Talk:History of saffron/Archive 1

Archive 1

V0.5 review

This is a high quality article, but I don't think its subject is of sufficient significance to be included in WP:V0.5, which is intended more for must-have articles. I'm moving this article to the held nominations page so that it will be considered for a later release broader in scope. -- bcasterline • talk 05:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This article states saffron is native to southeast Asia; the saffron article states recent biological research shows it is native to Crete, not central Asia as was previously believed. Which is accurate?

Saffron is a triploid mutation of Crocus cartwrightianus, a species native to the Aegean. "Human selection" given prominence in the text was secondary, as Minoans selected for cultivation only those mutated triploid corms with extra-long carpels: you can select forever without a resultant mutation. The Acrotiri frescoes demostrate that saffron crocus were cultivated in the Minoan civilization in the Aegean; this is not "Greece" [sic]. A "Greco-Roman classical period (8th century BC to the 3rd century AD)" is a misunderstanding of what "Classical Period" signifies. And the Song of Solomon is not 'three millennia" old. Not brilliant in the biology nor in the history. --Wetman (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations

What's with the weird looking citations? Harvey100 00:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The article's nothing to do with me, but if you'll pardon the question, what's weird about the citations? 4u1e 11:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the citations were pretty cool, actually (if a citation style can ever be called "cool"). Is there a page that explains how to do that? Coemgenus 15:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A few suggestions

This is an excellently written article, and obviously has a very good visual layout as well. However, I wonder why a few things weren't mentioned in its Featured Article candidacy.

1. I imagine that saffron production and use has expanded in the past century, yet this article has little to say beyond the 1800s.

2. There are a significant number of references listed, but the citations are almost all from one source (Willard 2001). Isn't this too much reliance on one book?

Thanks, Joshdboz 02:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Improving this article

I was under the impression that Featured Articles were vigorously vetted, as with Palladian architecture. A mailing-list thread full of leads for correcting some of the text here may be followed starting with this post. The November posts continue the dialogue. Triploidy, the Aegean origin, the sterility of C. sativus etc all affect the story.--Wetman 03:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The text from your first link reads:

After much delay the first 2 saffron flowers opened -FINALLY- yesterday. Anyone else with Crocus sativus in bloom now? Should be many more to follow soon, judging from spring foliage. This seemed like it is a late season for this species.

I don't see how this one anecdote seriously challenges anything in the article. As for the second link, I see no mention of Wikipedia or its articles—no examination of its content. Even if there was, the onus would still be on you to provide reliable and verifiable sources, as this article does. But I'm still glad to see that you are interested in fact-checking this article. Thanks. Saravask 16:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed no "challenge" was intended, merely some interesting education on the subject of saffron. Perhaps, I hope, others will have more curiosity than Saravask, to follow the thread that was so inauspiciously begun. From the article: "Human cultivators bred C. cartwrightianus specimens by selecting for plants with abnormally long stigmas." This is not how triploidy occurs. "Saffron was first documented in a 7th-century BC Assyrian botanical reference." The frescos of Akrotiri are also documents. "the Greco-Roman classical period (8th century BC to the 3rd century AD)," What is "classical" about the eighth or seventh centuries BCE? "Saffron slowly spread.." Saffron does not "spread"; it must be divided and reset, thus showing human interference etc etc. "They portray a Greek goddess" No, a Minoan goddess. "...for use in the manufacture of a therapeutic drug." There is no such indication: the use might be ritual, etc. "saffron harvests there were severely curtailed" following the eruption, this is an understatement with a comic flavor. "Crocus and Smilax" A sentimental Hellenistic anecdote written in Latin for a Roman audience. It's not myth. "saffron only returned to France with 8th-century Moors" Moorish raiders did not plant saffron at Poitiers. Saffron remains where it's been established: see Saffron Walden. P. Willard's offhand references would be easily traced directly to Pliny and Galen et al. ...There's much to do before this deserves its "Featured" status..--Wetman 07:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Made some changes—and four years later too—but you do as you please at WP:FAR or wherever. Not here merely for "gold stars", philistine phobosophistry or no. Saravask 04:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Bitter taste, hay-like fragrance, slight metallic notes?

It's difficult to describe how saffron takes, but I can't relate to the currently description at all. I use lots of saffron, up to 1 g in a meal, but I've never noticed bitterness or metallic notes, and for me the fragrance has no connection with hay. Can anybody think of a better description? Groogle 02:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But see WP:OR. Not our job to "think" on WP ... yet. Saravask 04:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

History or Biology

As a first time visitor to this article, since it was recommended in 2007 as a top quality article, I was a little confused by the evolution of the second paragraph. After getting confused by the second paragraph, I researched the history to reconcile it's prior quality recommendation with it's current status. There seems to be multiple usages of obscure biological or scientific terms that don't offer links to a definition of those terms or an in-line definition. If an article is going to use terms like "monomorphic" or "aberrant meiosis", I would think a user interested in history should have a capability to learn about those.

The evolution of this section seems to be a series of 2011 revisions by User:Saravask. While I don't question the accuracy or integrity of these edits, I do wonder whether the detailed scientific nature of them aligns with a history page. Maybe there should be another section of this page for genetic history. Alternatively, there could be a page on the evolution of the species that is separate from the history page for saffron.

Since I'm a big believer in fixing problems, rather than putting some flag on them, my thought is that the second paragraph would be more useful as it appeared a decade ago. Thus, the suggestion is to revert to that text by copying from a 2006 version. I suggest that the less scientific version would match better with the purpose of a history page.

Thoughts?

Iowajason (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

FA

This article was agreed to be delisted, but this has not been carried out, GamerPro64. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Where? GamerPro64 14:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of saffron. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929225731/http://vitasta.org/1999/index.html to http://vitasta.org/1999/index.html

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) 14:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of saffron. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004222621/http://www.ilv-edition.com/librairie/bible-safranier-tout-savoir-sur-crocus-sativus-sur-safran.html to http://www.ilv-edition.com/librairie/bible-safranier-tout-savoir-sur-crocus-sativus-sur-safran.html

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) 15:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Arabic

As this "has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community", I am somewhat hesitant to "be bold", however:

"But some disputants argue that it instead ultimately came from the Arabic word زَعْفَرَان, or za'farān. The latter comes from the adjective أَصْفَر: aṣfar, meaning "yellow"."

Cannot be correct. زَعْفَرَان is from the quadriliteral root ز ع ف ر while the word أَصْفَر is from the triliteral root ص ف ر. Due to the nature of the semitic root system, these cannot be related. I have not made a change as there *is* a citation and this *has* been identified as a high quality article. 74.195.62.181 (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC) theshiningfool

FA criteria?

The article as a whole has many prose and formatting errors that make me question its FA quality with regards to criteria 1a. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absq124 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The article relies heavily on a single source (Williard 2002) and also cites a predatory journal ( Ghorbani ) (t · c) buidhe 03:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

FA criteria?

The article as a whole has many prose and formatting errors that make me question its FA quality with regards to criteria 1a. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absq124 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The article relies heavily on a single source (Williard 2002) and also cites a predatory journal ( Ghorbani ) (t · c) buidhe 03:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this article does not meet the FA criteria. Some of my concerns are:

• An overreliance of Williard, outlined by buidhe
• Numerous references that are not cited, which will need to be reviewed and added.
• I'm not convinced that the etymology section is necessary, and would be better placed in the saffron article
• The article seems to focus on ancient history and its spread throughout the world, but does not include more recent events. I believe this causes the article to fail the comprehensive FA criteria.

Is anyone interested in fixing up the article? Z1720 (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)