Jump to content

Talk:Apple/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

(Untitled discussions)

Frankly, I think it's silly to have a disambiguation page here. People who want to link to Apple Computer can do that, this page should be about the fruit. The other two disambigs aren't even worth mentioning. --Eloquence 01:29 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

well it was me that made the disambig page and you are probably right (seemed a good idea at the time...). Feel free to make the changes if you can be arsed, but will that then mean the hassle of changing all the pages that link to apple (fruit)

I deleted "; this derives from Druidic divination methods" since while many modern day folk hypothesize that this is the case we have no data from the druids or classical sources that describe such a practice with apples. DigitalMedievalist 03:54, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) Lisa

Not sure thats 100% fair. Rather than delete, should you have not just re-phrased "; this derives from Druidic divination methods" to "; modern day folk hypothesize that this derives from Druidic divination methods"? or even "Some modern paganists attempt to historically justify their practice of re-inventing folk traditions as exclusively magico-religious rituals despite the lack of empirical-data. Whether apple bobbing actually is a Druidic divination method or a latter-day appropriation... etc. etc."

I am writing to request that the Apple section be unprotected. I would like to add information about how apples get from the orchard to consumers. This entails information about the harvest, packing, and shipping of apples. Would it be possible to unprotect this section? Thank you. User:Diane Tribble

"Old apple"

I'm kinda puzzled by the picture of the "Old apple". First off, it looks like a plum to me. No matter how hard I look at it. Is it really an apple? Scratching head. I can't find any reference to a cultivar named "old apple" anywhere other than mirrors. --jpgordon{gab} 00:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Glogger:

I'm a little puzzled by Image:Cyborglog-of-eating-old-apple-d360.jpg. Sure looks like a plum to me, no matter how hard I look at it. You're not engaging in some friendly leg-pulling, are you? --jpgordon{gab} 23:58, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The fruits that grow on the tree have a core that has many seeds. A plum has only one big seed, usually. Maybe it's a cross breed between apple and plum? Some friends of ours identified it as "old apple" (some old kind of apple), but I'd welcome any thoughts you might have on it. I also have some pictures of seeds from it. It's among other apple trees at my parents' cottage, and they estimate it might be around 80 years old or so, and seems to be from a group of apple trees planted there. It tastes like apple; it tastes quite good actually. They're about the size of a plum (i.e. very small apples). Glogger 01:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Might be its own thing! The fun thing about fruit (apples, citrus, plums) is that when they grow from seed, they pretty much decide on their own what they want to be, regardless of what its parents were. Plant a lemon seed, you might or might not get a lemon. --jpgordon{gab} 02:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm hoping I can grow another tree of this fruit (I kept seeds from one). I thought unless something's grafted onto an existing tree, it should be possible to get the same tree by planting seeds from one of the fruits.

See also http://wearcam.org/christina/billru_cottage/d375.jpg

More pictures in http://wearcam.org/christina/billru_cottage/ (toward the end)

Hi Glogger - thanks for the note; I edited out the link as it was already missing (red link) when I was doing my edits on 4th October. Have you checked you got the title correct (maybe different capitalisaion Old Apple vs Old apple?)(these links will tell when I save this!). If not, then I've no idea what happened to the missing article, sorry.
As to its identity, it is definitely an apple; no plum in it (plums have stones, not pips). I always was a bit dubious about its name as a formal cultivar name; your extra info indicates it isn't. I can with reasonable confidence identify it as a chance seedling hybrid between an orchard apple and one of the several purple-foliage crabapple cultivars (this parent providing the red pigmentation), and so will most likely not have any formal cultivar name (unless a nurseryman has propagated and named it, which is unlikely). That leaves the question of what to do with it; as it isn't a named cultivar, it shouldn't be in the list of named cultivars, but it is an interesting pair of photos well worth keeping, I'll try and work some wording round them in the next day or two (unless you can beat me to it!).
To reproduce it reliably, you'll have to graft shoots from it onto another apple rootstock. The seeds, as jpgordon says, won't breed true. - MPF 18:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Here's a link to a crabapple which could be one of the parents to yours: Prairifire Crabapple And another possible: Red Baron Crabapple. There are many more similar ones. - MPF 18:23, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The apple pictured is almost without a doubt an old variety call Malus pumila "Niedzwetzkyana" or the Redvein Crabapple. It's believed to be Transcaucasian in origin and is the parent and ancestor of most red-flowered and red-fleshed crabapples. You can see pictures of the Redvein and a number of its descendants at http://www.greenmantlenursery.com/fruit/rosetta-apples.htm. "Rosetta Apples" is a commercial designation only. It does look more like a plum than an apple. They make terrific red jelly.

