Talk:Mango/Archive 2

Nectar

This page refers to mango nectar without describing what that is, and the word nectar is linked to the Nectar page, which does not cover this particular meaning of the word. 222.153.146.199 (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've changed the link; now it points to Nectar (drink). Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The Mango by R. Litz

The Mango: Botany, Production and Uses by R. Litz, which is currently in the "Further reading" section can be used as a reference here. It seems good but is too vast for me, anybody think this is a good idea and is willing to expand this article using it? Thanks, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

More possibly useful sources

After some moderate amount of digging, I've come across these. Hope they are useful.

Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Mango cultivar AfD

Totapuri mango has been nominated for deletion, so I'm bringing it here to get the attention of mango editors. First Light (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Mango tree's production of natural herbicide

I have not found any reference concerning this phenomena. I grew up in Miami, Florida. Mango trees were common. There were three large and productive trees in both neighbor's yard. No grass or weeds, nor any other vegetation grew underneath them. The leaf stems were red, the flowers red stemmed with gold florets and the foliage was a deep dark green, not bad ornamentally. One of them was in the front of the house and it would have helped the curb appeal if some vegetation could have grown underneath them.

I would like to know if there are some plants that can survive the shade and whatever else the tree does that discourages other plants. Thank you, billkopp@rcn.com

Mango tree's production of natural herbicide

I have not found any reference concerning this phenomena. I grew up in Miami, Florida. Mango trees were common. There were three large and productive trees in both neighbor's yards. No grass or weeds, nor any other vegetation grew underneath them. The leaf stems were red, the flowers red stemmed with gold florets and the foliage was a deep dark green, not bad ornamentally. One of them was in the front of the house and it would have helped the curb appeal if some vegetation could have grown underneath them.

I would like to know if there are some plants that can survive the shade and whatever else the tree does that discourages other plants. Thank you, billkopp@rcn.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.181.157 (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Mango tree's production of natural herbicide

I have not found any reference concerning this phenomena. I grew up in Miami, Florida. Mango trees were common. There were three large and productive trees in both neighbor's yards. No grass or weeds, nor any other vegetation grew underneath them. The leaf stems were red, the flowers red stemmed with gold florets and the foliage was a deep dark green, not bad ornamentally. One of them was in the front of the house and it would have helped the curb appeal if some vegetation could have grown underneath them.

I would like to know if there are some plants that can survive the shade and whatever else the tree does that discourages other plants. Thank you, billkopp@rcn.com

Mango tree's production of natural herbicide

I have not found any reference concerning this phenomena. I grew up in Miami, Florida. Mango trees were common. There were three large and productive trees in both neighbor's yards. No grass or weeds, nor any other vegetation grew underneath them. The leaf stems were red, the flowers red stemmed with gold florets and the foliage was a deep dark green, not bad ornamentally. One of them was in the front of the house and it would have helped the curb appeal if some vegetation could have grown underneath them.

I would like to know if there are some plants that can survive the shade and whatever else the tree does that discourages other plants. Thank you, billkopp@rcn.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.181.157 (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Dried Mango

Hello fellow online learners, we are just a group of univeristy student who seeks to deepen our knowledge in terms of dried fruits, particularly mangoes. Please excuse our formatting since this is the first time we use wiki talk. After dicussing amongst ourselves, we have some questions regarding the types of processes of drying mangoes, the nutritional values retained after the process, and whihc process is the best in terms of retaining its both appearance and flavors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.218.76.65 (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Etymology

The word "Manga" is common to all Dravidian languages including Malayalam. The Portuguese must have first heard the name in Kerala where they reached India first. There is absolutely no pint in arguing about this matter. Oxford English dictionary gave correct picture.Kumarrao (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It may not be quite that simple. Here's what various major dictionaries have to say:

Oxford:
From Portuguese manga, from a Dravidian language.

Random House:
1575–85;  < Portuguese manga,  probably < Malayalam māṅṅa

Collins:
via Portuguese from Malay mangā,  from Tamil mānkāy  frommān  mango tree + kāy  fruit]

Merriam-Webster:
Portuguese manga, probably from Malayalam māṅṅa. First Known Use: 1582

AHD:
From Portuguese manga, fruit of the mango tree, from Malayalam māṅṅa or a kindred Dravidian source; akin to Tamil mā, mānti, māti.

Chambers:
16c: from Portuguese manga, from Malay mangga, from Tamil man-kay mango-fruit.

