Talk:Persian Walnut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Health benefits

Stumbled upon this article: A Walnut Diet Improves Endothelial Function in Hypercholesterolemic Subjects. A Randomized Crossover Trial (PMID 15037535). If the information is true, it would be good to include the health claims of walnut consumption in the article.--CopperKettle 02:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common Name

I asked my neighbor, who owns a couple of hundred acres of commercial walnut trees what common name walnut growers in California use most often. He said that he and other growers he works with often call it the Persian walnut when distinguishing the species in particular from the commercial cultivars, from the crosses, and from the natives, however, they also call it the common walnut and the English walnut. He pointed out that as far as he knew people did not call it the English walnut because they thought it originated there, or was brought to America by colonists from England who knew it was not native to the British Isles, but was called the English walnut because it was a commercial product transported by English merchant marines at one time. I did find various sources that state this, but none that are specifically on the etymology of the common name. Here is one:

http://www.agmrc.org/agmrc/commodity/nuts/englishwalnut/englishwalnutsprofile.htm

I want to point out that as a food stuff, many people don't think there is anything common about this particular walnut, because it is a very valuable commercial product, but this name, "Common Walnut," is not the subject of strong biases against it. Common names are part of human culture. I personally believe, as an ethnobotanist, that they deserve respect accorded to the histories they tell and the people who use them. I hope in the future we can speak more neutrally and accurately about these common names and provide informational resources about these wonderful plants. KP Botany 00:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of "English" Walnut

I reverted your change to Persian Walnut because at the time the walnuts were distributed by merchant marines, who were also, like their civilian counterparts maritime merchants. If I am wrong about this, please explain on the talk page before reverting. Thank you. KP Botany 18:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmm. Are we talking here about Royal Marines (the military) who were doing a bit of trading, or the English Merchant Navy (also doing a bit of trading) or what exactly?

I've looked at the text in the origianl reference at http://www.agmrc.org/agmrc/commodity/nuts/englishwalnut/englishwalnutsprofile.htm

and I believe that, in this reference,they are simply talking about the nuts being distributed by english sailors in english ships:

"The term “English” applied to walnuts is a misnomer. It apparently refers to the English merchant marines whose ships transported the nuts for trade around the world. There are two species of walnuts, the English (Juglans regia), which originated in Persia, and the black walnut, which is native to the United States."

To most (British) english speakers this is perplexing, they would translate this passage to something like:

"The term “English” applied to walnuts is a misnomer. It apparently refers to the English sailors whose ships transported the nuts for trade around the world. There are two species of walnuts, the English (Juglans regia), which originated in Persia, and the black walnut, which is native to the United States."

I have, therefore, changed the article text from:

"Other names include Walnut (which does not distinguish it from other species of Juglans), Common Walnut and English Walnut, the last possibly because English merchant marines controlled its world commerce at one time."

to:

"Other names include Walnut (which does not distinguish it from other species of Juglans), Common Walnut and English Walnut, the latter name possibly because English sailors were prominent in Juglans regia nut distribution at one time[1]."

Since I can find no justification for asserting that they "controlled its world commerce at one time". The english may have been prime distributors, but that is different from having a controlling monopoly enforced by international treaty, trade secrets, military power or exclusive territorial possession!

I believe my changed wording reduces plagiarizing the wording of the original source and avoids asserting a commercial control (as opposed to a primacy of distribution) by Royal Marines (or english merchants) for which I can find no justification in any of the quoted sources. W. Frank 11:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't plagiarize the original source, you did, just to sort that little detail out--and it wasn't the original source, just one source, see above, and why I didn't include it in the article. Also, better to add a references tag at the bottom, so the source appears spelled out in that section. I think that when the British "were prominent" distributors they actually did have a "controlling monopoly enforced by military power or exclusive territorial possession," however, it is fine as it now stands, as it wasn't the merchant marines who controlled it anyhow, but rather their government. And by merchant marines, I meant Merchant Service/Merchant Navy, not simply maritime merchants. Distribution is fine over commerce, although, they wouldn't have controlled the distribution if not for conrolling the commerce, but it more specifically relates to what the merchant marines were doing, and the resulting name, so it's fine. I rearranged for readability. KP Botany 21:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)