Apple project

I've decided to start a little project: writing entries for various of the apple cultivars. I'm not sure if they all warrant their own articles, but I guess I'll find out! --jpgordon{gab} 00:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is a bit 'over the top' to have a page for each apple cultivar. My suggestion would be to start a new page List of Apple cultivars which would be an annotated list with a few lines of text about the cultivar (origin, appearance, etc), and individual pages (if for any at all) only the half-dozen or so globally most important cultivars. But given what is already at e.g. Granny Smith or Red Delicious, I'd say even these pages could be made redirects to List of Apple cultivars with their text transferred there - MPF 17:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Makes sense -- though some (like Red Delicious) are important enough to have 'em -- and lots of them actually have interesting histories mythologies. (Though if every damn Pokemon deserves a page, why not every damn apple cultivar?) --jpgordon{gab} 18:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let's be consistent

As we have disambiguation pages, they should do what they are intended to do. If someone types Apple into Wiki then they should arrive at a page with the disamb possibilities, and NOT directly to a fruit, or a computer, or whatever. I intend to add the fruit to the disamb page in the next day or so, unless there are good reasons given here why I shouldn't. Cheers. Moriori 07:57, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I agree. Disambiguation isn't necessary when different readers would reasonably expect several different results from pressing the "Go" button. But everything under Apple (disambiguation) is named for the fruit; people looking for Apple Computer are entirely likely to search directly for Apple Computer; people looking for Apple Records will say "Apple Records" -- because everyone indeed knows that "Apple" itself is a fruit. (Yes, I know of the technological bias of Wikipedia readers; but even Mac users know that Apple is first and foremost a fruit.) --jpgordon{gab} 16:14, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Um, no Jpg, everything at Apple (disambiguation) is most definitely not named for the fruit. It lists

All of them go to articles with their personal disambiguous page names, except "Apple (fruit)" which goes to Apple whose introduction starts with Apple is the fruit.........?. I don't care one way or the other about technological bias of wiki readers. I simply think wiki should be consistent. Cheers. Moriori 20:33, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

  • OK, Fiona Apple might not be named for the fruit, and Apples, Vaud is not named for the fruit. (Though Apples is a redirect to some not-in-my-demographic band.) All the others are indeed named after the fruit -- what else are they named after? No fruit, no Apple Computer. No fruit, no Apple Records. And so on. Sometimes disambiguation pages are not called for. Jerusalem gets you to the city in Israel, not a page mentioning the several towns named Jerusalem, nor the Jerusalem artichoke. The fruit is the only one of the Apple things that does not need any qualifier, nor would one make any sense; Apple Records, Apple Computer, Big Apple, Apple Jeans -- all of them have obvious proper names. So as far as consistency goes -- hundreds of articles use Template:alternateuses or things redirected to it. Anyway, do what you want, of course, but I don't think it's necessary, and I don't think it's even the best thing to do. --jpgordon{gab} 23:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Whether or not the items at apple (disambiguation) are named after apples or not is irrelevant; what is important is that the fruit is overwhelmingly the most significant of the items, with several thousand years' use over the rest. There are abundant examples of other wiki pages arranged as apple is, where the main item holds the main page, with a link to the disambig page at the top for other uses of the name. The very existence of the {{alternateuses}} template shows that this is the standard proceedure to follow - MPF 17:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. There are cases where it is a good idea to go first to a disambiguation page, but in the English language I cannot think of a better example of a page that should NOT be primarily a disambiguation than apple. WormRunner | Talk 18:54, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I was a little puzzled by someone's earlier reference to "technological bias of wiki readers" but finally cottoned on. Okay, so if the thing we pick off a tree which has worms in it and goes rotten was called a microsoft instead of an apple, would our main article be about the fruit or the computer? Just jivin. <g> Moriori 21:00, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
8-) still the same though - microsoft computers haven't been in use for the last 6,000 years, and won't still be around 6,000 years from now . . . apples have been, and will be - MPF 21:41, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I hope you're right about both of those... --jpgordon{gab} 00:01, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What the...?

How come User:68.39.109.149 removed the list of cultivars, pictures, etc from Apple? --jpgordon{gab} 19:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cultural Aspects

Shouldn't there be a mention of the apple that supposedly fell in Sir Isaac Newton's head - making him think of the law of universal gravitation - in this topic? It has become a part of physics "folklore" in western culture...