Webster's New World:
Portuguese manga ; from Malay maṅga ; from Tamil mān-kāy ; from mān, mango tree + kāy, fruit

Online Etymology Dictionary:
1582, from Port. manga, from Malay mangga, from Tamil mankay, from man "mango tree" + kay "fruit."

Now, you may be absolutely correct that the Portuguese heard the name first in Kerala, but at the moment that's original research unless you can provide a source. My guess is that there are numerous cognates in a whole bunch of languages throughout the mango-growing world, and that the ultimate origin is unclear. Anyhow, while Malayalam and Tamil are both Dravidian languages, Malay is not, and multiple reliable sources expressly mention one or more of the three; only Oxford remains so vague. While their vagueness may be admirable, I don't think we should ignore what the others say. Rivertorch (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ludovico Di Varthema clearly says about mango that it is found in Kerala.But the name he says is amba which has more in common with aam in Hindi and Sanskrit.Later the Portuguese came to Malabar and introduced Mango and other words to Portuguese.The Malay word for Mango is also Manga but it was from South India, mangoes went to the Malayan Archipelago.The word Mango was introduced first at the 1580 when the west had only links with Kerala.If it is not a sufficient evidence for you, you can check hereAmalshaji27 (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Malayalam branched off from Proto-Tamil-Malayalam and evolved as as a full fledged language only in 13th century (Caldwell, Robert (1875). http://books.google.com/books?id=oG0IAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA18&dq=malayalam+language+origin#PPR3,M1). As several citations mentioned above include both Tamil and Malayalam, it is safe to mention Dravidian language as the sourceKumarrao (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

As you have said,Malayalam did not branch from Proto-Tamil-Malayalam in 13th century. It happened earlier ie 6th or 7th century. The event mentioned here happened on 16th century and at that time, Malayalam have far long been a full fledged language.Amalshaji27 (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

Another source for Proto Dravidian deriviation of Mam + kay = Matkay and various other fruits is (Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, The Dravidian Languages, 2003) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:8200:FEF8:4588:62E7:956E:4EB3 (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Urushiol in Mangos

Is there really truly any Urushiol in Mangos? If so, in which parts? What is your proof/evidence?

This topic is addressed in Wikipedia's article on Urushiol, which claims there is urushiol in mangos. I don't know who is right, but it would be helpful for both articles to be in agreement (and correct) on this. Also see the Talk page for the Urushiol topic, which documents the claim that there is urushiol in mangos. 99.121.105.243 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The "Potential for contact dermatitis" section of the Mango article is a confusing mess! This sentence is particularly confusing: "Urushiol is also present in mango leaves and stems." What is the word "also" doing in this sentence? What is the reliable source -- how do we know that Urushiol is in leaves/stems vs. other parts?

Having read everything readily available here, it is clear that various parts of mangos contain an oil which is Urushiol-like and that some poison-ivy sensitve people react to. It is completely unclear which parts, if any, actually contain Urushiol. It seems like a fair next step to remove any related claims about the presence of Urushiol from the Mango article, until someone comes forward with credible, specific sources? -96.233.24.251 (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I cannot remove the problem sentence, because the article is locked for IP edits. So, the ball is in YOUR court! -96.233.24.251 (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

In the medical literature summarized by title or abstract here, there are numerous case reports about contact dermatitis occurring from touching mango fruit skin or tree components. As in poison ivy (and mango dermatitis may just be inferred as something similar to poison ivy dermatitis), urushiol in mango components (skin, leaves, stem, bark) presumably resides in oil undetectable until the response occurs. Here is one brief report as an example. I need to do some additional literature checking, and can make edits in the article when better informed, but the section on "Potential for contact dermatitis" seems reasonably stated to me. Comments? Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Further "anecdotal" evidence of urushiol in mango fruit skin or tree components: 1) from the University of Hawaii; 2) case report summary from Toxnet; and 3) Atlas of Immunology. Summarizing these sources leads to the conclusion that the article section on potential urushiol-like dermatitis is reasonably well stated. --Zefr (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2014

