Talk:Saffron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

	Saffron is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	Saffron is the main article in the "Saffron" series, a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 31, 2006.
Article Milestones Date Process Result December 15, 2005 Peer review Reviewed December 27, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted April 4, 2006 Featured topic candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

Saffron is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Everydaylife article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Archives
Archive 01	Archive 02

Contents 1 Requests 2 Inaccurate info 3 Ref style - mixing Harvard and Chicago 4 Poison & Cornish Connection 5 Kesar 6 Citations 7 Seasonal references need work

[edit] Requests

It would be nice if this page could describe which parts of the plant are used. There is a sentence that seems to suggest that only the threads are used, but this is never clearly stated. - P. Matthews 206.191.0.138 19:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate info

Hello. "Historians believe that saffron first came to China with Mongol invaders by way of Persia. Yet saffron is mentioned in ancient Chinese medical texts, including the Pun Tsao ("Great Herbal") pharmacopoeia (pp. 1552–78), a tome dating from around 1600 BC . Compiled under Emperor Shen-Ung...", this piece of info is not correct:

1. the work is generally atrributed to the descendents of Shen Nong, not compiled under his instruction
2. the work is written at its earliest 200-300 BC
   

Maybe someone would want to verify the info? Cheer.--K.C. Tang 03:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but most of your info (your date, your claim that he didn't write it or order it written) doesn't seem to be correct, per Hayes. I've made fixes ([1]) using Hayes' Principles and Methods of Toxicology (Google book search results). Saravask 05:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which the lead says most expensive for centuries, but looking at the history it seems to go back and forth and say decades without any of them noting in the edit summary. The main page blurb says decades, and I would have fixed it to centuries if I new for sure which was correct. - Taxman ^Talk 04:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It should only read "decades", not "centuries". Saravask 05:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

An anon changed it from "decades" to "centuries" ([2]). Saravask 06:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

forgive my bluntness: but would you be persuaded if i show you some Chinese sources? i'm a bit frustrated...i don't know how i can persuade you since you don't read Chinese :(--K.C. Tang 09:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I can be persuaded if you can provide a source proving that Hayes is wrong. Saravask 18:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

i try to find some english sites which can provide the info, but the english sources seem not very reliable...here is an entry from a Chinese encyclopedia, it is rather detailed and accurate... but then you don't Chinese... do you happen to know some Chinese reader whom you trust to verify that?--K.C. Tang 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm willing to trust you on this — it seems reasonable to believe that the Chinese (and Chinese sources) will know more about their own history than what a non-Chinese guy named Hayes wrote in his book (while not even providing any notes or primary refs). Still, maybe you could at least post a brief translated excerpt here? Maybe (as you asked) someone else watching this knows Chinese? Saravask 02:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your trust first, you may also take a look at this site, search with key words "shennong bencaojing", and you can see a brief but rather accurate description of the work. Anyway, you've produced a great article and everyone is benefited. Cheer.:)--K.C. Tang 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

a simple way to deny Heyes' claim is to point out that the earliest record of Chinese writings are the oracle bones, which date no earlier than 1600BC. So you see it's a bit strange to say that the work was "written" by some legendary figure 2700BC. Frankly, i even doubt that if there is references to the plant in the book... the plant is called "Tibet red flower"(藏紅花) in Chinese, as the plant is believed to have first arrived Tibet from India during the Ming Dynasty...another "Great Herbal", the Compendium of Materia Medica, mentions it...is it possible that Heyes confused one work with the other?--K.C. Tang 15:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

fyi, there is currently contradictory information on the safron page around origin. the first paragraph says south east asia, a little further it says crete. --JayTau 04:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"It is believed by American ‎scientist, Barteld Loufter that saffron was originally cultivated by persians in central Iran [Safron History]." -- This was added by an anonymous user, there is (or was) spelling mistakes, and the source it links to is just a secondary source that doesn't cite it's sources (unreliable). It can't be reverted back because this guy done this in about 6 edits (correcting spelling mistakes, purposeful to avoid the 3RR?). Anyway, I'm just going to delete that line unless anyone sees a reason not to (this is a featured article after all, and the source is too unreliable to be messing this article up). --Mark PEA 21:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ref style - mixing Harvard and Chicago

I think it only fair to note that I've started a debate about the (rather odd) mixed referencing style in Saffron (among other articles) here. Mikker ^(...) 03:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poison & Cornish Connection

It is my understanding that saffron is poisonous, despite its use in foodstuffs. There is a Cornish delicacy known as Saffron Cake (see here for recipe) or Saffron bun, while this link comments that 10gm of saffron could prove fatal. As far as I am aware commercial bakers of saffron cake are required to hold a special license for the ingredient.

Although the Cornish connection may only warrant a mention, I think the article should note that saffron is toxic (just in case someone gets the urge to spend a stupid amount of money on some, and then swallow the lot!) LessHeard vanU 21:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC) ps. Nice article.