If it was true, yes - but as far as I know, it's a myth. MPF 19:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the Rosh Hashana note should go under Cultural Aspects rather than Commerce and Uses. Does anyone agree?

Can anyone tell me why there are references to anime in the symbolism section? I don't see the encyclopedic value here... Perhaps it should be deleted, unless someone feels like adding a "pop culture" subsection, that would just be opening a big nasty can of worms!--WonderbreadUSA 02:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

section headings

Before this gets too out of hand, I would like to know if anyone besides User:MPF really thinks the table of contents needs to be shortened so badly that we need to use non-standard sections here. I don't, but maybe that's just me. -- WormRunner | Talk 3 July 2005 14:51 (UTC)

moved from User talk:WormRunner so this is a public discussion

Hi Wormrunner, I've got to disagree over the huge TOC at apple, it shifts all of the text completely out of view and leaves a huge area of white space. It looks absolutely awful. I don't see any need for those subheaders, either, they're superfluous - MPF 3 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

First, allowing people to make their own choice about the TOC is the function of the "hide" link. Second, the TOC can be moved down by putting __TOC__ farther down in the article. Third, by eliminating the first heading "Botanical Origins", thus merging it with the introduction, it pushes the TOC down to a level you might like better. Fourth, perhaps some of the subheadings could be merged, though pollination by itself is quite long. Fifth, isn't changing the basic style one uses for headers a subject for discussion on the manual of style? Sixth, part of the value of sections is that it makes the process of editing and tracking edits easier.
I am quite willing to go along with majority opinion here, but I think if we are going to change the basic method of creating headers in an article, it should be part of the manual of style, or perhaps this discussion has already taken place and I missed it? -- WormRunner | Talk 3 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)
I have no trouble with the article as it is. However, I rearranged an image so as to reduce the blank space. However I would rather have the TOC on the left side of the page. I've tried several other possibilities, but it doesn't work. A table that would put the image at the right spot between the TOC and the taxobox would solve the problem. But the tags align = left (or center, or right) probably won't solve the problem. Dreamweaver could do the trick, but I don't think the wiki-software could handle this. Any ideas ? JoJan 4 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)
I think JoJan's pic idea is a good solution, though I think I might swap pics around a bit to (a) have a slightly larger pic in the position (prob Image:Appletree bloom l.jpg as it's a nice pic that'll set off the fruit in the taxobox) and (b) so the Malus sieversii pic stays tied to the botanical section where it is relevant. Come to think of it, we (surprisingly!) don't yet have a decent description of what an apple (tree) is/looks like, so I'll add that to go with a pic at the top - MPF 4 July 2005 08:52 (UTC)
I've added a potted description now; the layout on my screen looks good at the mo, but if I increase the text size slightly (thinking of people who need larger text size for reading), it kicks the apple flower pic below the TOC (even worse than ever!) - someone know how to sort this? - MPF 4 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)
Problem solved (thanks to Wikipedia:Help Desk). Putting the TOC between div tags and letting it float to the left. By resizing the picture, it fits neatly between the TOC and the taxobox. As to increasing the text size, the arrangement of pictures can only remain steady if the width of the pictures is expressed in percent and not in pixels. JoJan 4 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)
That was a neat solution. Thank you. -- WormRunner | Talk 4 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)
Thanks Jo; just after I typed the above (14:25 UTC), I shrank the pic from 340px to 330px, which held the pic up at the next text size up ('medium' on I.E.; I use 'smaller') on my monitor - 275px seems a bit small to me for filling the white space, but maybe my monitor is larger than many people have? - MPF 4 July 2005 14:46 (UTC)

You should be aware that on some browsers (e.g. Safari) the picture of the apple tree in bloom appears underneath the table of contents, increasing the amount of wasted space before the article begins. I suggest removing the picture (or placing it later in the article) and moving more content up into the lead section instead. Gdr 15:32:45, 2005-08-14 (UTC)

  • The tree in bloom picture only renders neatly on a widescreen such as mine. For the typically targeted narrow width, the picture is pushed way down to the bottom and looks akward. Just a note. Laundrypowder 19:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Computer Disambig

I have put For the brand of computers, see Apple computer. in the first part about the disambiguation. I think that this saves time for people who want to see that. Feel free to take it out, just put your reasoning below or on my talk page. HereToHelp 11:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Merger?