Mango is a tropical fruit, but it can be grown up to 1,100m above mean sea level. There should not be high humidity, rain or frost during flowering. The temperature between 24 and 27`C is ideal for its cultivation. Higher temperature during fruit development and maturity gives better quality fruits. The areas experiencing frequent showers and high humidity are prone to many pests and diseases. Thus it can be grown best in regions with a rainfall between 25 cm and 250cm. Regions having bright sunny days and moderate humidity during flowering are ideal for mango growing. City of Mangoes, Krishnagiri, located in the state of Tamil Nadu is a small city and an extremely fertile region generally known for its agricultural practices. Nestled beautifully at the distance of 90 kms from Bangalore and 45 kms from Hosur, Krishnagiri is a popular tourist spot in Southern India. The city is widely known for its Krishnagiri Dam, which is one of the primary attractions of the place and draws a large number of tourists round the year. Due to the existence of numerous archaeological sites, Krishnagiri is believed to be one of the oldest colonized places in the country. Krishnagiri travel guide is full of references to the historical significance. Krishnagiri was ruled by the Kongu Nadu Kings and Chola Kings. Their influences can be seen even today here. Other dynasties that ruled the town were Pandas, Cholas, Nulambas, Cheras and Bijapur empires. The evidences during the Iron Age can be seen in the city. Cultivation of Mangoes, the national fruit of India is the major source of income of the people of the Tamil Nadu. The major crop of Krishnagiri district with 300 sq. km area of farming is Mango. The district produces around 300,000 tons on an annual basis. A lot of mango varieties like 'Alphonso' and 'Thothapuri' are produced in this district. Krishnagiri also hosts an Annual Exhibition of Mangoes at New Delhi. Many delicious varieties of mangoes are exhibited during the festival Saravanandhayalan (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

origin not pakistan

see this link : http://www.horticultureworld.net/botany-taxonomy.htm

    Mango is also the national fruit of Pakistan. Please change the article accordingly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halime Skywalker (talk • contribs) 04:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC) 

culture & ancient record

add these info into page :http://www.themangofactory.com/history/mango-history-2/

http://mango-trees.blogspot.in/2009/10/history-and-origin-of-mango.html

http://www.quora.com/Why-are-banana-or-mango-leaves-used-a-lot-in-Hindu-religious-events

Etymology

New user to wiki; I would like to add that Mango is attested in Proto Dravidian as Mat Kay deriving from Mam + Kay where Mam is the name of the tree, and Kay is the suffix meaning fruit of. My reference is The Dravidian Languages By Bhadriraju Krishnamurti 2003 page 12 in the introduction. I seem to have triggered persistent vandalism response without meaning to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:8200:FEF8:4588:62E7:956E:4EB3 (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mango. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120120075426/http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2010/sep/05/032140/relative-obscurity-variations-of-antigodlin-grow/ to http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2010/sep/05/032140/relative-obscurity-variations-of-antigodlin-grow/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111111081720/http://www.usaid.gov/in/newsroom/press_releases/may03_6p.htm to http://www.usaid.gov/in/newsroom/press_releases/may03_6p.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. First page cannot be displayed because of robots.txt, but archive of USAID page is okay.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

References to commercial companies

I would suggest to remove or find a more appropriate place than the first paragraph of the "Cultural significance" section for this sentence: "Frooti is an Indian mango drink, and the Coca-Cola company started their own drink, called "Maaza", to compete with it."

First, it looks like a subtle form of advertisement, second commercial brands and culture do seem to have little in common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.151.70 (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, so I moved it further down into the Cultural significance section and used a more recent source that makes it clear that these are "drinks" and not "juices." They are popular, so they do have cultural significance, so I kept the brand names. First Light (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that Mangifera indica be merged into Mango. I think that the content in the Mangifera indica article can easily be explained in the context of Mango, and the Mango article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Mangifera indica will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Ahmer Jamil Khan 06:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree. The Mangifera indica article is basically a stub containing redundant information. --Zefr (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Provisional support. We should probably be consistent across similar articles. A quick check reveals that Malus domestica redirects to apple, as do Prunus persica to Peach, Ficus carica to Common fig, Psidium guajava to Guava, and so on. The only one I could find that doesn't seem to fit the pattern is Citrus × sinensis, which does not redirect to Orange (and there may be a good reason for that). Mangifera indica isn't quite a stub, but only two sections (Traditional medicine and Wood) aren't redundant and the information in the former isn't specific enough to bother with. If you believe that the information from the Wood section can be incorporated neatly into this article, then I'd support the proposed merger. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Provisional support I agree with User:Rivertorch's Evil Twin. The two sections mentioned in the above comment can be moved to this article. The entire page should not be redirected, as Mangifera indica is a species while the main article is about the fruit mango in general. Abhishek Pujari (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. This proposal is backwards and I strongly oppose it. If there is to be merger then Mangifera indica should remain and Mango should be merged into it and converted to a redirect. Plantsurfer 20:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Why? Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose The first sentence of the lede states that mango refers to the fruits of any Mangifera species, not just indica. This invalidates the argument by Rivertorch - apples are always M. pumila, peaches are always P. persica, and so on. Mangifera indica is the article on the common mango. There may be material in mango that is specific to Mangifera indica and should be transferred there, and it is possible that Mangifera indica should be moved to Common mango. However, the merge proposed here is clearly wrong. Samsara 06:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting! In the light of your comments, and assuming the first sentence of the lede is correct, I'm striking my provisional support. Just to clarify, if I get you correctly, what you're saying doesn't jibe with Plantsurfer's alternate proposal, which is what I was asking about. I'm trying to look at it in terms of what most readers are wanting information about when they arrive at this article, which is probably something to do with the widely cultivated fruit of Mangifera indica. It sounds as though there is indeed material here that should be transferred there (and the name of that article changed to Common mango). Can the way we handle plum and banana, which involve multiple species, help inform this at all, I wonder. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Good point about consistency across plant articles. This could be taken up with Wikiproject Plants. Plantsurfer 10:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

