Talk:Saffron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Validation of article performed by WIKICHECK. WikiCheck 17:12, 09 April 2007 (UTC)


 Saffron is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article 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.
Agriculture
Agropedia Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Agriculture, which collaborates on articles related to agriculture. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Featured article 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.
Assessment comments
Featured article star 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. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Featured topic star Saffron is the main article in the "Saffron" series (project page), 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.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 31, 2006.
Saffron is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Peer review This Everydaylife article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives
Archive 01 Archive 02

Contents

[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)

The southern hemisphere is not part of this particular picture, not to dismiss its importance. There is no authentic confusion in the word "October".--Wetman 19:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
There is if you live in the southern hemisphere or one wants to know about the cultvation or potential cultivation of this spice in southern hemisphere climates. This careless mixing of months and seasons is an example of systemic bias. There is no good reason why the wording "October" is superior to "mid-autumn". Saffron is grown in the Southern Hemisphere (eg: Tasmania, New Zealand), where the spice is harvested in March or April, not October. Therefore, the article is misleading and correction is warranted. B.d.mills 00:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-sequitur

"Human cultivators bred wild specimens by selecting for unusually long stigmas. Thus, a sterile mutant form of C. cartwrightianus, C. sativus, emerged in late Bronze Age Crete." "Thus?" This is a non sequitur bred of unfamiliarity with genetics, if, as I think, mutant triploidy is the operative concept here rather than human selection ...is it not?. --Wetman 19:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lethal dose?

What is the lethal dose of saffron? Entheta 17:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

LD50 is 20.7 g/kg, according to http://www.saffron.biz/saffron.php .--Curtis Clark 05:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
What does 20.7 g/kg mean for a human being? That if someone weighs 70 kg, they'd have to ingest 1449 g (1.45 kg) of saffron in order for it to be a lethal dose? Badagnani 00:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
For more information on the interpretation of "LD50", read LD50. 1449 g is the correct outcome of your calculation. For comparison, I read somewhere that the LD50 for edible salt is 4 g/kg. Considering that saffron is of vegetable origin and allowed in food, and considering that salt can upset your 'mineral balance', these values seem plausible. However, before you start eating stuff based on this type of information, always consider the possibility that someone lost the "μ" in μg/kg (microgram/kilogram). In that case, your calculation would be wrong by a factor 1,000,000. It must also be noted that one type of organism may be more vulnerable than another. LD50-values are usually given for species as mice or rats. Humans could less or more susceptible to toxic effects. The LD50 value for rats is only an indication of the toxicity for humans. (Ethical objections and practical problems prevent lethality testing on humans). Johan Lont 08:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical inputs

Whoever wrote this article clearly knows his/her subject quite well. But the subject of chemical inputs (i.e. use of synthetic herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, etc.) is not mentioned. Since very little saffron is marketed as organically grown, a section about this should be added to the article. Badagnani 00:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin - contradiction

I found the following information in two places in the article:

References:

  1. ^ Hill 2004, p. 272.
  2. ^ Grigg 1974, p. 287.
  3. ^ McGee 2004, p. 422.
  4. ^ Deo 2003, p. 1.
  5. ^ Katzer 2001.

Question: Does the wild ancestor of Saffron come from Southwest Asia or from Crete? Johan Lont 08:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Justa point

Huttha pakaya kari balla so why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.255.54.235 (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

"The word saffron originated from the 12th-century Old French term safran, which derives from the Latin word safranum. Safranum is also related to the Italian zafferano and Spanish azafrán.[7] Safranum comes from the Arabic word aṣfar (أَصْفَر‎), which means "yellow," via the paronymous zaʻfarān (زَعْفَرَان‎), the name of the spice in Arabic.[6]"

Someone want to tell me how Latin, a language some 2000 years old, obtained the word as a loan from Arabic, which is a mere 1500 years old? Rhialto 16:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Where did "a mere 1500 years old" come from? That applies to Qur'anic/Classical Arabic Arabic, and not to pre-Classical Arabic, which is centuries older (emerged by the 2nd century BC). To say that one is Arabic and the other is not is like claiming that Vedic Sanskrit is not Sanskrit. You may also read the disclaimers at List of Arabic loanwords in English. Saravask 17:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I was using dates that refer to the earliest cultural peak of the respective languages. if you want to refer to the earliest documented existence of the language, as you apparently are with that date for Arabic, then Latin still counts as an older language by a few centuries. Rhialto 20:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you telling me that a given language "X" cannot accept loanwords from a language "Y" if "Y" is newer than (or the same age as) "X"? What prevents Latin from adopting the term, say, 1345 years ago (long after both languages' classical forms had emerged)? Saravask 20:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faulty illustration

{{help}} There seems to be something wrong with the reference to image Saffran crocus sativus moist.jpg as used in the taxo template. Only the frame is visible. Unfortunately this error is transferred to WP in other languages, too, e g SV.WP. / 82.182.149.179 02:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be working to me. Try clearing your cache or purging the page, or checking your browser's or your security software's settings for problems. As an added note, please only use the {{help}} templates on your user talk page. Article talk pages are for discussion about how to improve the article, not for helping out users. Thanks, and happy editing. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

Re putting a "Current Production of Saffron in the world" section in the middle of the first paragraph:

  • The information is already in the article later on (it is a copy and paste of the later info)
  • The information doesn't really belong in the introduction
  • the way it has been added messes up the formatting of the whole article
Loggie (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
So, let me clarify my stance here, as the sitiuation has changed slightly. First, I don't think that there should be two sections with the same info, as currently stands, so I think the "Global Production" section should be merged with the "Trade and use" section, and I don't particurally care where the sections are. Secondly, the second paragraph of the "Global Production" section is copied and pasted from the reference. This is not good-just because the reference is cited doesn't give us permision to copy and paste from it. Thirdly, I'm not sure how reliable that source is, and fourthly I don't understand what the big deal is-why does this info have to be at the very top, and what is this about dealers selling Iranian saffron? I'm not a saffron dealer trying to pass off Iranian saffron, I'm just trying to keep the article looking pretty and copyvio free. Loggie (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)