Someone has suggested that the Apples and teachers should be merged with this article. I'm not so sure the article should even have a place here, although some may disagree. It seems fairly pointless to me, except potentially as a one-liner somewhere in the article. (At the very most, we could give it a small section at the end.) If the consensus is that it should be integrated here, I'd be happy to do it. ElAmericano 19:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's spell "apple" "appel" cos that's how most of us americans spell. i.e "center" -Unknown
I would support such a clean-up on the consistency of english spelling, but until it happens in the general usage we shouldn't be polluting Wikipedia's spelling. Howdoesthiswo 14:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


It seems like the merger has already been completed. Yet where is it? It redirects here... I will mention it in traditions. Tyciol 19:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Nutritional information about the apple

Right now there is a 'health benefits' section of the apple. This fits under nutritional information (unless you believe that apple on the skin lore...). I propose we either move the 'health benefits' in this article to the nutrition one, or merge the nutritional information article into this article. I don't really care which, so I propose we put it to a vote. To draw attention to this, I will post a merger request on the main page until it's resolved though. I'll assume anyone who votes against merging it into this article is for moving the 'health benefits' section to the nutritional wiki article. Tyciol 19:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The Nutritional information about the apple article is too large to merge to this article, in my opinion. I suggest retitling the Health benefits section to a more neutral subheading (e.g., "Nutritional information"), and including a {{main}} or {{see also}} link to the nutritional info article. --Muchness 00:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Muchness - MPF 01:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
If the nutritional table were smaller I would be all for a merge, but at its curent size I think it needs its own article. --Hetar 07:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Pictures: NPOV?

Most of the pictures on this page portray the apple favorably. It is presented as tasty, healthy, and clean. This portrayal amounts to advertising for the apple industry, and should not be tolerated in here. Furthermore, the toothless, predominantly the young and elderly, cannot consume apples in their natural with-peel state, and as all but one of the apples so delectibly portrayed here have peel, this amounts to little more than gastronomical torture. This article has further problems, failing also the tests established in the species neutrality guideline. A non-human reading this page might be enticed by the percieved deliciousness of the pictured apple and proceed to consume (fatally) an apple that he, she, or it would not otherwise have so consumed. Do we want this creature's demise upon our collectively edited consience? Won't anybody think of the kittens?

All three of these problems stem from the same systematic biases of the Wikipedia project. The problem is that the 'average' Wikipeidan is a teeth-posessing human apple farmer, and as such the voices of the toothless, the animals, and the non-apple farmers are drowned out by the multitudinous Wikipedial majority. Imagine yourself in the shoes (or paws) of one of these more disadvantaged fellow voyagers of spaceship earth: does this article speak to you? Free yourself of your natural biases, free yourself of the chains of your background. Do not allow these damaging and pervasive thought forms to pervade any longer. They are outmoded and you must out-mode them.

At this point, I think the bias of the article is great enough that we had best wipe it clean and replace it with just the bare objective non-contestable facts. I would reccommend "the apple is a fruit". Jeff 04:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

When you can find a kitten that can read this article and comment on it . . . :-) MPF 10:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
meow? -- ImAKittenThatCanReadAndComment 12:62, 32 December, 2004 (UTC)

Etymology issue

I've excised the connection to the Italian town of Avella because the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of a much older origin of the name in Proto-Indo-European. (What's likely is that Avella was named for apples, not the other way around.) In any case, it doesn't make any sense -- the traditional apple climate is rather colder than is usual in southern Italy, and the original PIE root is common to most of the more northern Indo-European language families. Haikupoet 06:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Bruising

I think this article could address bruising. Perhaps someone could give an explanation as to why an apple bruises on impact, and why these bruises are brown. --Burbster 12:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Almost all fleshy fruits bruise; when they are soft enough to eat, mechanical damage can easily break cells, rupturing vacuoles and mxing their contents with the cytoplasm. Oxidation causes the brown color: if you slice an apple, put lemon juice on one cut surface and not the other, and leave it for a few days, the antioxidants in the lemon juice will reduce the browning of the treated slice. In general, I think a Bruising (plants) would be more useful that putting the information only here.--Curtis Clark 00:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Health benefits

Under the Health benefits section I saw the following comment... "Apples are historically known for producing apple milk. A derivative of apple curd, apple milk is widely used throughout Tibet." Does anyone know what its used for? Because if we don't note what its supposed health benefits are, or what medicinal use it is purported to have, perhaps it shouldn't be in that section. -- WonderbreadUSA 03:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Heads up

I just want to let everyone know that I’ll be making changes to the Cultural Aspects section of this article later today in an atempt to clean up the section, because there are many things that are very out of place there. The majority of the information will stay the same, I’m just going to organize it and add some info. -- WonderbreadUSA 13:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