What I would ideally like to see and what is accepted in practice are probably two different things. My preference would be that every plant species has its own formal article, with its taxobox and species description, etc. I am not opposed to a separate article on the fruit or other commercially important part of the plant, such as celery stalks, if it is justified by notability etc., provided that there is always a scientific article on the species. In common WP practice, Malus pumila, to give just one example, is covered by the WP article Apple. That may be acceptable if the common name refers unambiguously to a single species. However, Mango and Mangifera indica illustrate the problem that mango does not refer to just one species, any more than fig does. Both of these articles have a taxobox, although strictly only Mangifera indica should have one, because mango is not a taxon. And the mango article's taxobox refers only to Mangifera indica, while the lead refers to other species. These articles are therefore confused about the functions they are trying to serve. In my view (just my view and not WP policy) the taxonomy and formal description stuff in Mango should be removed to the relevant species article, and the stuff that is strictly about the cultivation, cultivars, harvesting, industrial and culinary use of the fruit should all be merged into Mango. To summarize, I think there should always be a formal article with the name of the species, but am not opposed to the coexistence of two articles provided both are justified, and provided their separate functions are clearly demarcated. Plantsurfer 10:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we can make this all consistent by having four articles where we currently have three: Create common mango using the relevant material, then leave a summary section in mango and in Mangifera indica. Furthermore, explicitly make mango a sub-article of Mangifera, equally leaving a section summarising the former in the latter. I considered an alternative approach where one would keep mango to refer to the common mango and create sth like mango (fruit type) to refer to mangoes that are not M. indica. I think that latter approach would be more messy and confusing, although I'm sure some will argue that it must be done to satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. Samsara 11:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Four-article design

@Plantsurfer: @Rivertorch: @Rivertorch's Evil Twin: If there is consensus in favour of the scheme proposed in the first part of my last comment above, I volunteer to carry out the corresponding moving, drafting, category adjustments, etc. Samsara 05:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with the proposed split between mango and common mango. I don't see the need for it. I think that most people would not call a mango a "common mango", and the mango article can perfectly well deal with, and link to, the list of species which produce edible mangoes. I think what is needed is to clean up mango so that all formal botanical description is removed to the relevant species article(s). We then have Mangifera dealing with the definition of the genus and its geographical range (not there but should be), Mangifera indica and other species articles dealing with species descriptions and mango dealing with the edible fruits and their various varietal differences, qualities and uses. Plantsurfer 11:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Samsara: Your proposal is to "Create common mango using the relevant material, then leave a summary section in mango and in Mangifera indica [and] make mango a sub-article of Mangifera...leaving a section summarising the former in the latter"? I think there's good logic behind it, and if you're sure it's consistent with the way comparable topics are arranged, I'll tentatively support. I have some reservations. I think that Plantsurfer is correct that most people wouldn't call a mango a "common mango", and I'm trying to decide if your proposal makes sense in terms of visitors easily finding what they're looking for. I watched this article closely for a couple of years, and my recollection is there were very few edits relating to anything other than the cultivation and consumption of the (common) mango fruit. Just looking at it in terms of accessibility, I think people looking for info on what they think of as mangos should find it on the first try (with or without a redirect). (Evil Twin has been subsumed and can't hear pings.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I worry that you're looking at a Catch-22 - the way the article is currently written does not particularly encourage adding detail about the horse mango - or any other kind, and the horse mango article is rather underdeveloped. There is certain to be botanical literature about that species - in fact, a quick search revealed a large number of papers, two of which by Michon et al. suggesting that indica and foetida are grown alongside each other in some regions. That suggests that mangifera is not simply "better" in every way. I think it would be wrong to continue to give foetida, odorata et al. the stepchild treatment they are currently receiving. As far as mango is concerned, I see it as referring to two different things that need to receive completely different treatment - a type of fruit that is useful in botanical classification and common to a number of species, and a particular set of varieties that are a big number on the global food market.

