Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a44e7dc09f7211f8

Jump to content

Talk:Pineapple

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 5 months ago by Zefr in topic Phytochemistry Issues

First successful culivation in Europe

[edit]
it was not successfully cultivated in Europe until Pieter de la Court developed greenhouse horticulture near Leiden from about 1658

Weird, because I just spent two hours reviewing multiple books on the subject, none of which say that. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think I'm starting to see the problem. Pieter de la Court wasn't born until 1664. He published the Byzondere Aaemerkingen in 1737. This article needs serious work. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fixed. The article had the wrong person with the same name linked and the wrong date. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Here is a clarifying footnote that explains the problem in detail (from A Cultural History of Plants in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, Vol. 4, 2022):
It has also been proposed that the first pineapple in Europe was cultivated at Meerburg in the 1650s by Pieter de la Court (1618–85), father of the younger Pieter de la Court discussed below in relation to hothouses. Modern historians treat this as a "legend" as there is no evidence that this was the case. It may be that there was some confusion over the pursuits of the two de la Courts, with the son’s interests more squarely focused on gardening. See Weststeijn (2012: 284)
I hope that clears things up. Viriditas (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Part of the confusion is the fact that Pieter de la Court kept his use of tanner's bark secret for years in the late 1600s, I believe, publishing his ideas much later in the late 1730s. Although I'm still trying to trace the connections, it looks like he shared this technique somehow, and word spread among botanists and gardeners in the intervening time period. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the wild, what creatures eat pineapples?

[edit]

Most fruits evolved to be eaten by some creatures to help propagation. But there is no information in this article about evolution or symbiotic relationships. FreeFlow99 (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2024

[edit]

I've just had an epiphany that pineapple is in fact a vegetable because it's lacking a seed an by my undisputed logic an evidence I deem this to be true so I would be much appreciated if you would do me the courtesy of stop misleading the masses Sincerely Sardar 90.255.70.146 (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I just had an epiphany that your edit request should be declined.[just kidding] You need reliable sources, and your 'undisputed logic' is original research. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Use of a conifer pine image for etymology

[edit]

Erik del Toro Streb - I don't see the point of your wanting to use an image from a pine tree for the pineapple article. Pinus canariensis (note name format for binomial nomenclature) is an unrelated species, and no WP:SCIRS source has made this connection between a pine tree and pineapple.

It is just your unsourced opinion and WP:OR that this explains the etymology of the common name, pineapple. The pine-apple was actually first observed in Peru in the 17th century, and obviously was not a conifer, as explained in the existing etymology section.

No purpose, other than giving your opinion of similar appearance, is served by the image to explain etymology. Zefr (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Zefr - Pinus canariensis is of course an unrelated species, you could omit that and just call it pine tree if that is better. And yes, the connection between a pine tree and pineapple has been made of course.
The word stems from Middle English pinappel (“pinecone”, literally “pine-apple/pine-fruit”), from Proto-West Germanic *pīnapplu. Later applied to the fruit of the pineapple plant due to its resemblance to a pinecone. Compare the Middle Dutch and Dutch pijnappel (“pinecone", formerly also "pineapple”), and Middle Low German pinappel, Old High German pīnapful, Middle High German pīnaphel, and early Modern German pinapfel — all in the sense of “pine cone”. Compare also the post-Classical Latin pomum pini, the Old French pume de pin, the Middle French and French pomme de pin and Spanish piña. By surface analysis, pine +‎ apple.
I don’t want to put all that lengthy text in the image description. You will find the source in any etymology book of your choice. Therefore, because of your unqualified assertion that there is no source for this etymology, I must unfortunately undo your undoing again. I don’t want this to become an edit war. But you should clearly improve your reasoning for undoing. Erik del Toro Streb (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
As described under 'Etymology' in Special:Diff/1303898988, the words pine apple were in use for the pine cone some 2 centuries before the fruit was called pineapple. But that term for the tropical fruit evolved because explorers/botanists of the 15th-16th century called many newly-discovered fruits '"apple'" , not specifically because it looked like a pine cone. Zefr (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Phytochemistry Issues

[edit]

On the second paragraph of the phytochemistry section, there is the sentence "Add new citations to this new phrase." I'm believing that this was accidentally left in because it makes no sense.

There is also a singular quotation mark at the end of the sentence just before it.

There is no "and" in the list in the second sentence of the same paragraph. I'm not even sure if it's necessary to have that list because it already says, right before it, that bromelain is present in all parts of the pineapple plant.

Then, under cultivars, the list right before the varieties are listed lacks an oxford comma despite every other list on the page having one.

I just made this account or else I'd fix it. Me, Sciurus, (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching this. The edit appears to have occurred when a spam ref was added. With Special:Diff/1347948867, I deleted that ref and edited the section. Hope you find it satisfactory now. Zefr (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)Reply