“superfluous” header

I’m going to be adding the traditions header back, If someone isn’t comfortable with that then they need to find a suitable place for the following information because they clearly are not considered Legend or folklore and do NOT belong in that section:

  • In some places, bobbing for apples is a traditional Halloween activity.
  • In the United States, Denmark and Sweden, an apple (polished) is a traditional gift for a teacher. This stemmed from the fact that teachers during the 16th to 18th centuries were poorly paid, so parents would compensate the teacher by providing food. As apples were a very common crop, teachers would often be given baskets of apples by students. As wages increased, the quantity of apples was toned down to a single fruit.

If it is felt that this header is truly “superfluous” then perhaps the information under it should be removed completely because it does not fit anywhere else as categorized. (unsigned comment by WonderbreadUSA)

Maybe my edit will satisfy everyone. If not, you can revert it.--Curtis Clark 05:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks man. I didn’t mean to come across as angry or anything, although rereading it now it does kinda look that way. I just meant to make the point that people really shouldn’t delete a header without changing the above header to include the new information. This solution works fine for me. WonderbreadUSA 07:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine by me. I felt that 'traditions' and 'folklore' were sufficiently similar subjects to combine under one header, given that the TOC is already over-long (too many headers on the page as a whole). Curtis's adapting the header title solves it nicely. Anything else that can be done to combine small headed paragraphs together under single headers would be a good thing - MPF 11:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Different Types of apples

There should be some listings of different apples like: There is a different apple in Africa. The apple is coloured pink and very small.

>x<ino 02:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to improve the cultivar section, it took me some time to determin that a list of types of apples was actually on this page. I was just passing back to identify whether or not that apple I happened to be eating, was it fact a Granny Smith, I ended up finding the list by working back from that page after a second visit. Perhaps it's just myself that hasn't come across the term cultivar before. --J-Kama-Ka-C 21:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the link http://www.usapple.org/consumers/appleguide/index.cfm with http://www.usapple.org/consumers/appleguide/guide.cfm#braeburn.

While both links point to the same target website, the first link opens directly on the 'variety plus dates' description mentioned in the article.

DocDee 15:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Taste

What do apples taste like? 16:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Like the exact opposite of Anti-Apples. --Professor London 07:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

There seems to be a vandalism spree happening with this article. The last few pages of updates are almost entirely vandaliam and it's corrections. Any idea what's going on? --Professor London 07:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's always been a problem on this and other similarly high-profile pages - for other examples, see the list at Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages. - MPF 11:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the "Apple vandal" is also the "Gramophone record vandal," who has been vandalising Wikipedia for quite some time. Maybe he needs his own pages on the list of Wikpedia Vandals? --Professor London 12:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish he'd get a hobby. Just protected the page again. Not sure what else to do. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we semi-protect this page again? The vandalism is getting tedious. Nunquam Dormio 06:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

The gratuitous use of pictures on this page makes it load very slowly for users with dial-up connections. Do we really need all of these goddamn pictures? I know what "Apples at a market" look like, thank you. What kind of moron needs these? "Oh, so THAT'S an apple! I guess this long yellow fruit is something else!" I'd like to take a consensus to get rid of the unneccessary pictures. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.243.179.202 (talk • contribs) .

I agree. I went ahead and removed the gratuitous un-noteworthy and repetitive graphics. If anyone thinks they are neccessary, please discuss. --Professor London 10:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: Apparently my edits aren't being saved for some reason... --Professor London 10:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Try refreshing the page (F5), you may have a cache problem with your browser.--Andeh 11:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Everything seems to have worked. Removed a total of six images. --Professor London 11:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the image removal has gone overboard. An anon with a total of six edits, who neither knows how to set its browser to not load images, nor how to treat fellow Wikipedians in a considerate manner (if I may be so bold as to call that anon a "Wikipedian"), suggests getting rid of unnecessary pictures. (The anon shares an ISP and some article interests with the "Apple vandal" who has spent a lot of time adding nonsense to Apple.) Professor London, with a total of twenty edits (one prior to the work on this article), goes through and removes many images (some of which I agree were superfluous), while leaving others that seem (to me) equally superfluous. I restore the photo of the wild ancestor of the domestic apple (I think it's quite relevant, since wild ancestors of domestic plants may or may not resemble the domesticate). Professor London removes it with little comment. I'm putting it back.
I suggest a moratorium on image removal until the editors of this page have discussed what sort of images are necessary to illustrate the article. This article, even before the removals, was not especially image-rich compared to many other long articles about cultivated plants, and although some editors tend to go overboard with the photos just because they are there, some amount of illustration seems necessary.--Curtis Clark 14:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I have begun a general discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants.--Curtis Clark 22:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Personally, I think the article is fine the way it is now. --Professor London 02:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

All the way with LBJ.. oops I mean the USA

I love this article on apples in the US. Are apples widely grown elsewhere in the world/ Is there a commercial apple growing industry as big as the US? Australia, New Zealand South Africa.. or even Germany or other European countries? Just food for thought.. Ozdaren 07:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So fix it.