I believe these two meanings need to each be given their own space to develop, or indica will keep suppressing any progress being made in describing other mangoes encyclopedically and comprehensively.

I've made two proposals to that effect, one of which I personally support and would be willing to implement. The other I'm not completely thrilled about, but it anticipated Plantsurfer's argument about COMMONNAME. I believe we need to address this, and I don't currently see a third way. Samsara 17:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mango. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140124220404/http://seedbiology.osu.edu/HCS631_files/12B%20Recalcitrant%20Seeds.pdf to http://seedbiology.osu.edu/HCS631_files/12B%20Recalcitrant%20Seeds.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203043634/http://studiumpress.in/indetail.asp?id=195 to http://studiumpress.in/indetail.asp?id=195

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Etymology

The article is now semi-protected, following a spate of edits to the Etymology and history section. Those seeking to change the established text need to seek consensus here on the talk page, so I have begun this thread. My thoughts: we need to stick with what the preponderance of reliable sources say. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

External link reverted

Yesterday I added the following as an external link to the Mango article:

• Sriangura, Vanniya (20 April 2018). "In Praise of Mangoes". Bangkok Post. Retrieved 20 April 2018.

The article contains very good info on Thai mangoes, including hard-to-find names. Other than that it was short of hard info, such as export volumes, etc. Thus, I placed it in External links. The addition was was reverted by Zefr on the grounds of "Not a WP:RS source." I will point out that the Bangkok Post is the leading English-language newspaper in Thailand. I mention this here, so that interested persons can review it, see if it adds value, possibly add it to the article, whatever. Thanx, Seligne (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Redundant reading

Moving this list of outdated, redundant reading to here for review and archiving. --Zefr (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ensminger, Audrey H.; et al. (1995). The Concise Encyclopedia of Foods & Nutrition. CRC Press. p. 651. ISBN 978-0-8493-4455-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Litz, Richard E. (editor, 2009). The Mango: Botany, Production and Uses. 2nd edition. CABI. ISBN 978-1-84593-489-7.
• Susser, Allen (2001). The Great Mango Book: A Guide with Recipes. Ten Speed Press. ISBN 978-1-58008-204-4.

Etymology and history

The line "The earliest known reference to the cultivation of mangoes can be traced to India up to 2000BCE.", doesn't align with the source referenced. The source says "The mango was probably being planted in India by 2000 B.C. and is prominently recorded in ancient Sanskrit writings." It's not the best source sentence but it doesn't mean there were references to mango cultivation from 2000BCE, and it even equivocates on the actual cultivation at that time. Perhaps we should write "Mangoes were cultivated in India as early as 2000BCE"? PossiblyAnAI (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

New topics go to the bottom of the page per WP:TALK. I agree, the problem is "known reference", which cannot be exact. Will edit. Zefr (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Anwar-ratol-Close up.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Etymology warring

It's strange why this simple, well-sourced, and balanced etymology description causes users to want changes that have resulted in continuous edit warring over years, mainly associated with what culture and language gets credit for the name. Let's use this discussion as a placeholder of accuracy and WP:RS source for current and future reference. Zefr (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This edit, which Abetom is warring to use, isn't supported by any of the Merriam-Webster or Dictionary.com source they use, added again here. Abetom is warned about disruptive editing and WP:3RR, not providing an edit summary, and use of an unsupported source for the proposed content. There is also careless editing of syntax, with no observance of WP:REFPUNCT or reference formatting, creating work for other editors. Zefr (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Zefr It appears the edit ended up making it through to the article, perhaps it should be reverted again? Its addition doesn't seem to be the result of consensus. Oqwert (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

National fruits

Mango is also the national fruit of Pakistan. Can someone please change the article accordingly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halime Skywalker (talk • contribs) 04:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Halime Skywalker: please supply a reliable source. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q=national+fruit+of+pakistan&rlz=1C1CHZL_enPK930PK931&oq=national+fruit+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5j69i60l2.6593j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 I don't have any reliable sources but I am a Pakistani and if I don't know what my country's national fruit is, who will??

Already mentioned in the lede using this source. Zefr (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Minor Edits

I added a citation at the end of the first sentence so that the origin of the Mangifera indica was cited. Belladonna Night (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belladonna Night (talk • contribs) 14:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)