Talk:Saffron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saffron is either 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 and 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.

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 of the Saffron series, a featured topic, which means it has been identified as part of one of the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute.

Saffron appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 31, 2006.

Archives
Archive 01	Archive 02

[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)