edit]

Given this is an article about an alcoholic beverage, it seems odd there's no mention of how much alcohol it typically (or may) contain. Especially as perry is apparently sought out for its low cost for the alcohol[1]. quota (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Perry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Fruit Section Additions

[edit]

I am a student and will be adding to the Perry Fruit section of this article. Topics being added include information on the origin of pears and perry pears, growth and cultivation of perry pears, difficulties with perry pear growing, and perry pear physical and chemical qualities Mh853 (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a student working with the user above on this wikipedia article project. ArcadiYay (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37570267

Requested move 25 January 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no agreement to change the current setup at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– I don't believe the drink is the primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Svejk74 (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need a source either way for the origin of the given name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless the nominator's rationale of "I don't believe..." is backed with evidence or policy rationale. —  AjaxSmack  18:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question in this case is is it primary, not is it not primary, by default the DAB is at the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree but should not have to do the research myself to justify (or not) a page move that I didn't propose. The pageview stats you provided above are helpful but not strong enough to be conclusive for me vis-à-vis the long-term significance rule and WP:NOT in light of WP:TITLECHANGES. (" If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed.") —  AjaxSmack  18:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the assertion "by default the DAB is at the base name" is untrue. If there's no primary topic, then the DAB is at the base name. If there is a primary topic, then the DAB is not at the base name. There is no "default" arrangement. In fact the default, as in any other RM discussion, is to retain the status quo, which in this case is to have a primary topic. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • By default in most RM discussions the stable title remains unless there is consensus to change it but with disambigation the default is to have no primary topic WP:DABNAME WP:PRECISION (primary topics being an exception to the general rule that the article "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article"). Primary topics "privilege" one article over all the others (meaning its far more difficult and confusing for readers to find the other articles) so there usually should be a level of consensus to maintain them. However due to incoming links we don't generally appear to take the view that primary topics must clearly be established. See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 19#Who has burden when primary topic is in question? and this comment. My understanding is that a far weaker consensus is required for maintaining a primary topic than creating one. And yes because the OP didn't provide any evidence that this isn't primary, it means that those favouring primary topic can easily cite evidence for it to be primary and thus create a consensus for a primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There is no way this is the primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This drink clearly is the primary topic, certainly by long-term significance. As AjaxSmack says, no evidence has been brought forward so I'm not sure on what basis this move is being proposed.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Even IIO recognizes the primary topic here. --В²C ☎ 02:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this does appear to be the primary topic, but not by an overwhelming margin. The given name and surname are very significant, as well as are some of the places. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Too much about CAMRA's POV

[edit]

I get that they're a fairly notable organization in the UK, but this excessive focus on CAMRA's opinion really throws off this article's worldwide scope. And also their complaints seem only to be relevant in the UK anyway; note how many times it's mentioned that the concentrated pear juice used for commercial "pear cider" is imported. That's totally irrelevant when Perry is not just a British drink at all, and when this article is supposed to be about the drink everywhere. At the least it needs a worldwide focus tag. oknazevad (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perenlikeurtje

[edit]

Is there a Dutch liqueur similar to limoncello, but made with pears, which is called perenlikeur? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

on the status of primary topic

[edit]

I've noticed this and found it very odd, as the anthroponymy articles are so glaringly more relevant as a whole. There was an early comment in the previous move discussion that said that "a good Perry" was a good Google Books search, and others also concurred, but I think that's a search that is really prejudiced against people's names, because that's simply not a phrase that is commonly used for people. If you do e.g. a Books search for "a good Churchill" you get a very fuzzy picture that significantly differs from what we chose for Churchill - regardless of whether we'd expect to see a good Winston there, or a good tank, or whatever. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perry&oldid=1208330828"