[edit] Kesar

Hi. It's a beautiful article. Can the editors please include that Saffron is also called Kesar in India. Kesar (केसर) is a Hindi word derived from Sanskrit word Kesaravar (केसरवर). Citations are here and here. I would have done it myself but don't want to ruin the flow and style of this good article. It would be great if you could also set a re-direction of Kesar to this article. Please let me know of any questions/comments. Thanks for including the suggestion. Mahalo! --Vikas Kumar Ojha _{Talk to me!} 03:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I had to add it myself. Very slow/minimal response for editors of a featured article. Please edit for style to match with the general flow of the article, if needed. Mahalo! --Vikas Kumar Ojha _{Talk to me!} 18:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Kesar created and re-directed to Saffron. --Vikas Kumar Ojha _{Talk to me!} 19:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your addition, because it belongs in Wiktionary, not this article. There are 6,000 other languages not mentioned here, and we only need to include languages that directly relate to etymology of the English term "saffron". Thanks. Saravask 16:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool! --Vikas Kumar Ojha _{Talk to me!} 04:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

I came here to try to gauge the article for an assessment for the Food and Drinks project, but when I read the article, I flinched. The readability is severely tainted by the overly detailed method of citation. Is there any particular reason for providing almost pedantic citations of a multitude of obviously uncontroversial facts found in the article? Who in their right mind would demand a citation for, say, the scientific name of the saffron crocus or that saffron is often adulterated?

Surely the massive list of references is not actually necessary to reference a fairly general article... How many general books on saffron and spices is actually necessary? Could at least some of them be moved to a further reading list? And why all the footnotes in the lead (two of them repeated twice)? It's supposed to be an overview of the rest of the article, meaning that it's already indirectly referenced.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

People aren't forced to read the citations, they are just small numbers that occur after a fact and are useful for people who want evidence (not hear-say) quickly without having to waste time doing their own research (which is what an encyclopaedia should be for). --Mark PEA 15:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You're saying that in order to not waste the time of those who want to research, you're providing them with detailed research directions? What's the point if they're not going to do the research anyway? Trust me, those notes aren't "just small numbers" and everything that doesn't have a footnote attached to it isn't a rumor. I for one like to believe that footnotes should be taken seriously and be applied when they're actually required, not just because someone who said "well I didn't know this" wanted one. When they're applied to statements that are utterly indisputable (except through bad faith or ignorance), they kinda stop being meaningful.

And I'm still eager to hear if you're going to address my concerns about the tedious footnoting of the lead and the huge reading list (so much for saving time).

Peter ^Isotalo 16:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If we were talking about anything other than the wiki, I'd agree with you. It does suck to read text that has dinky numbers after every clause. I'd rather have a well-read expert write uncluttered text, with a few respected general refs at the bottom of the article. People would trust the author to know what he/she is talking about, and that's that. But right now, I don't have much time to redo the article; also, I'm afraid that if they were removed, CVU patrollers would not know when to revert sneaky vandalism (they could not quickly check up on whether changes were correct). If you want to remove excess cites (and can guarantee that the article will stay factually correct), then go ahead. Saravask 08:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I got a hold of Dangerous Tastes, and I was thinking about getting more literature to start improving spices, so maybe I can help out. If I do remove anything, I'll try to replace it with more general notes and make sure to make detailed edit summaries as well as provide comments on the talkpage about it.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll admit that articles like saffron don't require lots of citations, but if I had to do my own research for every article I read on wikipedia, I'd probably have doubled in age by now. Maybe it's just my scientific & skeptic way of life, but I like to see the research behind everything and the more citations the better IMO (plus I don't find it annoying with the numbers after the facts, but that's just visual preference). --Mark PEA 11:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can use the ref style used by Short-beaked Echidna--have separate lists for specific cites and another for general refs. Meanwhile, we might use {{inote}} to hide cites for the more uncontroversial facts; then, curious editors like Mark would still be able to check up on all the supporting research by going into "edit" mode. We could do these while also following PI's suggestions of thinning out the current list of refs and removing the more pedantic referencing. Would that work? Saravask 19:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you use just two pages from Dalby's Dangerous Tastes and one use of the source occurs after a statement that already has two other separate footnotes. The second note is used to source the statement that saffron has been used as a dye and a perfume in China and India, which doesn't strike me as being particularly controversial or even counterintuitive. I leafed through the book last week and noticed it had appeared to have very little information specific to saffron. Can it be excluded from the sources to get the reference list down to manageable size?

Peter ^Isotalo 13:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the book from the ref list and its redundant notes from the text, but left the ref as an {{inote}} to source Wan Zhen's statement, since that's pretty specific. Saravask 19:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seasonal references need work

In autumn, purple buds appear. Only in October ... does it develop its brilliantly hued flowers ...

This is misleading. October is a spring month in the Southern Hemisphere. A clearer reference, such as "mid-autumn" is better. B.d.mills 01:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)