(At this season in California, most of the apples in the grocery are from New Zealand and Chile.)--Curtis Clark 13:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Just read an interesting US article on the world production of Apple juice. [[1]] and a Tasmanian link [[2]] Ozdaren 23:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way I meant the title of this section to be tongue in cheek. I hope no one is offended... The light of day makes the title seem a bit less humorous. C'est la vie Ozdaren 23:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
China is also a major apple grower. But the fix for the the imbalance of locale is for editors in these areas to speak up and add appropriate material. Pollinator 13:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Two Young Men

I've removed the image of Two Young Men by Crispin van den Broeck. The interpretation of the apple in this picture is tendentious. It likely has a symbolic significance, but that significance is heavily disputed. Mangoe 18:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Strikes me as a perfectly valid inclusion. It is no more or less valid than the other piece of art illustrated - MPF 23:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it isn't. The apple as the representation of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil needs no defense; the interpretation of the painting as sexually suggestive is, from what I have seen, a modern fantasy. There's not a lot of point to including the picture as an example of symbolic meaning when it cannot be said what the symbols mean. Mangoe 01:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad seeds

If I read correctly, text under this heading and text behind the external link are not saying the same thing. I would suggest the text below. Could someone double check this? Maybe the heading should be changed also?

"As healthful as the fruit is, apples carry cyanide in their seeds. Amount of the cyanide is so small, however, that you would need to save the seeds from about a bushel of apples and eat them all at once for ill effects. [3]" 20:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Bees

Can we agree on what kinds of bees do the pollinating? Mangoe 10:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Commercial orchards are primarily pollinated by honeybees provided by contract with beekeepers, with supplemental use of orchard mason bees growing slowly. Both of these species have one of the ideal characteristics of a good apple pollinator; that is that they are true to the plant species they are pollinating. A honeybee worker that has once visited an apple blossom will tend to continue to visit apple blossoms until there are no more. There would be no value in carrying apple pollen to dandelions and other blossoms, which would be a common event with many insects.
There are two reasons why other than these two species are rather rare in commercial orchards. One is that they provide little support to feed other pollinators after apple bloom, and the other is that the environment is acutely toxic to most pollinators before and after bloom due to pesticide use.
But apples can be pollinated effectively by carpenter bees and several other solitary bees species. Occasionally one will see a queen bumblebee in orchards, but bumblebees are not usually present in sufficient numbers due to seasonal cycles and pesticides. Many other insects are capable of doing some pollination; however not as efficiently as bees. Pollinator 13:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Delisted from GA

This article is delisted from GA articles, because of the following reasons:

  1. References and external links are mixed in one section. It is unclear which is the references used in this article. There is no inline citation, either. Thus the content of this article does not pass WP:V principle, because it cannot be verified.
  2. This article has never been nominated in the Good Articles candidate page. Correct me if I'm wrong for this statement, as I looked at the history of this talk page that there is no nomination template prior the GA template. I just realized that this was the old GA nomination scheme.

Any objections can be raised in WP:GA/R page. — Indon (reply) — 15:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Apple as food" section removed

I have removed this for the second time. Everything here is unsourced, and some of it does not seem to be true. The discussion of texture in particular is problematic; googling on the terminology in it returned no hits. Please do not reintroduce this material without providing citations. Mangoe 03:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've left a message with that section's author User talk:Nickboey22305 and we'll see what he says. Nunquam Dormio 10:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It was pretty iffy. One glaring error was the absense of pollination as a factor in sugar content. Pollinator 13:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Yhe introduction to this article is really bad. Why does the article not follow the manual of style, instead it goes straigh in with Other species that were previously thought to have made contributions to the genome.... Other species to what? Surely the correct way to begin an article is: An apple is the fruit of... I have tagged the article as requiring attention. The introduction is seriously bad. Alun 09:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apple/Archive_1&oldid=1143863508"